Posted by: thaishin | August 25, 2017

About uncleanness in Levitucus 12 and 15

Question from moody radio listener on June 24, 2017:

I would like to hear your insights on Leviticus 12 through 15 where it talks about the cleansing of women and women’s customary impurity and after she bears a female child, her impurity is twice as long as a male and also in chapter 15, during the customary impurity, she’s unclean during the impurity and after seven days afterward, it seemed that she spends about half her life being impure.

Passages referred to in this question:

Leviticus 12

12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.  -kjv

Leviticus 15

18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.

26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.

27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.

29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;

33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.  -kjv

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

As for the impurity, it seems to me through reading the torah, that it was considered bodily discharges were considered ritually impure. Now, I don’t know why that is, but bodily discharges like for example an open sore that has oozing coming out of it would make someone ritually impure. So, obviously, the menstrual cycle was something that would make women ritually impure, doesn’t mean immoral or like there was something sinful but just something that would be considered an impurity.

Now as to why for women who give birth to a female child is considered impure for twice as long as when she gives birth to a male child, I am going to give you the answer as it is found in the moody bible commentary. This is from commentary on Leviticus, written by one of our favorite professors here at moody bible institute. Here’s what he writes, ” The birth of a female child double the period of impurity for the mother. No explanation for this is given” Don’t we hate that? “Though some speculate that the female child would some day be subject to ceremonial uncleanness through menstruation and child birth.” Because a female would one day menstruate, because a female would one day give birth, that makes her have, some people speculate because of that future, she causes double impurity and therefore, it’s like that. So, I don’t think it says in anyway that the female is inferior, it’s just dealing with the impurity aspects of it and I appreciate that John in his commentary that he states he don’t know but this is the speculated reason. That’s the speculation that most Old Testament interpreters hold to.  Then he says:” Whatever the case, the Lord uses His sovereign right to mark the distinction between the sexes, even from birth.” And I think he’s right, this is all the Lord’s sovereign decision and that’s how it is.

Question:

” So then how does the women get along with half her life being unclean?”

Answer:

Well, not half her life but for the time that she is menstruating. She starts menstruating when she’s at puberty and usually it’s in mid-life that menstruating stops.

Question:

And it still seemed a whole bunch of time to me

Answer:

I understand. What can I say? Some people have say, as a result, it’s more likely, obviously sexual relation is prohibited during this time of ritual impurity. Then, when a married couple would have sexual relations, when it was permitted, it was more likely a woman will get pregnant because the week after menstruation, she likely would not. So, maybe that was the design to encourage child bearing? I don’t know.

I do think that it’s interesting that a lot of times, people call menstruation a curse. That’s not the curse. The curse is pain in child birth. That’s really hard and I am amazed at the great strength of women, that they endure the awful pain during childbirth and that’s part of the curse.

 

Advertisements
Posted by: thaishin | August 12, 2017

Is the Anti-Christ a homosexual?

Daniel 11

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.  -kjv

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.  -niv

37 He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.  -hcsb

Haggai 2

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.  -kjv

I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.  -niv

I will shake all the nations so that the treasures of all the nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,” says the Lord of Hosts.  -hcsb

Question from moody radio listener:

I read Daniel 11:37, talking about the Anti-Christ, “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, could we take it that in today’s context, with the worldwide rise of homosexuality, that Daniel may have give us a glimpse. Is the anti-Christ a homosexual? Moody commentary gave an interpretation, but I wonder if current events would give an additional theory?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

The commentary says that these are the characteristics he will have: he will be temporary successful, he will prosper till the indignation’s finished, he will be irreligious, he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers, he will be opposed to Christ, he will show no regard of the desire of women, a reference to the longing of the Jewish women to give birth to the Messiah, the desire of whom He is the one, a sort of a nominal way of saying that who is the one desired of women, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, that every Jewish women wanted to give birth to the Messiah, that was the desire of women.  In Haggai 2, the Lord Jesus is described in similar way as the desired of the nations.

 

 

 

Posted by: thaishin | August 11, 2017

Why is external wear part of a woman’s christian walk?

Question from moody radio listener on Aug 5, 2017:

Really happy to ask you this question because it’s your Jewish heritage from your perspective. My question is about head covering in Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians and really what my question is was this something that was in Judaism or was it something that was new or was it a practice that was neglected but more importantly what really troubles me is why would Paul call for an external practice such as something you wear to be part of a woman’s Christian walk?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

Good. That’s a really good question. 1 Corinthians 11 really begins with the structure of authority, the authority listed this way: I want you to know that Christ is the head or ruler of every man and the man is the ruler (this not talking about every man being a ruler of woman but it’s talking about male leadership in the local congregation), the head or the male is the ruler of the woman, so there is male leadership (just like what 1 Timothy 2 is talking about) and then it says God is the ruler of Christ.  They are fully equal in essence just like man and woman are fully equal but God the Father has functional authority over Christ. In essence, who they are, fully equal, co-members of the God head but the Lord Jesus says I’ve come not to do my will but the will of the one who sent me, always submissive to the Father’s will, that’s in John 6. What this is saying is God the Father is the authority, the functional authority over Christ, just as man in the local congregation is the functional authority over the woman in the congregation, just as Christ is the authority, the functional authority over man. That I believe, because of that essence over there, that doesn’t change in this passage. But one of the things in that culture and in that day, the way a woman show respect for authority, on God’s authority on her life, one of the ways that she dress modestly in worship is by wearing a head covering, a veil. Now, that’s true for Jewish people but also true in the gentile world of Corinth that woman respect and honor by wearing a head covering, to show their modesty. Now, today, people say what do we do with this? The system remains intact. The functional authority of God the Father over God the Son, of God the Son over the man and the man over the woman, the function and leadership of the congregation, that remains the same. How woman expresses her submission to that authority is still with modest dress, of course today, being veiled,  wouldn’t express that. So what we have to do today is to find other ways that woman can dress modestly, fashionably if they like, but modestly, so that they are respectful of the authority structure in the congregation.  It’s one of the reasons why I don’t believe woman don’t have to wear veils today because that wouldn’t reflect that modesty and that respect that’s required but woman do need to dress modestly to reflect that respect. So, today there are other ways that woman can find to dress modestly without wearing a head covering.

Posted by: thaishin | May 6, 2017

Is there anything lacking in Christ afflictions?

Passage to be considered:

Colossians 1

24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:  -kjv

24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.  -niv

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for His body, that is, the church.  -hcsb

Question from moody radio listener on April 8, 2017:

There’s a verse colossians 1:24 and I have an amplified bible and it says:

24 [Even] now I rejoice in the midst of my sufferings on your behalf. And in my own person I am making up whatever is still lacking and remains to be completed [on our part] of Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Can you shed some light on that? I mean I feel that Jesus did it all, you know and what is Paul talking about?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

The word that is used here for affliction is never used in the new testament of the Messiah’s death. Never. It means distress, it means pressure or trouble and it refers to trials in life. I don’t believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his passion has to be supplemented by anything but rather I think it has more to do with … do you remember when the Lord Jesus meets Paul on the road and he said why do you persecute me? Paul was not persecuting Jesus, he was persecuting His body but yet it was taken personally because we have this organic bond as from the body to the head and so as we suffers, he suffers, it’s not his suffering on our behalf was not complete, that’s a different word but it completes the man of suffering so to speak as described in Isaiah 53, acquainted with grief, it is part of his identification with humanity and as we suffer, we identify with him in doing that and that’s what we are talking about. It’s not talking about we somehow supplement the substitionary suffering and the passion of the Lord Jesus on our behalf. It’s a different idea, it’s more of the affliction of life, in this world we will have tribulation and we have the organic bond with him and we are connected as a body to the head, therefore he suffers with us.

 

 

Posted by: thaishin | April 16, 2017

Happy Resurrection Sunday!

Christ is risen!

Posted by: thaishin | April 14, 2017

Where did baptism come from?

Question from moody radio listener on openline on April 8, 2015:

I want to know where baptism came from? It’s not mentioned in the old testament as far as I know and then new testament starts with John the Baptist baptizing.  So where did baptism come from?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

It’s really simple. If you go to Leviticus, you see all these washings, like the priestly washings and purity washings, that’s the source of baptism. By the time you come to the intertestamental period,  the rabbis have established all kinds of ritual baths that people participated in and there are a variety of reasons, there are some for converts to Judaism, the ritual purity for women after their monthly cycle, men with all sorts of symbol cleansing from sin, there are all kinds like the high priest would undergo ritual washing to enter into his office, all sorts of ritual washings that are rooted in the book of Leviticus, Numbers and all sorts of places like that. That’s where it comes from and so when John the Baptist shows up and he’s baptizing, no one says hmm what’s he doing? It fully fits the culture of the day. They understood exactly where it is coming from. It develops from the pentateuch, goes into intertestamental period with all the  rabbinic washings and then we get new testamental washings that are just part of the culture on that day and time and then John the Baptist and then the Lord Jesus gives it its own special believing significance. Hope that helps.

Posted by: thaishin | April 14, 2017

His nail scarred hands will still be visible to us

Remembering Good Friday April 14, 2017

 

Posted by: thaishin | March 31, 2017

Were there more than two criminals?

Matthew 27

38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.  -kjv

Matthew 27

44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.  -kjv

Question from moody radio listener on Mar 25, 2017 on openline:

Could you help me understand regards to the passages that referred to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus? Matthew, Mark implied that multiple criminals taunted Jesus. In Luke’s account, one of the criminals acknowledged who Jesus was and rebuked the other one. Could there have been more than just two? Normally, we just assumed there have been three of them, two criminals, one who believed and one who did not and Jesus in the middle. Could there have been more criminals crucified who would have been taunting Jesus?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik and his wife Eva Rydelnik.

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

I don’t think there were just Jesus and the two criminals there. When the Romans executed people, they did a whole bunch. Probably there were more people taunting Jesus than just the two there. It appears that what you have in Luke is one of those who were there being crucified with the Lord Jesus, he’s the one who repents and that’s the one whom Jesus says “this day you will be with me in Paradise” and there’s probably a wide street where many people were being crucified for a variety of reasons. The word that is used here for thiefs is better rebels, these were probably …

Eva Rydelnik:

They were zealots against Rome. They were political activist against Rome, which is why one of the charges against Jesus which led to him being crucified was …

Dr Michael Rydelnik :

The king of the Jews trying to bring down the Romans.

Eva Rydelnik:

They use a political accusation against him.

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

So they were people who were involved in revolt against Rome.

Eva Rydelnik:

In Matthew 27:44, it just say the robbers who were crucified with him were insulting him but it doesn’t say they were dissidents. In verse 38, it says at that time, two robbers were crucified with him. One on the right, one on the left, so in verse 38, it says there were two, in verse 44, it says the robbers. The fact that there were two does not limit that there was only two.

Posted by: thaishin | March 24, 2017

How does God relate to His people?

Question from moody radio listener on openline on March 18, 2017:

In Leviticus, it seems that God is continually telling the Israelites that if they do positive things toward Him, then they will be blessed and if they lived wrongly, they will be punished. Is that how God related to His people back then and is that how He relates to His people now?

Answer from Michael Rydelnik and Larry Feldman:

Michael Rydelnik:

I think there was a general principle, back in the days with the Law of Moses, Deutronomy 28 to 30, Leviticus 26. It taught that God blesses His people for obedience, and He will discipline them, not punish them, for lack of obedience.  I think that was the general principle but even in the days when Israel was living in the land, at that time, they still struggled because they saw that there were times when it wasn’t quite working out that way. The premise that the writer Asaph has, in Psalms 73, is God is indeed good to Israel, to the pure in heart. He says that God is going to bless them who are pure in heart but then he says as for me, my feet almost slipped, my steps nearly went astray and then He starts talking about the prosperity of the wicked.Then he says, wait a minute, it’s not going like I thought, here the wicked are prospering and I am suffering. The basic principle is God blesses those who are obedient, disciplines those who are disobedient but sometimes, God allows difficulties into the lives of those who are obedient so that we can become more obedient.

Larry Feldman:

I think also sometimes people also lose sight of the fact of the fact that God made an unconditional covenant through David and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31, he makes many an Abraham but they forget that the Mosiac covenant is a conditional covenant. God says that as long as you are obeying and walking with me, I will bless you. If you get out of line, God has grace but He will discipline their disobedience and we see that thoughout Israel’s history.

Michael Rydelnik:

Yeah, you look at Hebrews 11:32 to 40, you talk about believers who are faithful, it talks about some people who had great victories like Gideon and Barack and all those but others suffered extremely, many of whom the world are not worthy. I would say we can’t play hard and fast that this will always be, we don’t know the mind of God.

 

Posted by: thaishin | March 12, 2017

Who is Nabonidus?

Question from moody radio listener on Mar 11, 2016?

Nabonidus? Belshazzar? Nebuchadnezzar? Nabonidus, where does he fit in as far as heritage as is concerned, grandfather? father? I am studying this a lot and I am just baffled by it.

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

There is nothing to be that baffled about, Nabonidus is the son of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who is mentioned in Daniel 5, is his son, so some people say that the king should have been Nabonidus but in scripture, it says to be Belshazzar, what we know now is that Belshazzar is co-regent with Nabonidus and that’s why in Daniel 5, he says anyone who can interpret the handwriting on the wall will receive a third of my kingdom, could not give half because he had half and basically was co-regent with his father, Nabonidus. So, even though Nabonidus is not mentioned, but Belshazzar, his co-regent was and then Daniel interprets the hand writing on the wall. So, does that make sense to you?

Moody Radio listener:

It becomes very confusing, Amel-Marduk is Nebuchadnezzar’s son and then Nabonidus, I can’t figure where he’s at?

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

He is the king who came third after Nebuchadnezzar.

 

 

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories