Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/24/2003 5:04 PM (GMT -6)

There is a verse in Scripture that has me absolutely outraged. (It's not the only mind you.) But this particular verse is just getting to me in a really deep way.

Here it is:

Leviticus 21:7-23

"Say to Aaron, None of your descendants throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles; no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, but he shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the LORD who sanctify them."

The theology behind this is so incredibly disturbing. What kind of theology can we possibly offer to handicapped and disabled people with this text? How do we explain that their physical disability somehow "profanes" God's sanctuary (God's holy presence)?

(And yes, the verses about women making -everything- unclean when they're menstruating is like this for similar reasons.)

But here's the thing... I'm not asking for people to demonstrate to me how Jesus' life and actions contradict these verses. I understand this very well and I find it highly signigicant that Jesus was able to reject so much of the OT. The implications are huge...but that's another topic. What I'm asking is how this verse, as it stands, can possibly be something we explain and accept morally as part of "God's Word" at that particular time and place in history. The theology behind this is just...devastating.

Thanks,
~e

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 8/24/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6)

Everything I just said is gone. Pardon me, folks but HM needs a vacation. A thousand apologies Miss E, for the poor response I just made. Carry on...

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/24/2003 8:27 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Empiress!

Given the symbolic role of the Levites, their duties, the sacrifices, and the entire worship apparatus of ancient Israel, can we not suppose that such a prohibition was part of that symbolism and ultimately a good thing? Allowing Levites (and I think all others too) with physical defects and handicaps into God’s presence to fulfill their duties or partake in ritual worship would undermine the concern for unblemished moral purity so central to Israel’s worship as well as undermine the sense in which the whole set-up anticipated Christ and his work. They were only excluded from participating in temple rituals, not from loving God or loving others.

Just my gut response.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6)

I’m gonna be real with you, boo.

I would agree with Tom that it was a symbolic thing. You couldn’t just come to and work for God any old way. Not allowing people with defects was a VISUAL sign of that type of thing. But this didn't stop them from some type of fellowship. They did get to eat the bread, after all.

But, darnit, shouldn’t this show us how very HUMAN this whole thing is? Don’t even get me STARTED on the Creation myth(s). Sure, we want to say that God worked through methods already in place and accomodated a lot. But dang, this is a LOT of accomodating. Does it really take years and years of THIS type of stuff to get the idea of holiness across? For an infinitely intelligent God? Whatvever…

Can you imagine what it would be like if we tried to say something like THIS today??

“Well, sure, we’d like you to be a priest. But you see, you’re in a wheelchair, and we want to all of our priests to symbolically represent the fact of God’s holiness. And having physical defects like yours can work against that. Therefore, even though you and I both know that NEITHER of us are worth of God’s grace, for SYMBOLIC reasons, we don’t think you should minister”

What the @*#$%???

Can we really admit how very HUMAN theology and ritual really is?

Oops. Guess I said too much. Heh…

Feelin’ testy,
Evil

"I told them n___s, I ain't NEVER scared!"
---Bonecrusher on the song "Never Scared"

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2003 4:41 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: But, darnit, shouldn’t this show us how very HUMAN this whole thing is?

Tom: I hear ya.

Mephi: Can you imagine what it would be like if we tried to say something like THIS today? “Well, sure, we’d like you to be a priest. But you see, you’re in a wheelchair, and we want to all of our priests to symbolically represent the fact of God’s holiness. And having physical defects like yours can work against that. Therefore, even though you and I both know that NEITHER of us are worth of God’s grace, for SYMBOLIC reasons, we don’t think you should minister” What the @*#$%???

Tom: We couldn't say this today for the same reason we couldn't offer blood sacrifices for our sins, or maintain the curtain in the Holy of Holies. Once the anticipaTED arrives, the anticipaTOR is done away with. The whole book of Hebrews thing ya know. The restrictions are eschatological, thank God!

Tom

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/25/2003 6:28 AM (GMT -6)

Should have read a little earlier...Leviticus 19:14

King James (Authorized Version)

"Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD."

The New Living Translation

"Show your fear of God by treating the deaf with respect and by not taking advantage of the blind. I am the LORD."

From our perspective, your objection looks REAL BAD on God. From their point in time, this was liberating.

I pointed this scripture out to my deaf in-laws in terms of what some people say of God. They say that God HAS TO HEAL THE "SICK." (The deaf don't believe they are "sick" or have a disability). That is, if you are deaf, you should pray for your "healing." That it is a result of the fall. So why have "deaf ministries? Many deaf believe that as a community, deafness will exist in heaven. They will continue to praise God in heaven with silent voices and noisy hands. While I think both parties go to extremes, apparently, God didn't heal them in the old testament but made accomodations for them. Smile

Brandon

"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

Shoudn'ta went there, Brandon...

Ex. 4:10-12
But Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes (Heb. from shin yod mem. To put or set) them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak.”

Uh, oh...

Now let's let all the theodicy people interpret THIS one. Heh.

**********************

Tom:

quote:
We couldn't say this today for the same reason we couldn't offer blood sacrifices for our sins, or maintain the curtain in the Holy of Holies. Once the anticipaTED arrives, the anticipaTOR is done away with. The whole book of Hebrews thing ya know. The restrictions are eschatological, thank God!

Hmmm...postdiction is a saving grace, ain't it? Wink

"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."

--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/25/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6)

Hey...maybe I should have read a little earlier. idea!

Ding! But wait! Did what I say CONTRADICT what you said Meph Man? The questions that Miss E brings up have to do with HOW we treat those with disabilities. What we have here is:

A. The symbolism factor.
B. God who MAKES the disabled.
C. How we should treat the disabled.
D. And how we should this verse (and others like it) as morally acceptable, as part of "God's Word" at that particular time and place in history.

I don't really see that this is a contradiction. There are of course, different levels of ethics in the Bible. I fear that we would read them all on the same level.

Brandon

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

My point is, Brandon, that the theology gets more and more problematic.

Taken all this, God, at least SOMETIMES, is the one who MAKES people deaf, mute and all that. GOD does it. Not only that, but on the basis of being blind or whatever, a person could be near to God insofar as they were thought of as NOT being symbolically “holy” enough. So, God makes the people deaf and blind…KNOWING that they will defective even in GOD’S sight.

I’m just saying if Miss E had problems before, they just got worse.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news…

And people wonder how I can be a theistic bootlicker. Heh.

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/25/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
And people wonder how I can be a theistic bootlicker. Heh.

Hee, hee, hee...I hear what yer say'n D. And I don't want to be able to attempt to try to get at all the things that we should think God would not do but did. I mean, you have brought this up time and time again.

However, I think as Greg would say, we should not stop attempting to apply some responses to some of these things. For example, we have the verse that says that God made "sick" people. We have verses that say to respect (and make accomodations) those sick people. We see that Jesus healed the sick. Why can't some of this sickness that he causes to occur such as in the Ex 4:10-12 be thought of in terms of SOMETHING redemptive i.e. the plagues on Egypt, i.e. double effect on some metaphysical level?

Brandon

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2003 8:05 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon:

quote:
Why can't some of this sickness that he causes to occur such as in the Ex 4:10-12 be thought of in terms of SOMETHING redemptive i.e. the plagues on Egypt, i.e. double effect on some metaphysical level?

Oh, you mean, the teleological application of painful circumstances for divine purpose? Sure…

John 9:1-4
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. (Note: I think Doc’s translation of this is a bit inadequate. The “hina” [IN ORDER THAT] seems to make clear that this was an explanation to the disciples for the situation. The purpose BEHIND the dude’s blindness was not any sin, but so that God’s work might be revealed in him.) We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.

Goes pretty good with the Exodus verse, yes?

Evil

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/25/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6)

Well, let's go back to what you said in the "greater good vs unsurpassable worth" thread.

quote:
Now, remember. We’ve already said LONG AGO that the whole Zosia thing MAY be a possible “sacrificing the rook for the queen” episode. And that’s all that matters. I said this before: The warfare worldview theodicy only allows for us to say that NOT ALL episodes of evil fit into a “greater good” mode. But SOME may.

The sacrificing the rook for the queen thing is double effect. That's coo...however, I think that you are admitting here that:

A. NOT all evil fits into the greater good mode. That is, some evil lies OUTSIDE of that.
B. Some evil fits into the greater good mode. That is, there is a redemptive aspect to it.

Therefore, that evil that lies outside of the greater good mode (double effect or for redemptive purposes) would be something that God doesn't take to kindly to. In the Ex 4:10-12 verse, this kind of evil may be redemptive.

Brandon

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/25/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6)

I guess what I'm saying is that when I see God doing some of this evil stuff, it is for some greater good purpose that I just don't see. In one sense though, I can't imagine any evil being outside of a greater good purpose. Would you agree? I'm thinking here in terms NOT of meticulous governance, but in terms of a general one, i.e. chaos theory.

Brandon

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/25/2003 2:49 PM (GMT -6)

HM wrote:

quote:
A thousand apologies Miss E, for the poor response I just made.

Hey, thanks, I appreciate that.

Tom wrote:

quote:
Allowing Levites (and I think all others too) with physical defects and handicaps into God’s presence to fulfill their duties or partake in ritual worship would undermine the concern for unblemished moral purity so central to Israel’s worship as well as undermine the sense in which the whole set-up anticipated Christ and his work.

Yes, that is the classical interpretation as I've heard it for much of Leviticus. But I don't feel like it really answers the deeper theological questions. I mean, fundamentally it puts the disabled in a category that is inhumane...it really makes them somehow less human as they are not allowed to function like other humans in the presence of God. Hrmmm...I just realized I feel something of the same thing over prohibitions against women serving in God's holy temple...errrr...church....and that's POST Jesus!

Meph wrote:

quote:
“Well, sure, we’d like you to be a priest. But you see, you’re in a wheelchair, and we want to all of our priests to symbolically represent the fact of God’s holiness. And having physical defects like yours can work against that. Therefore, even though you and I both know that NEITHER of us are worth of God’s grace, for SYMBOLIC reasons, we don’t think you should minister”

Yeesh...I've been told something like that nearly verbatim as to why I, as a woman shouldn't be a priest. "Females cannot satisfactorily symbolize the (male) person of Christ." Okay...maybe this verse is tapping into that wounded aspect of myself and that's why I'm so upset. And the correlation between the fencing of the altar from the disabled feels an awful like my experience as a female.

I agree with ya though...at some level we have to admit that the book is a human-Divine effort, sometimes the human side is more evident though. Ergh. This just gets to me though because it still begs the question of: "Hey God, WHY did you let this stuff in your Book in the first place?" I mean, if there was ever a time to step in for some deeper revelation...this seems like one of them.

Brandon wrote:

quote:
From our perspective, your objection looks REAL BAD on God. From their point in time, this was liberating.

Huh? I don't follow. What's liberating about this?

Brandon wrote:

quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that when I see God doing some of this evil stuff, it is for some greater good purpose that I just don't see. In one sense though, I can't imagine any evil being outside of a greater good purpose. Would you agree? I'm thinking here in terms NOT of meticulous governance, but in terms of a general one, i.e. chaos theory.

See...I feel like people erroneously equated evil with God's doing...they just saw God behind everything that occurred, good and evil (the way many Muslims do today). And I do think there is evil that occurs that is beyond any greater good purpose...it just is evil. I don't know...maybe I've just stopped believing in happy endings.

Thanks for the dialogue,
~e

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/26/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Empiress

Brandon wrote:
quote:
From our perspective, your objection looks REAL BAD on God. From their point in time, this was liberating.

Huh? I don't follow. What's liberating about this?

Brandon wrote:
quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that when I see God doing some of this evil stuff, it is for some greater good purpose that I just don't see. In one sense though, I can't imagine any evil being outside of a greater good purpose. Would you agree? I'm thinking here in terms NOT of meticulous governance, but in terms of a general one, i.e. chaos theory.

See...I feel like people erroneously equated evil with God's doing...they just saw God behind everything that occurred, good and evil (the way many Muslims do today). And I do think there is evil that occurs that is beyond any greater good purpose...it just is evil. I don't know...maybe I've just stopped believing in happy endings.

Thanks for the dialogue,
~e

Sorry 'bout that Miss E. I didn't mean to say that the Lev 21:7-23 verse itself was liberating. I can see why you would think what you do. What I am saying is that Leviticus 19:14 verse is liberating. And this, to me, seems to be the way scripture moves. What seems to us to not be liberating on some issues such as, slaves and women, were at least more liberating than what they were to them. On the one hand the Lev 21 passage causes you to be outraged because of how a handicapped person would react to it. Yet, the Lev 19 passage shows God's concern for the handicapped.

quote:
This just gets to me though because it still begs the question of: "Hey God, WHY did you let this stuff in your Book in the first place?"

I thought about this this morning. I think you bring up a brutally honest question here. Maybe, instead of asking why God allows this into a book, we should thank him for showing Himself to us. Most of us don't want to hang out our "dirty laundry" for others to see. Apparently, as you say, God hides nothing. I mean, in terms of apologetics? This certainly doesn't make it easy for people to believe. Even Jesus didn't make it easy for people to come to Him. What d' ya think?

Brandon

Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167

Posted 8/27/2003 4:32 AM (GMT -6)

As a wheelchair user preparing for the ministry, I want to thank you all for treating this subject with such delicacy and grace. It's a great blessing to me to see such Christ-like attitudes on display.

I'll weigh in more later...

In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 8/27/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6)

I tend to view disabled people who still praise and worship God despite their disabilities as being awesome examples of faith and love. I mean, I would never want to be handicapped in any way, and I'd probably get pretty angry at God for letting it happen, if it ever happened to me. So, seeing handicapped people loving and worshipping God even though they're in the condition they're in, is a greater testimony than even a testimony from a person who isn't disabled.

Have you ever heard of Joni Earickson Tada? Her ministry is so powerful because of how God uses her. His strength is shown in her weakness. Even though all she can really do is move her head and mouth, she loves God and witnesses the Gospel to people - and she makes beautiful paintings to boot!

Tigress

"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."

-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual