No much new to add here, just wanted to note where Jesus compares himself to the manna mentioned in Exodus (John 6:31-58). Manna can be regarded as another foreshadowing to Jesus and how He is the bread of life given from Heaven.
I'm going to go through the Leviticus commentary now and will note anything additional I come up with. Then I will be blogging new sections again starting with Numbers. Oh wait, I forgot to do the commentary on Job. So, I'll do that after Leviticus and then get back into Numbers.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Adding to Genesis notes
I have read through the commentary on Genesis from both of the books mentioned in my last post. I will now go back to my posts on Genesis and add some additional notes. Then I'm starting the commentary on Exodus. You can find these additional notes in the entry Genesis 1-11 and the entry Genesis 19-29.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Leviticus Part 2
Notes and thoughts over Ch. 14 - 27 (end of chapter):
Some interesting personal discharge and hygiene rules come into play in chapter 15. A commentary from my NIV student bible:
"Some of the rules regarding sex and bodily discharges mystify modern readers, but the Israelites took for granted that God had dominion over the most private aspects of their lives. The Bible does not provide a detailed rationale for these regulations. Some relate to health and hygiene: following the rules would help the Israelites avoid the venereal diseases that plagued their neighbors. Also, pagan religions commonly employed temple prostitutes, and God clearly intended for the Israelites to keep worship and sex separate."
I'm still personally confused about why women had to sacrifice doves or pigeons to "make atonement" after every period they had. I guess I get why people would be considered "unclean" during some of these different bodily discharges, but it seems implied that these unclean times are considered sinful. I'm not sure, but since they are having to make sacrifices for these times, it makes me wonder if that is indeed what is implied. At least it's not just about women, less you think Leviticus is being sexist, it seems that when men had bodily discharges they had to make atonement with sacrifice as well. I'm just envisioning a lot of poor pigeons and doves dying...
So, maybe some of the washing instructions and things like that make sense, but perhaps I am not meant to fully understand the reason for additionally making the sacrifices. Was it perhaps a way to be a regular reminder of their feeble humanity and cause them to be humble in the presence of God living among them? Perhaps. Otherwise, I'm not sure.
In chapter 19, there seems to be a solid list of good rules, such as do not steal, do not pervert justice, do not seek revenge, etc. But, then it's immediately followed by do not plant your field with two kinds of seed and do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. So, some of the levitical laws seem to just make common sense while some are seen as curious to us now. But, it's interesting. A part of me even wonders if there is a deeper meaning behind some of of these, like the two kinds of material or two kinds of seeds instead of just the literal. But, I am not sure what.
Chapter 23:22 - "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God."
I think this is important because it is reminding us to be diligent in providing for those in need. It's also mentioned in chapter 19:9 - "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard an second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God."
A note on chapter 24:20's "eye for an eye" - In Matthew 5:38 Jesus explains about "turning the other cheek" instead. The NIV student bible's note says that "apparently people had been taking "eye for eye" as a basis for private vengeance - as some do today. The law's original intent, however, was to set a standard for punishment in court. It limited vengeance and made certain that both rich and poor, native and foreigner, would pay the same price for their crimes". This wasn't necessarily the norm in surrounding cultures of the day, so at the time it was somewhat of an advancement because it was an equalizer. Later though, as Jesus pointed out, it shouldn't have been abused and you should strive for forgiveness instead of any sort of vengeance. I believe, ultimately, that forgiveness can prove more healing than vengeance anyway.
I may take a break before jumping into Numbers so that I can read through some commentary books with notes regarding Genesis, Job, Exodus, and Leviticus. My friend Wendy loaned me these two books:
Halley's Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley and The MacArthur Bible Handbook: A Book-by-Book Exploration of God's Word by John MacArthur. I'll let you know what I think.
So, are you caught up in your reading? I hope to see you when I discuss Numbers.
Some interesting personal discharge and hygiene rules come into play in chapter 15. A commentary from my NIV student bible:
"Some of the rules regarding sex and bodily discharges mystify modern readers, but the Israelites took for granted that God had dominion over the most private aspects of their lives. The Bible does not provide a detailed rationale for these regulations. Some relate to health and hygiene: following the rules would help the Israelites avoid the venereal diseases that plagued their neighbors. Also, pagan religions commonly employed temple prostitutes, and God clearly intended for the Israelites to keep worship and sex separate."
I'm still personally confused about why women had to sacrifice doves or pigeons to "make atonement" after every period they had. I guess I get why people would be considered "unclean" during some of these different bodily discharges, but it seems implied that these unclean times are considered sinful. I'm not sure, but since they are having to make sacrifices for these times, it makes me wonder if that is indeed what is implied. At least it's not just about women, less you think Leviticus is being sexist, it seems that when men had bodily discharges they had to make atonement with sacrifice as well. I'm just envisioning a lot of poor pigeons and doves dying...
So, maybe some of the washing instructions and things like that make sense, but perhaps I am not meant to fully understand the reason for additionally making the sacrifices. Was it perhaps a way to be a regular reminder of their feeble humanity and cause them to be humble in the presence of God living among them? Perhaps. Otherwise, I'm not sure.
In chapter 19, there seems to be a solid list of good rules, such as do not steal, do not pervert justice, do not seek revenge, etc. But, then it's immediately followed by do not plant your field with two kinds of seed and do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. So, some of the levitical laws seem to just make common sense while some are seen as curious to us now. But, it's interesting. A part of me even wonders if there is a deeper meaning behind some of of these, like the two kinds of material or two kinds of seeds instead of just the literal. But, I am not sure what.
Chapter 23:22 - "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God."
I think this is important because it is reminding us to be diligent in providing for those in need. It's also mentioned in chapter 19:9 - "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard an second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God."
A note on chapter 24:20's "eye for an eye" - In Matthew 5:38 Jesus explains about "turning the other cheek" instead. The NIV student bible's note says that "apparently people had been taking "eye for eye" as a basis for private vengeance - as some do today. The law's original intent, however, was to set a standard for punishment in court. It limited vengeance and made certain that both rich and poor, native and foreigner, would pay the same price for their crimes". This wasn't necessarily the norm in surrounding cultures of the day, so at the time it was somewhat of an advancement because it was an equalizer. Later though, as Jesus pointed out, it shouldn't have been abused and you should strive for forgiveness instead of any sort of vengeance. I believe, ultimately, that forgiveness can prove more healing than vengeance anyway.
I may take a break before jumping into Numbers so that I can read through some commentary books with notes regarding Genesis, Job, Exodus, and Leviticus. My friend Wendy loaned me these two books:
Halley's Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley and The MacArthur Bible Handbook: A Book-by-Book Exploration of God's Word by John MacArthur. I'll let you know what I think.
So, are you caught up in your reading? I hope to see you when I discuss Numbers.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Leviticus Part 1
I read through chapters 1-13 and here is my take away:
Leviticus is full of laws and rules. Today, because of Jesus, we don't live in the world of Leviticus. For example, His self-sacrifice made the sacrifice of animals unnecessary. He replaced the high priest as our representative before God. Also, I'm starting to wonder if some of the laws in Leviticus ever did apply to us if we were not originally Israelites. The Gentiles, with different eating habits and customs, didn't have to change these things to become followers of Christ later on. In fact, it is pointed out that even if you don't eat pork and someone else does, it doesn't mean you can't both be followers of Christ. Acts 10 is where God shows there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the animals labeled "unclean" in Leviticus.
This got me thinking about when people like to use Leviticus to discredit the Bible, like Ch. 11:9-12 where it talks about not eating shrimp and stuff. It doesn't make sense to me to try to use one crazy rule from Leviticus in this way. Let's face it, the whole point of this time frame of laws was that God was trying to set a nation/people group apart for the first time. For the reason of forming a nation that was notably different from any other, couldn't it be plausible that God was purposefully being arbitrary when it came to these rules? These rules applied at that time for the Iraelites. Jesus fulfilled the law, and as I said earlier, some of these rules didn't seem to apply to none Iraelites that were believers.
Additional reasons for these rules could also have been health related for that place and time. Foot note from my student Bible:
"Scholars point out that many clean and unclean rules have good health habits behind them, such as the rule to quarantine a person with an infectious disease or the rule against eating pork (which carries many parasites). Others say that dietary laws were meant to keep the Israelites apart from their neighbors. Pigs were prominent in Canaanite worship; therefore the Israelites were not to eat pigs...The uncleanness rules of Leviticus are outmoded because of Jesus' declaration that all things are clean (Mark 7:19; see also Acts 10:9-16). But the lessons behind these rules remain valid. God still may not be approached carelessly. Each person must examine his or her life, to be certain that God's purity is not violated."
So as I was saying, trying to use one example from Levitical law as a reason to discredit the Bible as a whole seems baseless to me. People use it to point out that "there are lots of crazy rules in the Bible that are outdated and no longer apply to us so how can we trust anything in the Bible?". I don't feel this is fair. The Bible explains, so I'm not sure how it can even be used as an argument. You have to read the entire Bible and take it in context. It tells us when rules no longer apply and when they do. Also, if you see other examples where a rule still applies, and it's clear through out the Bible it's what God intended for us and applies to both Jews and Gentiles, Old Testament and New, before Jesus and after, then no, that's not the same as the one rule about shrimp that only shows up in Levitical law in the Old Testament. And, just because there is a rule that we no longer follow, because we do not have to, it does not mean we are advocating for picking and choosing parts of the Bible to accept. As Jesus said, unclean was made clean. We do accept that at that time, for the Iraelites, it was a way to set them apart from other nations. You have to read it to get it, and it aggravates me when people try to talk bad about the Bible based on things they clearly do not understand. Obviously I do not claim to be all knowing either, but help me out here, what do you think? Do people reference verses like this negatively just to justify their own picking and choosing?
Leviticus is full of laws and rules. Today, because of Jesus, we don't live in the world of Leviticus. For example, His self-sacrifice made the sacrifice of animals unnecessary. He replaced the high priest as our representative before God. Also, I'm starting to wonder if some of the laws in Leviticus ever did apply to us if we were not originally Israelites. The Gentiles, with different eating habits and customs, didn't have to change these things to become followers of Christ later on. In fact, it is pointed out that even if you don't eat pork and someone else does, it doesn't mean you can't both be followers of Christ. Acts 10 is where God shows there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the animals labeled "unclean" in Leviticus.
This got me thinking about when people like to use Leviticus to discredit the Bible, like Ch. 11:9-12 where it talks about not eating shrimp and stuff. It doesn't make sense to me to try to use one crazy rule from Leviticus in this way. Let's face it, the whole point of this time frame of laws was that God was trying to set a nation/people group apart for the first time. For the reason of forming a nation that was notably different from any other, couldn't it be plausible that God was purposefully being arbitrary when it came to these rules? These rules applied at that time for the Iraelites. Jesus fulfilled the law, and as I said earlier, some of these rules didn't seem to apply to none Iraelites that were believers.
Additional reasons for these rules could also have been health related for that place and time. Foot note from my student Bible:
"Scholars point out that many clean and unclean rules have good health habits behind them, such as the rule to quarantine a person with an infectious disease or the rule against eating pork (which carries many parasites). Others say that dietary laws were meant to keep the Israelites apart from their neighbors. Pigs were prominent in Canaanite worship; therefore the Israelites were not to eat pigs...The uncleanness rules of Leviticus are outmoded because of Jesus' declaration that all things are clean (Mark 7:19; see also Acts 10:9-16). But the lessons behind these rules remain valid. God still may not be approached carelessly. Each person must examine his or her life, to be certain that God's purity is not violated."
So as I was saying, trying to use one example from Levitical law as a reason to discredit the Bible as a whole seems baseless to me. People use it to point out that "there are lots of crazy rules in the Bible that are outdated and no longer apply to us so how can we trust anything in the Bible?". I don't feel this is fair. The Bible explains, so I'm not sure how it can even be used as an argument. You have to read the entire Bible and take it in context. It tells us when rules no longer apply and when they do. Also, if you see other examples where a rule still applies, and it's clear through out the Bible it's what God intended for us and applies to both Jews and Gentiles, Old Testament and New, before Jesus and after, then no, that's not the same as the one rule about shrimp that only shows up in Levitical law in the Old Testament. And, just because there is a rule that we no longer follow, because we do not have to, it does not mean we are advocating for picking and choosing parts of the Bible to accept. As Jesus said, unclean was made clean. We do accept that at that time, for the Iraelites, it was a way to set them apart from other nations. You have to read it to get it, and it aggravates me when people try to talk bad about the Bible based on things they clearly do not understand. Obviously I do not claim to be all knowing either, but help me out here, what do you think? Do people reference verses like this negatively just to justify their own picking and choosing?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
I'm back!
Wow. Obviously I failed on this blogging thing. Does that mean I should just throw in the towel? No. I started with the best of intentions, but my original idea of blogging AND reading all in just one year proved too much for me so I dropped the blogging part in favor of keeping afloat on the reading part. Well, I finished it! I read the whole Bible! I know this wasn't the way I had wanted the blog to get going (I feel like I just jumped in with a spoiler here), but now that I've completed the reading, I need to start blogging again. I feel it still holds value. So, I have a new goal. Now my goal will be to blog on the notes and thoughts that I took from this experience. I will probably end up reading it through a second time while doing this. But, with it spread over time, I hope the blogging part will be a little less daunting. Since I already did some posts here I don't want to just start over either. You, dear reader, can be privy to all my flaws. I'm not here to mask my mistakes and pretend I have it all figured out. Thank goodness I have Jesus. Let's try again, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)