This topic is getting a lot of airplay lately. In fact, a lot of great airplay from folks like James White and Doug Wilson. Great folks arguing from an accurate and powerful perspective. Arguing against fickle folks trying to move another boundary stone.
Folks arguing from a biblical as well as a pragmatic perspective. Folks unwilling to engage a "secular civil argument". Unwilling to apply a mass of statistics indicating far greater unfaithfulness, illness and divorce among homo's (I'm not allowed to call them "Sodomites" in my country). Unwilling because such application against the fickle is powerless. Powerless since such a significant mass of statistics are allegedly conquered by a few feeble anecdotes.
But at the risk of offending some of my strictly pre-suppositionalist buddies- I'd like to submit a novel argument against homosexuality. Submit a "secular civil argument" against homosexuality as requested by the homo's themselves. In the spirit of John Frame (Gerstner, Sproul and Van Til), submit an ancillary argument. Submit a direct, positive, ad rem argument- rather than the indirect, negative ad hominem argument of my pre-sup buddies.
Admittedly, not as accurate or powerful as the pre-sup argument- but as the implication method/transcendental method/pre-sup popularizer Van Til would say, "Just for the sake of argument" let's "meet our enemy on their own ground". A ground that strict pre-sups meet all too lightly.
So in this post I will submit a "secular civil argument" that reduces their argument somewhat. An argument that may also be seen to be hugely pre-sup- if you can actually grant the ontological argument that causally follows. If you can actually grant, 'An argument that presupposes the "what" as well as the "that". An argument that simply obliterates the homosexual argument.
Now, some of you may have seen the recent Wilson-Sullivan debate at Idaho University. Among the questions received by pre-sup Wilson continued to be the question, 'What is essentially wrong with homosexuality?'. A question presumably hoping to attract some specific statistics. Statistics which are just beginning to appear.
Statistics which will soon show the folly of this latest lobby group as well. Statistics which will show the innate folly of this particular promiscuity. Statistics that promiscuity-endorsing Sullivan will not be convinced by either.
Will not be convinced since Sullivan and his supporters are rather blind to statistics. Blindly refuting statistics with bleeding-heart anecdotes. Refuting generalities with anomalies. Refuting bloopers with blips.
Regardless, Wilson basically responds to these new lobbyists with the standard 'What is essentially wrong with polygamy?' rhetoric. Rhetoric that begs a higher standard of right and wrong for imposing new moral laws. Rhetoric that doesn't tug at statistics, but tugs at a part of the conscience that may be less seared. An excellent response to those "epistemological loafers" (VT).
Yet what if Wilson were to respond, 'What is essentially wrong with xenophobia?'. A response with a more direct connection. More direct since in essence, homosexuals truly are xenophobes- truly afraid of intimacy with a strange gender. Or to be even more direct someone might ask, 'What is wrong with genophobia?'. A fear of actual sexual intercourse.
'What? Are you crazy? We love strangers... and we love a lot of them', those homo's might reply.
Sure this is true to some degree. Sure they love strangers and intercourse- just not to the same degree ...and not in the same way. As this recent American census indicates, their love for minority groups, justice and equality is a much lesser consideration than their love for themselves. Their love for making and adopting children is considerably less as well. They are functionally intimacy-challenged.
That recent census also indicates to me that there are greater degrees of this xenophobia and genophobia among homo's. And I'm not surprised (as Sullivan is) that a large minority (40%) of this demographic are merely loosey-goosey with their body--- have no real preference.
It may be seen from that census that the love of homo's is basically immature. Primarily loving a gender that is really easy to love... easy enough for children to love. Playing the same old children's games. Playing doctor or playing house with the same gender.
Children loving to play with a gender that they very well know how to please- because they very well know how to please themselves.
Yet, pleasing a radically different gender is considerably more difficult- much harder to play house with. Pleasing the opposite gender is much more of a challenge... a challenge for adults.
To put it in politically correct terms, homo's are tremendously gender-challenged. Gender-challenged in a sociological as well as a sexual sense. Inept at embracing "gender diversity".
Now, homo's may preach about "diversity" and resort to the "tolerance" rhetoric - but this rhetoric is hypocritical and duplicitous (as Wilson so aptly demonstrated at Indiana University). Homo's are actually wholly inept at embracing their alleged 'neutrality'. As Van Til said, 'Their "neutrality" is simply a colorless suit that covers a negative attitude toward God'.
And I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as was shown by Sodomites to Lot and some strangers- Gen. 19:9.
I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as was shown by incestuous and pederast-Romans to Christians ("Off with his head!").
I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as homo's have for freedom of speech in my country (Canada).
And I expect to see a survey indicating far more "tolerance" and "diversity embracing" evident among hetero's.
Why? Because it is "tautologically true" (a terminology that Sullivan seems to enjoy) of the word "hetero".
And this "tolerance" is much more evident among those people who have actually been embraced by a Holy God. Embraced by someone who is truly "hetero". The Holy embracing the unholy.
In closing, we are not embraced by a xenophobic God. Not embraced by a genophobic God.
Not a God who is loosey-goosey. Not a God who is promiscuous.
But embraced by a God who gracious and faithful.
A God who embraces those who once were hostile and gender-challenged like Rosaria Butterfield.
A God who embraces us to become homogenous with Him.
Am trying to stay on top of things Christian. Trying to be like Issachar. Trying to have an understanding of the times... to know what Israel ought to do (1 Chronicles 12:32). So now and again I take a look at the stuff in Christianity Today's her-meneutics. Stuff they send me by e-mail. Stuff written by women. Christian Women- Cultural Comment is the sub-heading of that stuff. And I often find myself disappointed by where they are heading.. And their latest article is pretty much a repeat of their current blowing with the wind. Little more than twaddle pandering to our culture bent on 'feelings'. Yet I do agree with their title- I'm Sick of Hearing About Your Smoking Hot Wife. I'm sick of it as well. I don't like to see that idolatry either... still I'm delighted to hear that their wives actually take delight in them. Which is something that the author of this article seems incapable of delighting in. Incapable of delighting in intimacy with her husband. What a shame. We read that the author remains essentially 'frigid after 22 years of marriage' due to some bad childhood experience. Due to being violated by boys (not men) at the age of five. Yet she claims to have received a "smidgen of healing" after recently writing an "open letter of anger to her molesters". What a false sense of healing. What a false sense of coming out. What a false sense of closure. Why can't she just believe Jesus when He says that, 'whatever enters a girl does not defile her'? No matter when, where or how it enters her she is NOT defiled- Mark 7:18. Or does she feel guilty because she might have remembered actually enjoying the attention? Feel defiled by the joy that actually came out of her? Regardless, all we seem to get is a pity party and whining in her article. And no real argument against those she is sick of hearing from. No real argument against the trust and obedience commanded by scripture either. Just a bunch of idolatry to her feelings. A much worse type of idolatry... an idolatry to self. So DeMuth continues to deprive her husband of a Smoking Hot Wife. Struggles to put on lingerie. Then spiritually "disconnects from the act of sex". And holds "sex on demand" in contempt. Apparently she believes that her body still belongs to her self- even when she is married. Yet we are told that she has healed so much since her "terrifying wedding night" (yet she only recognized her problem after 12 years of marriage and 2 years of counseling). So why can't I see the healing here? Christians should be embarrassed to call this a healing. Christ is so much bigger than that. Now, I may sound insensitive and unsympathetic to her abuse- but I'm not. Been there, done that as a child- yet I truly have been healed... and it didn't take 22 years. And if you read between the lines her husband actually continues to think, 'get over it you baby Christian, what is your real problem?' Why can't she see that ALL people are sinful? That ALL people are abusive? And that her current abuse of her husband is sinful too? And the recommendations that she gives to other abused women? Insipid and tepid. Not worth a spit. Even the most biblical recommendation (#3) starts with "Take care of yourself". UN-huh. But isn't that the problem- that we only want to take care of our self? Isn't that her sin- that she doesn't want to love her husband as herself? That she would rather be a dud in bed? And we see her excuses so clearly. Excuses that hold her husband responsible for her healing- urging him to examine his childhood for insensitivity. Holding her mother responsible for her "insensitivity". And holding her divorced father responsible for his appreciation of "nudes". What a bunch of Freudian blame-shifting. This looks just like another case of Patty Bonds to me. Self-imposed bondage from false memories. Attractive memories that she cannot forgive or forget. And all the counseling in the world won't heal DeMuth. DeMuth will only truly heal when she holds herself responsible... completely responsible. DeMuth will only truly heal when she becomes truly grateful for the abuse that drove her to Jesus. Yes, you heard me- be grateful for the effect of the cause. Be grateful for the cause that effected her coming to Jesus in the first place. And start claiming victory instead of victim. DeMuth will only truly heal when she sees that not only were those that abused her (mere children!) vile
sinners- but that she was (and remains) an equally vile sinner. That she is COMPLETELY unworthy of His finished work of healing... and she will be healed. Please remember, that hers is not a physical condition but rather a psychotic condition! In closing, since DeMuth seems so entranced by analogies let me offer one. Let me offer something a little parabolic. Something a little more biblical than her 'gardening' or 'diving board' analogies. Something that would be helpful for her to add to her up-coming self-help book: There once was a Man of Passion. Whose passion knew no bounds. So he spread his passion around, before bounding off on a journey.
Some folks He gave a lot of passion and some He gave a little- according to their ability... and then He watched it multiply. In some, their passion doubled. In some it even tripled. In one it remained the same.
To that one He asked, "Why did my passion not grow? Have you lost My passion?" That one replied, "I know you are a harsh taskmaster and I was not willing to lose your passion. So I buried it in a safe place, for when you returned from your journey." The taskmaster then ordered His passion to be taken from that one- and to be given to the more passionate ones. And the door to the wedding feast was shut on this non-smoking girl.
maybe I'd get a maid
Find a place nearby
for her to stay.
to keep my house clean,
Fix my meals and go away-Neil Young
ol’ Neil let us men (and women) down with those popular lyrics.Not just a little sexist and utilitarian
there.A bit misogynistic, in fact.
why does a maid have to be a woman?And is
that their intended design?
to thinking of this song the other day when a mature Christian associate
brought up the provocative idea (totally unprovoked) that ‘Adam was “playing
with himself” [masturbating] before God decided that he had better get a playmate
for Adam.A human playmate since Adam
was not “turned on” by the animals parading in front of him’.
replied that. ‘Many men seem to understand that mating purpose of women.However, many women lean towards understanding
that passage to mean that God decided to “get a maid” for Adam’.A maid to clean up after him.Cook his meals- then go away.
God had a far greater purpose for women.Had a much more complementary
purpose for women. So, let’s look at what some of the old commentaries say
about that Genesis 2:18 purpose… and let’s start with some female commentaries.
founder of Christian Science (an oxymoron)- Mary Baker
Eddy has no actual commentary. Has
no actual Key to the Scripture for this passage (but lots of keys for trivial
stuff).Mary is too metaphysically
spaced-out to even consider this particular desire of Adam’s.
A desire for actual physical companionship.To spaced-out to recognize that Adam already had
the best of the metaphysical world… so why would he have lust for the 'physical
fact, the existence of this passage destroys the whimsical basis of Christian
Science.Destroys their whims that the
metaphysical is all there is and all that there should be.Such Scientists are mirror images of
physicalist- Carl Sagan.Scientists
seeing a mirage.
oddly enough, the prolifically visionary founder of Seventh Day Adventism-
Ellen G. White had no vision on this passage either. No vision on a very fundamental passage.
because it reveals our basic ontology.And
reveals a godly ontology.
It reveals our ‘being made in His image’ (Gen. 1:26).Reveals our not being alone… because God is
not alone.An image pointing to a
plurality of persons and functions.
Ellen would likely maintain her vision that this ‘base desire’ of Adam’s for
sex ‘was the result of a carnivorous diet’.Her vision on masturbation is equally spaced-out. And
despite claims to the contrary, she clearly plagiarizes Matthew Henry on this
for the guys?Matthew Henry is extensive
but waxes a little too poetic on this passage.Not as much insight as usual.John Gill’s later research was more insightful.
Meet for him . 40
In the Hebrew it is wdgnk (kenegedo,) "as if opposite
to," or "over against him." k (Caph) in that language is a note of
similitude. But although some of the Rabbies think it is here put as an
affirmative, yet I take it in its general sense, as though it were said that
she is a kind of counterpart, (ajnti>stoikon, or ajnti>strofon;
for the woman is said to be opposite to or over against the man, because she
responds to him. But the particle of similitude seems to me to be added because
it is a form of speech taken from common usage. 42
The Greek translators have faithfully rendered the sense, Katj' aujto>n;
and Jerome, "Which may be like him," 44
for Moses intended to note some equality. And hence is refitted the error of
some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and
who restrict the word "good," which had been lately mentioned, to the
production of offspring. They do not think that a wife was personally necessary
for Adam, because he was hitherto free from lust; as if she had been given to
him only for the companion of his chamber, and not rather that she might be the
inseparable associate of his life. Wherefore the particle k (caph) is of
importance, as intimating that marriage extends to all parts and usages of
life. The explanation given by others, as if it were said, Let her be ready to
obedience, is cold; for Moses intended to express more, as is manifest from
sweet stuff from Calvin.Very complimentary
some of this commentary of Calvin’s appears to have been taken from a much
earlier (perhaps several centuries B.C.) commentary.A highly respected commentary… The Onkelos
Targum.This Targum says, “or, as suited to him:Hebrew, kenegdo, as his
a Hebrew word that sorta sounds like a cross between K’Nex and Lego . Now, I kinda like commentaries that appeal
to historical-grammatical construction.As
Calvin says, ‘it fits well with the context too’.
Notable as well- is Calvin’s “cold” contempt of those that think that Adam was “hitherto
free from lust”.Cold contempt for those
that thought that women were only intended for “propagation” and “obedience”.Indeed “some equality” is being promoted by
Calvin… an equality that may extend to "all parts and usages of life".
Yet that lust/ masturbating idea of my buddy’s isn’t that far-out either... even Calvin addressed it.
in one of the earliest accounts of creation (about a thousand years B.C.) we have
a similar idea as well.A similar idea in an account that seems to
plagiarize Moses account of Creation.
in the account of creation in the Enuma Elish we are told that everything
derives from Atum [Adam?].Atum who
claims, “I am the one who acted as husband with my fist: I copulated with my
hand, I let fall into my own mouth, I sneezed Shu [atmosphere] and spat Tefnut
[order]”- The Context of Scripture 1.14 , Boston: Brill, 2003 (HT. James
we see that Eve was not exactly taken
from a rib- but was the ‘spitting image’ of Atum.An image that was an intimate part of
a counterpart of Atum’s imagination and lust.Nothing misogynistic there.Indeed, she was made of him.
Having covered Rachel’s misrepresentation of menstruation in the
previous post, let’s move on to the actual Mense discharge (Leviticus 15: 19-24).
Now this actual Mense period was a period of uncleanness which
appears to have been accounted as seven days.As seven days regardless of how long the discharge actually lasted… but
as mentioned, this duration is also disputed.
In the Jewish Encyclopedia
we see that the original time period was only seven days- but that later on it
was extended to seven days past the
code (Lev. xv. 19 et seq.) ordains that a menstruous woman shall be
unclean for seven days from the beginning of the period, whether it lasts only
one day or all seven.
These laws, however, have been
extended in many ways and made more onerous, both by rabbinical traditions and
interpretations and by customs…
R.T. France also asserts this phenomena in his Commentary on Matthew (pg. 450)-
". . . this
voluntary making of the yoke as heavy as
taking on themselves as many obligations as
the ideal of Rabbinic piety."
A piety that is seen to be developing
following the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Developing during the reconstruction of The Temple (2nd Temple
Judaism of the 5th century B.C.).A temple deprived of The Tabernacle.
A false piety that continued to be developed by the Pharisees in the time of
Jesus.A piety developed by a people deprived of The Tabernacle. A people deprived of a solution to their sin. A people deprived of Grace.
And we often see this evolution of piety in the manuscripts of that period of deprivation. We see this evolution in the less ancient Hebrew manuscripts
of the O.T. An evolution which is evident in places like Exodus 19:15 and 1 Samuel 21:5- where the
period of sexual abstinence was extended from 1 day to 3 days (KJV).An evolution which was to be rejected by the New
King James and later versions based on earlier and better manuscripts.
But back to the earliest text on Menses, it appears that a man may
in fact touch his wife during this period and only be unclean until evening .However, he may not touch her in a “lying”
sense (v. 24).In essence, He may not
touch her in a way that her menstrual impurity is upon his manhood (a loophole
that Jews naturally enjoy operating around).Blood being the operative factor here, of course.
And if he actually does touch her in a “lying” sense?Well, no sin offering is demanded since it
isn’t a sin- yet he shall be unclean for seven days.
“So what”, you ask?
Well, apart from the hazard of contracting (and spreading)
hygienic uncleanness by entering ‘her bloody tabernacle’ there was a far greater
hazard… the hazard of entering The Holy Tabernacle unclean.
In that chapter we see that the "unclean man" was commanded NOT to enter The Holy Tabernacle for
those seven days. Using stronger language, he is not permitted to “defile The Tabernacle with his uncleanness” (v. 31)!The Tabernacle that he was expected to enter
for various feasts 3 times per year (Exodus 23:14).An expectation that was largely regarded metaphorically
by geographically ‘distant Jews’.
Yet these physical offerings and The Tabernacle are now long gone
and irrelevant (Jer. 3:16).Gone since
The Tabernacle disappeared soon after Jeremiah’s ministry.Disappeared after the destruction of
Jerusalem in the 6th century B.C. by the Babylonians.And The Tabernacle became increasingly
irrelevant after the fulfillment of numerous aspects of that prophecy cited by Jeremiah.
The physical offerings of the Jews were then substantially diminished- since
there was no place to offer them.And
these physical offerings were also quite irrelevant because the physical Mercy
Seat (strangely called a Propitiation Seat in the Douay-Rheims version) was gone.
The offerings were quite irrelevant even with the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah
in the following century.Quite
lacking mention when “both Judah and Israel” were cited to call Jerusalem
“The Throne of the LORD”. And quite lacking
mention in the account of the 'Holy Vessels Restored' in Ezra 1 as well.
Indeed, The Ark of The Covenant was out of sight and “hardly came to
mind” until a time of reformation (Heb. 9:10).Until Christ appeared as The Mercy Seat.Until Christ ushered in “the greater and
more perfect tabernacle” (v. 11).
A tabernacle that was ushered in with His blood (v. 14).A tabernacle that we are now welcomed to
enter into at all times.Enter into both physically and
A tabernacle that was prophesied to be 'in the foreground. by
Jeremiah.And indeed- has very much moved to the
foreground in the time of Christ.
So why would Rachel attempt to return to the background when the
foreground is clearly here?When
numerous prophets in the background instruct us to clearly leave this
An instruction also affirmed by Jesus. Affirmed when Jesus instructs us to leave those sacrifices behind. When He refers back to
Hosea 6:6 (see the NET study note) and says, “go and learn awhat this means, b'I
desire 1compassion, 2and not sacrifice,'(Mat 9:13
Yet perhaps this is what Rachel
was trying to learn in her retro mission.
Was trying to empathize with the [misguided]
sacrifices of the past. Was trying to
learn where the compassion is in not having sex for 12 [or 13 by some rabbi reckoning]
days in a row. Where the compassion is in not having sex for
'months' following childbirth (Lev. 12).
So it appears to me that the operative reason that this abstinence is demanded is (as Jesus affirmed) for "compassion" reasons. That the reason for at least 1 [or 3 if you prefer the less ancient manuscripts] day of abstinence prior to entering The
Tabernacle is to enhance the passion. An abstinence to be met with a far greater euphoria from The Mercy Seat. A euphoria which would be dulled by a lack of abstinence.
So, getting back to Rachel’s now qualified riddle, What Hath Men to do with actual Menses?
Well, whatever learned Men wish to do with Menses.
As presented in the previous post,hygiene remains a factor (and
is the only factor that present-day Jews seem to consider)- yet is far less of a factor than in
the past. However, as covered in this post- “defiling the Tabernacle” is no longer a
factor (since any sex might then be considered as defiling the 'indwelling' tabernacle).
And in fact, in a not-too-obscure metaphorical sense- entering into
this ‘bloody tabernacle’ of women may now be seen as a celebration.A celebration of the bloody tabernacle which
we may now enter into at all times… the
tabernacle of Christ.
A celebration which may be just a distant memory for some of us older folks.Yet a celebration which may be a present reality for many younger folks.
A celebration which it appears a much younger Rachel may yet celebrate… if she wasn’t so “unlearned” in compassion and so obsessed with
I hope this post has ‘advanced the discussion’ for Rachel. Has opened a tabernacle for Rachel.
Does this appear “more loving”, Rachel? Or am I lacking in compassion?
Rachel Held Evans seems to be creating quite a stir recently.Rachel has been the object of some
controversy with the large Christian retail chain- LifeWay. And has enjoyed
considerable notoriety by misrepresenting them.
She has also been the object of a great deal of amusement and
ridicule in the Christian as well as the secular media.And, I like amusing… so let’s address this
riddle of Rachel.Indeed, let’s have
some fun and hold up this enigma of Rachel Held Evans for examination.
Now, Rachel appears to have been on some sort of a mission for her
latest book.She appears to have been
challenged to assess various O.T. laws for her book.To assess laws particular to women.
Assessing them by slavishly practicing them for a year.To see if there was any redeeming value to
And according to a recent interview on national radio
Rachel didn’t appear to find those laws all that redeeming or even pointing to
a Redeemer.And naturally, the
non-Christian interviewer seemed only interested in the titillating aspects of
her mission.Interested in her hypocrisy
as well as her dubious reasons for actually continuing to be a Christian.
Yet, Rachel seemed more interested in speaking of her ‘placing of
God on trial’.Speaking of her
upholding the ‘onerous’ sexual cleanliness laws for a year.Of not having sex with her husband for “12
days straight”/menstrual cycle as per Leviticus 15.Of living in an ‘isolation tent’ and of
travelling with a ‘butt isolator’ during this period.
Seemed more interested in speaking of the ‘terrible loneliness and
embarrassment’ that she experienced during that part of her cycle.Loneliness and embarrassment because she
wanted to put the LORD to the test (and no doubt tested her husband’s fidelity
A test of ancient “feminine rules and roles”.A test that appears to have yielded no
answers to her feminist riddle.And a
test that just seemed to accelerate Rachel’s anti-patriarchal diatribe.
But Rachel’s feminism should hardly be so hostile to the
patriarchs. Should hardly be so hostile to the Jewish patriarchal system, since
it actually is a system with a strong bent toward patronizing women!A far less hostile system than the expanding
Sharia system.And a far friendlier
system than her feminism.
But let’s only address one aspect of Rachel’s specific riddle
here.Let’s avoid the roles and focus on
the rules in question. Let’s address her
riddle regarding the ‘redeeming value’ of those ancient menstrual laws.And only address this aspect because I have already
addressed them as ‘pointing to a redeemer here .
And let’s get beyond a rather shallow interpretation of those laws.Let’s see if we can advance the discussion as
Rachel actually requested.Examine the
text of Leviticus 15 a little better. And examine the context a little better.
Let's advance the discussion with an internally consistent interpretation.
A comprehensive interpretation less intimidating, less embarrassing and far more
redeeming than Rachel’s. Something far more
God glorifying than Rachel seems to have discovered. Advance the discussion
with something that Rachel was ‘unable to discover’ in her current lamentations.Advance this with an interpretation that
radiates something considerably “more loving”- as was her want.
So, at the risk of seeming heretical, let’s consider quite a
different interpretation. An
interpretation contrary to that of Orthodox Jewish tradition.Indeed, an interpretation quite contrary to
those overzealous Pharisees who promoted similarly unlawful stuff. Who promoted unlawful stuff like Corban (Mark
7:11, 12) and ‘neglected the weightier provisions of the law’ (Matt. 23:23).
And let’s name and frame this riddle of Rachel’s.Let’s name this riddle as Rachel might like
to name this riddle.Let’s name this
riddle, ‘What hath Men to do with Menses?’
And let’s see if we can frame it positively. Frame it as promoting
healthiness and holiness rather than framing it as Cleansing Unhealthiness as
NASB has unfortunately titled this chapter.Frame it as “more loving” rather than “less unloving”.
But first, allow me to inform our readers- that men were also subject to the same admonitions in
this Levitical text.Rachel is just starting with the text that she
thinks applies to her.Rachel starts in
the middle of this text rather than the beginning of this text.Again, this admonition was not exclusive to
This text starts by claiming that men are “unclean” due to a
And insists that men wereunclean for seven days following the cessation of their “bodily
discharge”. Not only that, but men were also
instructed to offer a “Sin Offering and a Burnt Offering” following this period.And that women were to keep their hands off their
men during this period (v.7).So quit yer’
whining about discrimination there, girls.Guys have to follow the same rules.
Yet the text progresses to something quite different happening with
respect to “seminal emission” (Lev. 15:16).Regardless of whether this seminal emission is voluntary or involuntary (wet
dreams are also covered in Deut. 23:10).In this text it seems that “seminal
emission” is in a distinctly different category than this “bodily discharge”
alluded to in verse 3.
It seems that the period of uncleanness for “seminal emission” is only until the following evening. And not only that, but no offering is required for this “seminal emission”.Again, “seminal emission” is NOT like the distinctly different discharge alluded
And this distinctly different
discharge applies to women as well.As
this text progresses there is clearly some distinction regarding a discharge of
blood “NOT at the period of her menstrual impurity”.A distinction of “a discharge BEYOND that
period”.That for this distinctly different discharge “she
shall continue AS THOUGH in her menstrual impurity” (v. 25).And it is for this distinctly different discharge
for which an offering IS required.Again, we see distinctly different categories being addressed here.
Distinctions which are strangely not being observed by Orthodox
Jews or by Rachel.And as we shall see,
they seem to be observing radically different time periods as well.
Anyway, as regards the discharge- what might that distinctly different discharge be?
Well, the text suggests that internal (poop) as well as external
(puss) discharges could possibly be
in mind here (v.3).With this euphemistic
text even being so bold as to mention “spit” (v.8).And these discharges are distinctly different- yet it is highly unlikely for this text to be
speaking of such innocuous discharges… especially following such an extensive
text speaking of something as serious as leprosy.
And unlikely since it is understood from this text that the man is
only required to wash in the evening for a “seminal discharge”.Quite unlikely that a man would be considered
unclean for seven days following a pee.And unlikely since the man would soon be
bankrupted by bowel movements.And bankrupted
much more quickly by providing offerings for his wife’s movements (they go to
the washroom about 30% more).
Remember also, that a Sin Offering and a Burnt Offering is in
order here. So something else must be
in mind here. Something of a less
innocuous discharge… some kind of
And something of a less
innocuous discharge for women as well.A discharge of far greater import.Something of debilitating import.
Something of far greater import like STD discharges.Discharges which were even prevalent during
this Levitical period.Discharges as historian-Morton
relates were of far greater import, like “destructive ulcers” and “morbid
outgrowths” exuding “genital excresences”.
Excresences which are contagious and debilitating.Excresences that read like a WHMIS label. Excresences
causing blindness, infertility and death.Unhealthy stuff.
Excresences derived from unfaithfulness to one’s sexual partner.Excresences of infidelity.Excresences common to a licentious and
polygamous culture.Unholy stuff.
Excresences of sinful import.
Import requiring a Sin Offering for the
cleansing of self and a Burnt Offering to make atonement with God.
Offerings promoting repentance.Offerings promoting faithfulness.Offerings promoting something “very loving”.Offerings in which God continues to say,
“For aI desire
steadfast love1 and not sacrifice, bthe knowledge of God
rather than burnt offerings”-Hos 6:6 ESV.
For God is the author of faithfulness.The standard of fidelity.
The standard of Love that we are to imitate.The background of Rachel’s riddle.
The background which we shall bring to the foreground.