Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence
So, let’s continue to draw principles from our rapid study of Leviticus.
How do you decide what to do, how do you choose your acts, opinions – on what basis?
We will talk about this today!
5 Leviticus 10.5 –18.5
June 2nd 2024
Last week, the two sons of Aaron were consumed by fire from heaven and Leviticus chapter 10 addresses what happens to them in the aftermath which is intriguing but not worthy attention.
There is a mention, however, of a prohibition of alcohol to the priests in this chapter, where YAHAVAH says,
Leviticus 10:9 “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:”
Then chapter 11 embarks on all the types of animals that were to be deemed kawshaw (or abominable to them) with a bunch of distinctions relative to creatures that chew the cud and have split hooves.
A fun read too, along with sea creatures allowed and prohibited, and insects too.
Foods, diets, drinks – huge among religionists even today. Most Muslims are on a limited diet, as are orthodox Jews, Mormons and some others along the way.
People who are more zealously inclined when it comes to life and living for God tend to restrict items from consumption while others, deemed more liberal, allow each individual to decide.
We understand wisdom. We understand not being in control of anything, and we understand that there are certain cultural environs many religious people point to that indicate the need to abstain from items like alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse.
Some like to go so far as to say that Yeshua never drank alcohol because the wine of His day was like grape juice, and I have met a handful of Christian people who choose to impose dietary laws on themselves as a means to keep their temple pure.
Because of my religious upbringing I have never smokes tobacco and in fact used to really look down on anyone and everyone who does.
As God would have it He has allowed me to meet some of the most dear, kind, God-loving souls who smoke, and drink, and are overweight and addicted, and others super who live super restricted lifestyles to be the opposite – and vice versa.
I recall the words of the Messiah when it comes to how I side, when He said,
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
And because of these words I readily see myself as chief sinner and back away from judging anyone for what they allow into their bodies or don’t.
When it comes to animal consumption all we have to do it look at Peter on his way to visit Cornelius and the conversation he had with God who lowered a net down a knit sort of net that hosted all sorts of once forbidden animals on it, and we read
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Finally, I cite Paul who wrote in two different places in the same letter to the church at Corinth,
1st Corinthian 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
And
1st Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
And we have a pretty simple rule of thumb – nothing in and of itself can defile us, but we might test all things by the fact that not everything is “expedient,” “edifies” or should have “the ability to bring us under its power.”
This is all subjective personal stuff – stripped of religious demands.
The word translated “expedient” means “is right or lawful” and when Paul says that he will not “be brought under the power of any, the word is not the influence of something (like the sway of alcohol) but rather under “the control or authority of something” as the word is “exoodziadzo ” and not dunamis (as in dynamite).
We eat and drink all sort of things in our mortal bodies which get transfer into energy and the influence is good for us so no law.
Some drink coffee or alcohol – all okay, according to Paul, so long as it is profitable to them and does not take authority over their lives.
Many people mistake the line, “I will not be brought under the power of any” to mean, “I will not be influenced by anything but ignore the fact that we are all influenced by whatever we take into our bodies AND that word choice plainly says that he would not let a thing assume “authority” over him. To control Him.
Later, in chapter 10:23 where he almost rewrites the same words, he altars the ending, saying,
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
The word, edify there is oikodamayo and is assigned to house-building, meaning not everything lends to construction and building.
Rule of thumb, from where I stand,
Everyone must decide for themselves if they are 1:
Going to consult the scripture in what they eat and drink. If they do, they have to admit that each decision is in the hands of the individual, that individuals ought to use Paul’s description for what he would allow in His life and those are things that
Is right or lawful (so circumstantially considered)
Does NOT assume authority over us (while admitting that it can bring us temporary joy, refreshment, peace and relaxation, and
That our use of it will not serve to destroy but will aid us in our efforts to build health, marriage, family, community and faith.
Chapter 12, which is only 8 verses long, describes the state of a woman who bears a man-child and how she is purified and the command to circumcise the child on the eighth day is recalled as it is mentioned all the way back in Genesis 12.
We talked about circumcision there so if you want insights into it, go to our verse by verse teachings for Genesis 12.
Chapters 13-14 give explicit detail to the diagnosis and treatment of a disease called, Leprosy.
(The Hebrew word for leprosy is related to being sticken or smoted, as in “by the had of God.”
It was seen anciently as a direct manifestation of God’s anger with the one bearing it but the fact of the matter scripture clearly describes its origins as not always reflecting sin as a cause but it should better be seen as a type for sin.
Our term known as leprosy gets its name from the Greek “lepra”created by Greek physicians because of its scaly appearance.
There are six different circumstances in scripture where leprosy is discussed:
(1) it popped up without any apparent cause (Leviticus 13:2-8)
(2) it reappeared (Leviticus 13:9-17)
(3) it arrived through an inflammation (Leviticus 13:18-28)
(4) its location on the head or chin (Leviticus 13:29-37
(5) when it showed up in white polished spots (Leviticus 13:38-39)
(6) at the back or in the front of the head (Leviticus 13:40-44)
According to Numbers lepers were required to live outside the camp or city and according to 2nd Kings 5:7; 2nd Chronicles 26:20 it was a punishment from God, as in the case of Miriam and Uzziah.
Here is the most important principle related to leprosy (which terrified me as a child when I watched Steve McQueen take a puff off a cigar from a leper in the jungle in the movie, Papillon).
In any case, childhood trauma aside, the disease, has incredible similarities to sin in the Bible.
For instance, it,
“begins with specks on the eyelids and on the palms, gradually spreading over the body (just as sin is first seen or imagined and then goes to the hands before invading the whole of the person)
Then it bleaches the hair white wherever they appear, crusting the affected parts with white scales, and causing terrible sores and swellings. (as white hair is a sign of death or dead hair and sores are a sign of corruption – like we might see on the poor faces of a modern meth addict)
Then from the skin (where the sin is superficial) the disease eats inward to the bones, which ultimately rots the whole body piecemeal.
Finally, and the body becomes desensitized to the point that it’s nerves fail to detect pain. Wounds then become infected, and before you know it, body parts start falling off!
What a type for the corrosive properties of sin unaddressed in the body and minds of those captive by it.
In Yeshua’s day a leper could live in a walled town, though he might in an open village but wherever he was he was required to have his outer garment rent as a sign of deep grief, to go bareheaded, and to cover his beard with his mantle, as if in lamentation at his own virtual death.
Lepers also had further to warn passers-by to keep away from him, by calling out, ‘Unclean! unclean!’ nor could he speak to anyone ever or receive or return a salutation as these things in that culture often involved an embrace.
Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease, was once feared to be extremely contagious but it’s actually not very contagious at all and is easily treatable today.
In fact, patients are no longer infectious after 72 hours of treatment and the World Health Organization (WHO) believes leprosy transmission could end by 2035 if all cases are found and treated.
If only our need to sin, could be treated in a similar fashion.
In the end, leprosy, in the Bible, was “an outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption; a sound emblem in that day for sin usually starting off small, spreading gradually, going internal then leading to external disfigurement as it would consume the entire body through corruption until the soul literally falls apart and is rendered unrecognizable.
Of course, Yeshua cured people with leprosy just as He heals all people of sin and their damaging effects upon mind, heart and soul.
Chapter 15 is fascinating because here God describes a few interesting things, waaaaay back then, that the Nation needed to practice relative to
Sexually transmitted disease
Semen
And women menstruating.
Bottom line take away?
Wash everything.
Wait until sunset for cleanliness to occur and don’t touch each other.
What I found really intriguing is that the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Hebrew) uses the term gonorrhea (gono = semen and rhea = flux) nine times in its translation!
And that the advice given to avoid it is pretty much the advice we would give today!
In Chapter 16 we read all about what the priest was to do with respect to the Nation as a whole and its sin.
This introduces us to the ancient practice of the High Priest taking two goats, casting lots, the sacrificing one and after laying hands on the head of the other and describing all the sins that the Nation had committed in the prior year, taking it out into the wilderness and letting it go – here is where we get the name scapegoat.
The separation of one goat dying and another goat bearing the sin but living is an amalgamated type of what Christ would do in One.
It would make no sense to have one goat bear the sin and dying but cease to exist as a type so in someways we might see the scapegoat as the risen Lord who took on our sin but lived (or resurrected).
Chapter 17 brings us some interesting facts.
Specifically, YAHAVAH tells the people to stop offering sacrifices anywhere but at the tabernacle – and if they don’t they would be cut off.
But at verse 7 we read an interesting passage that says from the King James Masoretic text,
Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
But the Septuagint reads,
7And they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to vain gods after which they go a whoring; it shall be a perpetual statute to you for your generations.
Why the difference between devils and vain gods after which they have gone awhoring.
The translation to devils is partly correct and the translation to vain gods is entirely correct but not specific.
The Hebrew actually reads,
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto hairy goats, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
Hairy Goats
Vain gods
Devils.
Yes. All.
A people called the Medesians, who were out of Egypt (from which the Nation came) had a deity which they worshipped under in the form of a goat.
Most of us are familiar with the heathen god, Pan who is represented as having hind hairy legs, horns, and the ears of a goat and Herodotus says that all goats were worshipped in Egypt but the he-goat, which was in good similitude of Pan.
From this many pagan goat-type gods came including those that are called satyrs, dryads, hamadryads, woodland gods, and were held in great veneration by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
Since the victory of Christ, where all power in heaven, earth and under the earth have become His footstool, I do not see any of these items as having any power of the Light, but I do wonder about their continued existence as representatives of Dark evil in the world around us.
In modern times, Pan and Puck have been abrogated to more sinister uses by Satanists and seem to represent a being that is called, Baphomet, a devil/demon with a goat head set in a five pointed upside down star.
Anyway, here is a biblical reference to all such things.
It is also in chapter 17 that YAHAVAH tells the Nation not to eat blood, which was probably a common practice among the surrounding pagan nations.
I have a personal belief that there is tremendous power in blood and that it is sacred and meaningful in the human realm.
I happen to believe that bloodshed, bloodletting, and human sacrifice via bloodshed might (MIGHT) carry with it some sort of unseen powers to the place and people who shed it.
Like animal sacrifice of old, I see human bloodshed as having a limited shelf-life and carrying with it untold misery in the lives of those who shed it but I’ve read too many accounts of people seeking protective power and wealth being involved in it (like cartels, despots, and evil men and women seeking wisdom in this world) to believe that the blood they shed has no value – it’s just dark earthly temporal value.
Again, for whatever it is worth.
The first five verse of chapter 18 speak to something important. Let’s read where YAHAVAH says,
Leviticus 18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am YAHAVAH your elohiym.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am YAHAVAH your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am YAHAVAH.
I am going to step away from the text at this point and wrap today up with some serious talk about what I see as the Biblical justification for what I have come to see as God’s deontological ethic – which you have heard me use in the past.
I cannot express more ardently the absolute importance of it in the face of the scripture, idolatry and moral decision-making and hold it above all other ethical rationales, philosophies or approaches when it comes to following YAHAVAH and the approach demanded.
Biblical Deontology is created by compounding the Greek terms for “duty” and “science,” which when put together, creates a philosophical theory that emphasizes adhering exclusively to God’s immutable moral laws.
Removing God and religion from the mix, a philosopher named Immanuel Kant created what is called, the Categorical Imperative which, in philosophical terms, is widely seen as the foundation of secular deontology.
Kant’s theory suggests that one should adhere to a strict set of moral principles, regardless of any external influences or outcomes.
It is an important concept because it implies a sense of duty, or obligation, to do the right thing.
And without going too deep there are four filters one uses to determine the right thing.
The first one is universiality of the choice, meansing, will your choice of action favor and be applicable to a universal audience.
A really simple example of this is you have a choice to steal a neighbors lawn mower or wait to earn the money to buy your own.
The reason that this is not an acceptable act in the Categorical Imperative is because if you take your choice to steal the mower then you must expect and agree and allow that everyone should steel the mower from you – which would make for a very bad world.
After all four filters are used, the categorical imperative suggests that certain behaviors (like lying) are never ever permitted in any circumstance ever.
Then the example is given-
Suppose you are sitting in your house with your spouse and there is a knock at the door. You go to it and there is a man holding a AR 15. He asks you if your spouse is home and you ask why?
He says, “so I can kill him,” the categorical imperative says you should still tell the truth, “Yes, my husband is home.”
In a lesser dramatic example of its failure in the world would be if your wife asks if she looks fat in an outfit or if a husband asks if he’s is a good lover.
An important distinction in deontological ethics, however, also posits that a person would never do what is contrary to our duty even if it does not guarantee good results or a positive end.
This is why when asked a hard hard question that will lead to poor outcomes, hurt feelings or even devastation, a Kantian would never lie because that is a personal endorsement for the WORLD LYING.
I see Biblical Deontology as taking principles from Kant but beating it hands down.
And what is biblical deontology?
It states that a person will always choose, as their highest priority, God. Irrespective of the outcome. Which means we will do what He wants even if we have to suffer for it.
The question then becomes, what does God want? And here is where we have both issues with interpretation.
Some suggest that He wants what is in the Bible. But, of course, that is a HUGE debate because does that mean He wants warfare, stoning, literal genocides, the Law imposed? Polygamy?
Some people will try and take His ten words and make them a basis for what He wants, and here they will concur with Kant and never ever lying.
But there are scriptural factors o lying we can see how a full understanding of scripture suggests that there are times in God’s eyes where not telling the full truth is permitted, as seen in places like
Do not cast your pearls before swine
Or agree with your adversary quickly
Or when actions are taken by some righteous biblical characters to help the righteous escape death, like in the case of Rahab the Harlot, and Jonathon and Michel lying to save David.
So, while the deontological biblical view says that morality is derived from duty or obligation to God, this view must be balanced by the all the biblical descriptions allowed by God and not just a single command.
Scholars state that deontology is “a moral theory that suggests actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules,” therefore we must be extremely careful about citing God as the author of rules that are not clearly understood.
Again, and according to deontological ethics, the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined exclusively by its inherent nature and cannot be affected by any consequences that it may yield.
What this means is that a morally right action should be performed even if the immediate result of it is negative, and a morally wrong action should not be performed even if its immediate result is positive.
So irrespective of the outcome or a given situation, it is essential for individuals to adhere to a moral code. In the case of believers choosing RIGHT, I would conclude that the best definition of what is RIGHT with God is His definition of agape love – right is selfless, sacrificial and insufferable words, thoughts and actions toward God and others.
And in this we can see How Biblical Deontology beats Kants philosophical Deontology. How?
THE SPIRIT.
But many many people say that the Spirit of God moved them to do all sorts of evil things.
THE SPIRIT . . . which is understood in terms of the presence of its FRUIT.
Which is What? Love.
Which is defined by what? Selfless, sacrificial and often insufferable LOVE.
Go back to the example of a couple sitting at home and the armed intruder knocking on the door.
What would the biblical deontological response be?
Selfless, sacrificial love. Which would look like?
When the armed suspect announced his intentions the spouse at the door sacrifices themselves to protect the spouse sitting in the kitchen.
See, the difference?
Spiritual deontological ethics might be described as
A devoted desire and attempt to do all that God commands over any other source and irrespective of the outcome or apparent inefficiency in the act and that His will is always founded on selfless, sacrificial love.
Spiritual deontological ethics DO NOT mean taking every written word of the Bible and using it as the way to know His commands even though this is what the majority of religions today suggest.
If that were true we would find ourselves
not really knowing what is appropriate in this day and not – especially in the face of Old Testament practices like stoning or polygamy.
No, Spiritual deontology, as supported by the scripture, is when a person will do all that the Spirit of God moves them to do and be – irrespective of public opinion, popularity or utilitarian ideals (which is a different theory on how to act which suggests only doing what will bring about the Greatest Good).
Where the scripture comes into play for us is that if or when someone suggests that the Spirit is moving them to say, do or live in a way that is contrary to
HIM AS LOVE
And the definition of His Love for neighbor,
They can effectively be shown how the spiritual influence is not of God and more specifically, His Son and brings with the adherent His wisdom and ways.
This is the measurement all Spiritual inclinations are all tested by – whether it is founded upon selfless, sacrificial, insufferable love – or not.
In the world of faith or non-faith and in the age of fulfillment, there seems to be three broad categories for making our choices –
To seek to do what is RIGHT, which is exclusively in the hand of the Spirit,
Or
What is GOOD (which speaks to human wisdom for good)
Or
What is EVIL
Ironically, and in this world, doing what is RIGHT does not always going to mean doing what is GOOD; and doing what is GOOD does not always mean doing what is RIGHT.
Taking it even further, doing what is EVIL is never RIGHT – no matter the intention – and doing what is GOOD can be an expression of EVIL – even in some of the worst ways imaginable.
This is heavy and requires some thought.
And far more discussion but I though it all timely in the face of YAHAVAHS commands in verses 1-5.
GRADY RISELY . . . .
Questions
Comments
Prayer
