Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 13:24-28

24 Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning, and the quick flesh that burneth have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white;

25 Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it be in sight deeper than the skin; it is a leprosy broken out of the burning: wherefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.

26 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the other skin, but be somewhat dark; then the priest shall shut him up seven days:

27 And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day: and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.

28 And if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not in the skin, but it be somewhat dark; it is a rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean: for it is an inflammation of the burning.

We have heard how the priest would examine a simple spot in the skin, a boil, and today’s verses talk about a “burn” in the skin. At first I thought by “burn” it meant some feverish heat in the skin, but apparently the Hebrew word used, מִכְוָה (mikvah), means that the flesh had literally been burned by fire or hot metal or a smoldering stick or something like that. These verses are talking about burn wounds that become corrupted afterward.

This continues the pattern of leprosy that grows out of trauma to the body. With the simple spot, the disease developed by unknown means within the body. With the boil, a foreign agent got lodged in the skin and became an inflamed abscess. Now we have a scorching heat that burned the flesh and leaves it vulnerable other afflications.

The priest examining wounds in the skin for infection is a microcosm of what it means to live in a fallen world. We have a good system, with a clear order of how it should work, where if everything worked perfectly it would be able to sustain, grow, and repair itself in perpetuity. But inevitably, something goes wrong. Not only does something bad happen to the system, but the bad thing inevitably disrupts the function of a part of that system and causes it to not perfectly sustain, grow, and repair itself. In a word, corruption. A system that can be harmed, wounded, even killed, but then can restore itself is incorruptible. But we as individuals and societies are systems that are harmed, wounded, even killed, and left permanently dysfunctional and broken as a result. Corruptible. It is true for our bodies. It is true for our societies. It is true for our governments.

As with the leprosy, sometimes corruption in the system can be eradicated. Other good systems in the body/society/government can correct it or even cut the bad part out. Indeed, the system may overcome many corruptions, but gradually the acquisition of corruption will outstrip the ability to remove it, the system will become less effective at healing itself, and one day a corruption will come that is never removed. We will require a Savior to refresh us out of the fallen world entirely then.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 13:18-23

18 The flesh also, in which, even in the skin thereof, was a boil, and is healed,

19 And in the place of the boil there be a white rising, or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish, and it be shewed to the priest;

20 And if, when the priest seeth it, behold, it be in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white; the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil.

21 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and if it be not lower than the skin, but be somewhat dark; then the priest shall shut him up seven days:

22 And if it spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague.

23 But if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not, it is a burning boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

Today talks about boils in the skin, and how after some of them had ruptured and healed, a white spot might appear where they used to be. The priest was to inspect that spot, see whether it was only skin deep, or if it went down deeper. If it went deeper, that was a sign of disease, whereas surface discoloration was clean.

Continuing our pattern of viewing these skin disease signs as symbols for the spiritual health of a society, the boil might be considered some tragic or disrupting event. The white spot after it has passed through describes the aftermath of that event, and whether it expands into greater problems or not. Recent modern examples of disrupting events could be the twin towers attack, the recession, and COVID. These caused great pain and disruption, they caused damage, and they left behind scars. But did we as a society spiritually heal afterward, or did that pain fester and develop into even longer-lasting harmful trends in our society? If it is the latter, we have a serious and spreading spiritual disease.

The same is true on a personal level, also. Everyone has trauma, but the question is, what do we become in the aftermath of that trauma. We might become healed…or we might spiral downward.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 13:9-17

9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest;

10 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising;

11 It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up: for he is unclean.

12 And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh;

13 Then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean.

14 But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.

15 And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy.

16 Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest;

17 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.

Today we read how a leprosy would be recognized by the presence of “raw flesh” as opposed to flesh that had “turned white.” Raw flesh seems to be describing open sores, where the outer layers of skin have been eaten away and the open wound is visible. If it were to “turn white,” that would mean scar tissue or new skin grown over, sealing the body back up.

Viewed spiritually, this can be compared to ongoing sin versus a soul that is healing. If, for example, one is actively under an addiction, there will be ugly behaviors ongoing, like the active sores in the body. If the addict is healed, though, there will be scars and ongoing recovery, but the open wound is covered, meaning the impulsive, sinful behavior ceases to rage out of control.

When applied to an entire population, this can be compared to a society caught in a false ideology versus one that is sloughing off those lies. When a society is ideologically captured, the faulty logic spreads from one domain to another, corrupting each institution. When the people return to truth and God, there will be much to rebuild and heal from, but the source of the damage is gone.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 13:1-8

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying,

2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:

3 And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.

4 If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:

5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; then the priest shall shut him up seven days more:

6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

7 But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:

8 And if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy.

Today begins the instructions on leprosy diagnosis and prescription. In addition to their sacrificial offerings and upkeep of the tabernacle, the priests were to observe these diseases and manage quarantine among the Israelites. Interestingly, the priests do not seem to have been general doctors. They are not described as setting bones or curing fevers or addressing many of the other common ailments to man. Their scope was specific and narrow. They focused on the spreading of disease in the skin and inspected strange bodily discharges.

These categories have obvious symbolic importance. A spreading plague in the skin is an immediate reminder of the spreading of sin through a body of people. At times a diseased notion, a faulty ideology, will run through society, and it can cause great damage before it is expelled. In some societies, we have even seen it kill the host. Meanwhile, an unclean discharge would signify unseen corruption within, again symbolic of a troubled population, one where the faulty beliefs are too entrenched to be seen for what they are, and only the emergence of disturbing behaviors from within is a sign of the deep spiritual rot beneath.

With this lens, today’s passages of observing spots in the skin takes deeper meaning. A priest would check the spot’s color, any hair that grew in it, close the subject in quarantine to observe how the condition changed over time, and returning the afflicted to broader society only when he was determined to be clean. So, too, our spiritual leaders must consider our confessions, measure whether our sinful actions were temporary weakness or a sign of persistent addiction. It may be necessary for the spiritually afflicted to be removed from certain public circles, both so that he does not spread carnal influence upon the innocent, and so that he stops receiving carnal influences from the guilty. This can happen with a social media purge, applying filters to one’s internet modem, giving up a group of friends, or even being incarcerated in prison. In any case, the goal has as its primary motive the curing of the moral deviance and rehabilitation back to righteous society.

Posted on by Abe Austin

That Which Aches Most

That which aches most is not necessarily the most important.

When you take stock of your life, certain parts will likely satisfy you, and others will leave you wanting. Your connection to the divine, your friendships, your romantic relationship, your family, your career path, your physical health, your finances, your hobbies and interests…you were hopefully able to make some of these play out the way you’d always hoped, but surely there are some that are a great disappointment.

And the greatest of those unrealized dreams will ache most terribly. We may yet hold out hope for their eventual fulfillment, or despair at their permanent loss, but either way they leave a painful wound in the soul.

But, of course, if we did have those missing dreams realized, but lost other dreams that we already have, then those new lost parts would ache instead. And they might ache even more, because they might be even more essential to our soul. One of the great mistakes that people make is to sacrifice that which is higher to try and soothe the aching of that which is lower. Or they do the inverse, clutching to the lower fulfillment, at the expense of achieving the higher.

You must understand the hierarchy of the soul. The elements that matter most. Accept that some aching is inevitable and be wise in what you are willing bargain to fix it. Do not sacrifice that which is higher for what is lower. Do not hold onto that which is lower at the expense of what’s higher.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Logic

There is a faulty logic that can lead some to abandon the faith that goes something like this:

1. My father believed in Christ.
2. My father hurt me.
3. The church believes in Christ.

Therefore, the church must want to hurt me.

This is not a surprising line of reasoning. It is in our nature to learn from our suffering and to try and avoid it repeating. We instinctively look at the qualities attached to those that hurt us and become suspect of others who carry the same. And in many cases, this can actually help us identify negative patterns and avoid risky associations.

But there is a difference between correlation and causation. Having been hurt by someone who professed Christ, but who did not emulate the teachings of Christ, is not the same as having been hurt by Christ, himself. It takes maturity to look at the harm we have received and ascribe its sources to the qualities that do apply, and not to the ones that don’t.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Bad Things Shouldn’t Happen

A Common Assumption)

Our culture struggles deeply with the idea of bad things happening to good people. It is often cited as an obstacle to having faith in God. To be honest, I have never struggled with this concept myself. I simply do not see why the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God is mutually exclusive to suffering in our world. I see it as a non-sequitur, requiring several subconscious assumptions to try and bring those two ideas together.

But as I have thought about it, I wonder if the connection is simply this: Bad things shouldn’t happen to good people because that is unjust. I certainly agree with the second part of this sentence, which states that it is unjust for the good to suffer, but I become a lot less confident about the first part that says it shouldn’t happen. That depends on what one means by “should.” After all, why shouldn’t things be unjust in an unjust world? Isn’t that exactly the pattern that you should see given our mortal context?

The Different Shoulds)

I think the difficulty that so many in our society wrestle with might come down to there being two different meanings of the word “should,” and we, having lost an appreciation for the nuance between those meanings conflate them into one and draw erroneous conclusions. The first use of “should” is a moral statement. It describes the world as it ought to be, in a way that would be just and fair. Spouses should have the loyalty of one another. A defenseless woman should be able to walk down a dark alley without fear. The guilty should be held accountable for their crimes. The world should behave according to moral principles.

The other “should,” however, simply means “appropriate to the context.” It describes the expected effects of a certain condition. The visible constellations should be different from different latitudes if the Earth is round. A species in a favorable environment should thrive. A patient with malaria should have an exceedingly high temperature.

With that last one, are we saying that it is “good” for the patient to have a dangerously high fever? Of course, not. But it is the natural and fitting state for that condition. The suffering is tragic, but it follows the proper order of the thing.

So, should the innocent suffer in a moral sense? Of course, not. But should we expect to see such injustices in a world that isn’t moral? Yes. The sad truth is we live in a fallen world that has largely rejected God and elevated selfishness and sin over love and virtue. What should such a world look like? Should it be the image of justice and fairness, or is the logical order that it would be a place of tragedy, unjust suffering, and a reality far removed from the moral ideal?

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 12:6-8

6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Yesterday I started examining the purification rites surrounding childbirth and discussed why I don’t think they are so shameful as some assume. Certainly, a shameful interpretation can be read into these verses, but it is a personal choice to do so. It is also possible to see no shame in the event, only an acknowledgement of the inherent gravity and mortality in birth. I explained what such a perspective looks like for the purification period of a mother in yesterday’s study, and now we will do the same for the sin and burnt offerings described in today’s verses.

Whether the child was a son or a daughter, the offerings were both a sin offering and a burnt offering. As we have already seen, a sin offering was meant for the absolution of sin, and a burnt offering was about dedicating one’s life to God and His purposes. The burnt offering is not controversial, but many have taken the need for a sin offering at birth as meaning that a child is born sinful; conceived by a sinful act, issued forth in a sinful state. But I don’t believe that view is necessary. I believe this ritual could be pointing to the common curse of mortality, without reflecting on the individual moral guilt of the child.

It is certainly a fact that we live in a fallen world. We all experience tragedy, we all experience suffering, and we all experience death. Every one of us is doomed by this fate and need to be saved from it via resurrection. Separate from this, though, is our own individual guilt when we commit our own sins. Sins where we had a knowledge of good but choosing to do evil. Thus, we have a universal mortal demise, and we have a personal spiritual demise, each of which must be overcome in Christ.

I believe the sin offering for an Israelite child’s birth was to acknowledge that the mother had brought her child into this universal, mortal, deathly reality, and that grim fate could only be overcome by the sacrifice of a lamb. This sacrifice is symbolic of Christ’s promise that his death and resurrection will conquer the tomb for all of us. Whether that resurrection will also redeem us from personal sin depends on whether we seek his forgiveness and enter into his covenant, but redemption from death, at least, is guaranteed.

So, it is true that there is a deep gravity to the fallen state into which we are born, but I don’t hold that we are also born in sin. We are born into the consequences of Adam and Eve’s transgression, but not into the guilt of their transgression. We only become guilty when we personally disobey. And in both cases, mortal death and spiritual sin, the sacrifice of the lamb shall overcome.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 12:1-5

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

This chapter speaks about childbirth, and how the mother would go through a purifying period before participating in regular tabernacle ceremonies. These passages have been used as evidence by some that the Mosaic Law treated women and childbirth as shameful, given the use of terms like “unclean” and the requirement of a “sin” offering. And this has not only been the argument of those antagonistic to Christianity. Even believers have used passages such as these to suggest that we are born in sin, shameful from our very beginning, and that sex acts are inherently vile.

While I can see where such interpretations are coming from, I feel that they are unnecessarily negative. It would be very helpful to know how ancient Israelites felt about these requirements, and whether they felt ashamed of them. We do not have that information, so we must be careful to not assume how they must have felt about these requirements.

On the matter of uncleanliness, I wish to point out that unclean is not one and the same as guilty or evil. There were many things that could make one unclean, including things that a person would have no willful agency over. A man having a nighttime emission was unclean for a time. A man stumbling over the corpse of a pig was unclean for a time. It is more accurate to think of uncleanliness as the spiritual equivalent to getting mud on our clothes. Getting muddy is nothing for us to be ashamed of. Sometimes it just happens, and we are not lesser people because of it. And yet, while we are muddy, we still keep distant from formal functions, public events, and clean places. We know we have to take a bath and wash ourselves before we go to these sorts of places because there is just too much earth on us.

Being unclean in the Old Testament seems to be the same, but in the realm of the spirit. The things that make one unclean are do not need to be shameful or guilty, they just happen to leave too much “earth” on us. They are things that mark us with the residue of the mortal world. Given that perspective, it is hard to think of anything so mortal as giving birth, and it makes sense that that would therefore make one ritually, but not morally, unclean.

Not only does birth involve the bringing forth of a mortal soul, but as verse 5 specifically calls out, it involves a considerable discharge of mortal blood. Many have noted that the purifying period is doubled when having an infant girl, and that this is likely due to the fact that this act of childbirth is inseparably connected to the female sex. The bringing forth of another woman means bringing forth another vessel of mortality. It is both issue and future issue all in one, so two purification cycles.

In tomorrow’s verses we will hear about the offerings that would accompany a new child’s birth, including a sin offering. In that post I will address why I think this offering is also not so shameful as some seem to think.