Lots of folks today who would align themselves with a Biblical faith think that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think it's a bold choice to decide there are some things from this part of the Bible that still apply, and others that don't. I do know that, while communicating with a group of non-Jewish followers of Jesus in his first letter to their congregation, Peter is quoting directly from verses 44-45 in this "food" chapter (or perhaps a few other places in Leviitcus) when encouraging them to live differently, to be set apart from the rest of their culture (and their former lives) - 1st Peter 1:13-16. Sure seems like he thought these instructions on holy living were still in effect, even for Gentile believers. - jeffrey
The Hazys had a bit of a discussion about the need for new mothers to bring a "sin" offering as part of the postpartum process. I think this is a pretty clear example that the Bible sometimes presents "sin" as a neutral concept, not automatically a moral failing or evil action. (Again, the Hebrew word used for *sin* means "to miss", or "miss the goal or path of right and duty".) ...so a new mother (back then, and continuing today) kind of puts "normal" life on hold for a period of time as she and baby make the necessary adjustments to this little blessing being a part of life. And once they're ready to re-engage normal family and community and even religious life, then an offering is given to recognize that she's been "missing" (for good reason!) and is now "back". My guess is it's more like a family celebration of everyone being back together as they worship - certainly not an act of penance for the blessing of children. I'm gonna have to run this one by some Jewish folks I know and see if my theory is right or there's something else going on here... 🤔 - jeffrey
Lots of folks today who would align themselves with a Biblical faith think that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think it's a bold choice to decide there are some things from this part of the Bible that still apply, and others that don't.
ReplyDeleteI do know that, while communicating with a group of non-Jewish followers of Jesus in his first letter to their congregation, Peter is quoting directly from verses 44-45 in this "food" chapter (or perhaps a few other places in Leviitcus) when encouraging them to live differently, to be set apart from the rest of their culture (and their former lives) - 1st Peter 1:13-16. Sure seems like he thought these instructions on holy living were still in effect, even for Gentile believers.
- jeffrey
The Hazys had a bit of a discussion about the need for new mothers to bring a "sin" offering as part of the postpartum process. I think this is a pretty clear example that the Bible sometimes presents "sin" as a neutral concept, not automatically a moral failing or evil action. (Again, the Hebrew word used for *sin* means "to miss", or "miss the goal or path of right and duty".)
ReplyDelete...so a new mother (back then, and continuing today) kind of puts "normal" life on hold for a period of time as she and baby make the necessary adjustments to this little blessing being a part of life. And once they're ready to re-engage normal family and community and even religious life, then an offering is given to recognize that she's been "missing" (for good reason!) and is now "back". My guess is it's more like a family celebration of everyone being back together as they worship - certainly not an act of penance for the blessing of children. I'm gonna have to run this one by some Jewish folks I know and see if my theory is right or there's something else going on here... 🤔
- jeffrey