Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:19-22

19 And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering:

20 And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.

21 And if he be poor, and cannot get so much; then he shall take one lamb for a trespass offering to be waved, to make an atonement for him, and one tenth deal of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering, and a log of oil;

22 And two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering.

We have seen before how the conditions of an offering could be adjusted according to the wealth of the subject. Other things could not be, where the same offering required of rich and poor. The fact that variance was allowed in the offering of the healed leper speaks to the human condition where misfortune befalls us all.

Leprosy was not only an affliction of the poor and the old, but even of the young and the rich. It could even befall a high ranking military leader, such as Naaman. Righteous people could have leprosy, and wicked people could also.

It is woven into our nature to expect good for good, and bad for bad. That expectation is due to our appropriate understanding of justice. And to some extent, there is some truth to it. In general, the righteous avoid a great deal of affliction and stress because of their clean and honest living, while the wicked bring natural negative consequences by their dirty and offensive behavior. But in this fallen world, none of this is absolute. The righteous and the clean-living will still get cancer, still have to bury their child, still be at the mercy of the wicked. So, knowing that virtue alone will not protect us, we often seek further assurances in wealth. And with it many ailments of life may be staved off, but it is still not absolute. Even the rich will have an earthquake destroy their home, develop a crippling disease, or lose much of their estate in a messy divorce.

So, too, rich and poor alike could have leprosy, and their offering requirements for cleanliness would reflect that.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:12-18

12 And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord:

13 And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:

14 And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand:

16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord:

17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering:

18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord.

We are now to phase two of the ritual to induct a former leper back into the Israelite community. This part sounds the most familiar to the other rituals we have heard of. A trespass and a sin offering are a common pairing, so it is no surprise to see them here as well. And of course, this does not mean that the leper was guilty of immoral sins, but that his leprosy had been an embodiment of the fallen world, not of heaven, and he had to be cleansed of that telestial stain.

So far this has been perfectly standard, but then we take a most unexpected turn. In verse 14, 17, and 18 we hear that the priest would take blood and oil, and apply it to the leper’s right ear, right thumb, and right great toe, as well as pouring oil on the leper’s clean-shaven head.

The only other times we have heard of blood being applied to ear, thumb, and toe, and anointing with oil, it was for the priests, to prepare them for their service in the tabernacle. Why would it also be done for a leper, who is certainly not being made into a priest?

When we previous saw the application of blood to the ear, thumb, and toe it seemed to represent consecrating one’s hearing, work, and path to the Lord, and obviously that should also apply to any Israelite who makes restitution with the Lord, yet we don’t see this same act being done for ordinary sin and trespass offerings. Only here for the lepers. So why?

Honestly, I’m probably going to need to think on this for longer, but the first suggestion that came to my mind was because of the sacredness of suffering that the leper had gone through. There is an incredibly sanctifying experience when we pass through deep pain, especially pain that is not due to our own sins. It makes our hearts tender, it makes our souls teachable, and it makes our priorities recalibrate. I have seen and personally experienced how those who suffer, and hold their faith through it, and then return to peaceable living, come back more consecrated than ever before. It is not unlike a priest who is more fully consecrated to the Lord just by his office. I wonder if this ritual was attached to the leper as a mark of respect and appreciation for who he had become by the things that he had suffered.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:8-11

8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.

9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.

11 And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

After the little ritual with the birds, the former leper would wholly wash himself. He would wash his clothes, his body, and even shave off all of his hair. He would be like a newborn again.

This born-again symbolism continues as we hear that the leper would wait eight days, then come to the tabernacle to make an offering. We only recently learned how eight days was exactly how long a newborn boy would wait before being circumcised, and afterwards both boy and girl children would be brought to the tabernacle to have offerings made, just like happens here with the leper.

As verse 11 says, the leper is being presented to the Lord at the tabernacle, that he might be welcomed back into the congregation, just as he would have been welcomed the first time at his birth. The leper is being reborn and reinstituted to the Israelite family, just as we are baptized, reborn, and reinstituted back to the family of God.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:4-7

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:

6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Right away, we can see that the ritual for a person cleansed of leprosy is very different from the sort of offerings we have seen thus far. This isn’t our standard sin and burnt offering, but something that seems to have far more of a narrative to it. The actions that take place with the birds tell a story of two beings, one that is consigned to death and another that goes free.

Let us look at each step in turn. First, one of the birds is killed, but specifically in an earthen vessel over running water. An earthen vessel would mean something like a clay pot, not a woven basket. This earthen vessel immediately suggests a body. Our theology speaks of us having a spirit that resides within a terrestrial body, a tabernacle of clay in which is the breath of life. So, the bird is the life within that body.

And the body with that life within it is held over running water, such as a stream or a creek. Running water is living water, self-purifying and good for drinking and washing. It is the Spirit of God. This suggests that the life within the mortal body is attuned to the Spirit of God, it has the babbling of the living brook echoing within its clay walls.

If it wasn’t obvious already, this is all a symbol for Christ. Jesus Christ is the good bird who descended from heaven into an earthen vessel, a mortal body, and who there remained attuned to the Spirit of the Father. And just like the bird, Jesus was slain while in this form.

And into the blood of that sacrifice is dipped the second bird, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. Wood, like what the cross was made of. Scarlet cloth, like the robe that the Roman guards dressed Jesus in to mock him. Hyssop, like what carried the vinegar to Jesus’s lips in his last hour.

And what of the second bird? Well, that is us. That is the leper. That is the poor sinner. That is the weak and the broken. We are dipped into the blood of the sacrificial Savior, then released over an open field. It is our spirit redeemed and freed, saved by the blood of Christ’s sacrifice. It is the leper’s body redeemed from its infection and freed from its disease.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:1-4

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:

3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

In the last chapter we heard all about the ways that a priest would diagnose a person with leprosy, and how such a person would have to then live in semi-quarantine, but today we hear what would happen when the leprous person was healed. The term “leprosy” in the Bible seems to cover a broad array of skin infections, and some of them would heal after some time. The leprous person, having been declared ritually unclean, would now need a ritual to be brought back into the fold, returned to full clean status with all his brothers and sisters.

An interesting bit of information comes in verse 3, where we learn that the priest would go out of the camp to where the leper lived. Obviously, this is because the leper needs to be cleansed before he can come into the midst of the people where the tabernacle is.

There is in this an obvious representation of the prodigal son who leaves the fold to embrace his sins, who then has a “come to Jesus” moment and returns to the faith that he had abandoned. And as in that story, the priest/father goes out to meet him while still afar off and brings him the rest of the way home. Even today, we see how a wayward soul trying to return may not immediately feel one with the community of the Lord, and requires some sort of ritual to fully bring him in. He needs something that feels like God coming into his heart, a place of shame and guilt, to claim him. Perhaps this ritualistic God-claiming occurs today when the sinner makes confession to a priest, or takes communion, or some other significant act that represents putting off the unclean sinner and taking on the cleansed disciple.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Being Right vs Being True

There is a world of difference between wanting to be right,
Versus wanting to be true.
Seek to be true, even when it reveals that you weren’t right.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Summary

Wandering Thoughts)

I’ve spent the last two weeks on this series, discussing the ineffective and outright bigoted ways that people evangelize against other faiths. It is a subject that has stirred my passions many times in the past, and certainly again while writing each post. At several points I thought I was finished but then had “one more thing” that I wanted to include. I apologize that this hasn’t made the series very structured. What you see in this blog is my personal study in its raw form, not a refined or final product.

As such, I thought I ought to make one final post to summarize everything that came before, to try and bring it into a clearer, more concise package. Here are what I personally take out as the core distinctions described in this study:

1. The distinction between having a respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences and trying to win an argument over the beliefs of another.

A respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences is defined by:

  • Seeking a sincere understanding of the other’s position.
  • Letting each side define their own beliefs.
  • Acknowledging personal uncertainty, admitting to gaps that are filled by faith.
  • Being open to being wrong, to gaining greater enlightenment and changing.
  • Being driven by a spirit of brotherhood, with genuine appreciation for one another.

Trying to win argument over the beliefs of another is defined by:

  • Being filled with a spirit of destruction.
  • Trying to define the faith of the other.
  • Mocking what is sacred to the other.
  • Maintaining absolute certainty in one’s position, considering it impossible to be wrong.
  • Being fueled by a spirit of contempt, needing to own one’s opponent, needing to condemn them.

2. The distinction between evangelizing for a faith vs evangelizing against a faith.

Evangelizing for a faith is defined by:

  • First establishing a genuine relationship of care and respect for the other party.
  • Speaking from the beauty of your gospel.
  • Inviting all to listen and learn more if they wish.
  • Presenting your doctrine as something to add to the faith they already have.
  • If the other party is not interested in investigating further, still maintaining respect and an ongoing relationship of brotherly-kindliness.
  • Leaving all judgments to God, not assuming His position.

Evangelizing against a faith is defined by:

  • Describing all that is wrong in the other’s faith.
  • Seeking to take away what faith a person has.
  • Condemning the other person, standing in for God to judge them.
  • Offering your doctrine as the last remaining option after their original faith has been destroyed.
  • Creating a relationship of spiritual dependency in the other person.

In Conclusion)

I spent so long on this subject because I believe it describes a pernicious evil that goes largely unrecognized in our culture. It is presented under the guise of “I’m trying to help save souls,” but secretly seeks to crush them. It is one of the most relevant modern examples of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it is those sneaky, camouflaged sins that need the most attention to call them out.

I also wanted to be clear that I’ve been on both sides of these matters, and I shared about those experiences a few times in this study. I know what it is to have a positive, uplifting, mutually-faith-reinforcing conversation with people that believe differently from me. I also know what it is to want to win an argument and decimate the doctrines of another person. I’m trying to live after the better pattern now, but I have at times given in to ego and pride just like anyone else. As such, I know the spirits that lie behind both approaches. I know that the first kind is good, and of God. I know that the second is evil, and of Satan.

I know the pure, clarifying, life-giving water of genuine spiritual dialogue. I know the devilish surge of adrenalin in the wine of contention. The latter is seductive, but the former is life-giving, and I hope that you and I may approach one another as brothers and sisters and share a drink of it together.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Example of Joseph Smith

A Principle of Tolerance)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and as such, have been instilled with the principles of religious liberty and mutual respect that our founders so strongly espoused. I do not know if many outsiders understand how deeply that principle is ingrained within our church. I would like to give two quotes that demonstrate the sort of teaching that we were given on the matter by our founder, Joseph Smith.

First, when asked by newspaper editor John Wentworth to give a description of our beliefs Joseph Smith detailed our 13 most fundamental tenets, now canonized as our 13 Articles of Faith. Number 11 reads as follows: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Even more emphatically, Joseph Smith declared the following to a gathered congregation of the church in Nauvoo, “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”

Further Context)

It should be noted that Joseph penned the first quote in 1842, he spoke the second quote in 1843, and he was murdered in 1844. Before making either of those quotes, Joseph Smith had already been disparaged, tortured, and nearly killed many times over. His people had had their homes burned, their women raped, and their men slaughtered. Since 1838 the state of Missouri had had a standing order permitting the killing of any member of the church.

It is certain that some of those who oppressed and killed Joseph Smith and his people were of the same denominations that he spoke in defense of the rights of in 1843. He made that declaration knowing full well who his attackers were, apparently able to separate the devilish nature of the individual from the respectable faith of the whole.

Of course, the doctrines he restored stood in disagreement to doctrines in those other churches. And yes, he taught that these other churches had adopted false creeds which were an abomination to God. But those doctrinal disagreements did not mean that he reviled the sincere holders of those beliefs or wanted their churches to be crushed. Indeed, his words show quite the opposite. Joseph Smith is arguably one of the most perfect examples of both having utmost respect for the beliefs of others, while also disagreeing profoundly with them. He knew that people have the right to their faith, and that changing the beliefs of another was to be done only by loving invitation, not by decimation of their doctrine. I will finish with just a few more quotes from him that illustrate this clearly.

“If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up… If I cannot persuade him my way is better, I will ask no man to believe as I do,” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“In relation to the power…which I hold, I would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrines which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them and not because of any compulsion on my part… I ask, did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached if he saw fit?” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained… only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned,” (D&C 121:41).