Leviticus 21:16-23

[Guest Scott]

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Edited May 25, 2019 by Scott

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

This was a physical representation of how God expects us to be spiritually. 

The Law of Moses was introduced in a more literal and physical manner so that the Israelites would constantly remember Christ. Without it steep laws and specific requirements, they would forget their God and begin worshipping false idols (ie baal).

The spiritual equivalent to this law would be more like “be pure in heart, repent of your sins and live righteously. Otherwise you can’t come into my temple”.

Similarly, in the OT man was put to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. The modern day equivalent is “you will spiritually die if you break the sabbath.”

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

It seems to me that this was exactly in keeping with the Law of Moses' emphasis on ritual cleanliness, no different in principle from the idea that a menstruating woman was unclean and needed to avoid contact with others. The Lord requires our best, not merely "good enough". That's my take on it.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

I wonder whether we’re reading it the same way.  I read it as saying that people with a variety of physical characteristics/“deformities” were ineligible for temple service.  Are you reading it differently?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

or hath his stones broken;

I wonder what 'broken' means here. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder what 'broken' means here. 

Some questions are better left unasked.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Kinda puts a different perspective on the simple request to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament now, doesn't it?

Which may, now that I think of it, be part of the point of ye olden day prescripts. And quite indicative of what a spoiled, selfish, needy, me me ME, culture we live in. 

[askandanswer]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

If you search the scriptures using the phrase "Lamb without blemish" you might gain a better understanding of why the instructions given in Leviticus 21:16-21 were given. In the search I did just now, the phrase turned up 9 times, of which the following is representative:

14  And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,

(Old Testament | Numbers 6:14)

And of course, Christ, the true Lamb of God, was without blemish - 

36  For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broke
(New Testament | John 19:36)

 

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wonder whether we’re reading it the same way.  I read it as saying that people with a variety of physical characteristics/“deformities” were ineligible for temple service.  Are you reading it differently?

That's how I read it too.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's how I read it too.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  

I guess my response would that priestly temple worship in Mosaic times had a very theatrical element to it—you didn’t do it primarily for your own spiritual benefit; you did it to create a spectacle for others that they would find edifying.  

Having a priest who was known to be physically imperfect, in that role; would be rather like having a white actress playing Aida (in Aida), or a white actor playing Jim (in The Adventures of Huck Finn), or a ripped 6’5”, 300 lb guy playing young Cosette (in Les Miserables)—it undermines the spectacle and emotional punch that the drama’s creators are trying to create.  

Edited May 26, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Mores]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Having a priest who was known to be physically imperfect, in that role; would be rather like having a white actress playing Aida (in Aida), or a white actor playing Jim (in The Adventures of Huck Finn), or a ripped 6’5”, 300 lb guy playing young Cosette (in Les Miserables)

@Scott

Even when I attended live temple sessions in my early years, I heard people say that they actually went out of their way to go to a different temple because they rolled their eyes at seeing amateurish acting from an older couple trying to portray Adam and Eve.

It was just plain too distracting for them.  Can you imagine how distracting it would be if any of the actors we're handicapped or had huge boils or pustules all over their bodies.

We're not any better today than our ancient counterparts in that regard 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Mores

[Traveler]

I would point out that only priests were allowed at the inner parts of the temple where ordinances (sacrifices) took place.  Women and those that were not descended from Aaron (priests) were not allowed.  Jesus, being of Judah and not of Aaron (Levhi) was not allowed to be in the inner parts of the temple.  Interestingly John the Baptist was or should have been allowed; being the heir of Zacharias. When Jesus cleansed the temple it was the outer courtyards where all Israel were allowed.  In the Law of Moses, it nullified a ordinance (sacrifice) if the animal had blemishes or flaws - likewise it nullified if those performing the ordinance had blemish.  This is symbolic of purity of the "first born" of those that hold the priesthood and as a type and shadow of Christ also referenced by @Fether

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

On 5/25/2019 at 9:08 AM, Scott said:

I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

It is symbolic, not condemnation of the afflicted individuals. Elsewhere in the OT it is commanded to treat such with compassion and kindness.

[CV75]

On 5/25/2019 at 2:18 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder what 'broken' means here. 

In Old Testicle terms, injured testaments.

[mordorbund]

On 5/25/2019 at 9:08 AM, Scott said:

He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Interesting that Levites did not receive a land inheritance and were left at the mercy of Israel's generosity for sustenance. And here those who were physically barred from performing their duties in the temple were still provided for temporally.

[Guest Scott]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Elsewhere in the OT it is commanded to treat such with compassion and kindness.

There are a lot of places in the Old Testament were such aren't treated with kindness and compassion.

Here is 2 Samuel 5:8, for example:

8 And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Scott

[The Folk Prophet]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

In Old Testicle terms, injured testaments.

That doesn't answer the question at all.

As @Vort said, however, some questions are better left unasked -- and unanswered.

[GaleG]

On 5/26/2019 at 12:07 AM, Mores said:

@Scott

Even when I attended live temple sessions in my early years, I heard people say that they actually went out of their way to go to a different temple because they rolled their eyes at seeing amateurish acting from an older couple trying to portray Adam and Eve.

It was just plain too distracting for them.  Can you imagine how distracting it would be if any of the actors we're handicapped or had huge boils or pustules all over their bodies.

We're not any better today than our ancient counterparts in that regard 

Is it important or not to accurately portray the appearance of Adam and Eve
in relation to age and how handsome/beautiful they were?

Thank you,

Gale

[mikbone]

15 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Is it important or not to accurately portray the appearance of Adam and Eve
in relation to age and how handsome/beautiful they were?

Thank you,

Gale

I guess it depends on the mindset / imagination of the beholder.

I have only seen one live session.  It was awesome.  Satan was incredible.  He corrected everyones mistakes and flipped his collar up to display his contempt.

Does it matter if Eve is blond, brunette, or redhead?

Not for me....

[Anddenex]

Quote

 I admit that Leviticus 21:16-21 has always made me uncomfortable.  Does anyone else feel the same way?  If it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, why not?  Some people just say something like "that was a long time ago and we dont have the answer" or blow it off, but some others who ponder such versus (including me) wonder why such things are in the scriptures.

What am I missing?

¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

No, these scripture passages to not make me uncomfortable. There are other passages in the Law of Moses that cause me to think -- really -- wow! Then I try to seek to understand what the Lord was doing through asking and receiving. There are some, like this one, that make sense in relation to the Law of Moses and as others have referenced "A lamb without blemish." In that light, it makes perfect sense in its relation to the Law of Moses.

Let's be frank though, it truly would suck to have been born blind, lame, or with a flat nose (nothing you can control) and not to be able to perform a service that others could. The School Master wasn't very friendly, and it wasn't meant to be. It was strict.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Anddenex

[theplains]

On 5/26/2019 at 9:49 PM, mordorbund said:

Interesting that Levites did not receive a land inheritance and were left at the mercy of Israel's generosity for sustenance.

The Levites were blessed with something far greater - the priesthood. See Numbers and Leviticus.

Jim