Carol's Page

Leviticus deals with many things that seem to be taboo for sermons and even for Sunday School classes.  Dealing with moral and ethical issues, sexual sin, and holy sacrifices that our modern sensibilities consider cruel and unacceptable, seems to be less appealing than telling the heroic stories in Hebrew history.   One of the uncomfortable things that both Leviticus and Numbers deal with is the fact that  the sins or errors committed unintentionally, unwittingly, or in ignorance (depending on your translation) carry with them guilt and the need for forgiveness just as  sins committed overtly.  Individuals and congregations are held responsible for errors they commit out of ignorance of the truth.  This is part of the reality of a just God that most of us would rather not include in our image of a loving God.   So if the Hebrew people were held responsible for sins they did not know they had committed and for committing sins that they did not know were sins what was the solution to this dilemma for those anxious to please God?

Although in the Hebrew laws and traditions there were godly instructions that outlined some of the do’s and don’ts and there were many very practical reasons for the rules regarding things that were considered unclean it seems there may have been more intense behavior than was intended.  Many other  laws we find in the Old Testament were expanded by the people to protect themselves against accidently breaking the law.  These ideas of being unclean might also generate fear that would make the concern greater than the law intended– such as the rules regarding lepers.  Leprosy was frightening and the fear of contracting leprosy would have made the instructions not to touch someone with the disease more intense and might have brought greater ostracism than was necessary.    With both the fear of breaking God’s law and the fear of the practical human consequences there must have been a constant awareness of clean and unclean people and things and behaviors.  For those who were serious about keeping the law this would have been a constant threat to their own physical and spiritual cleanness living everyday with the question – is it clean or unclean?

Our conversation in class about election added terminology that was new to me.   “Growing” or “moving” into election explains more concisely what I believe and what the simple term “election” misses.  The term “election” by itself presents a semantic problem that doctrinal teachings and theological ideals exaggerate in some traditions and that other traditions attempt to explain away.  Viewing the Hebrew people as growing into the place as God’s chosen is much more in keeping with the New Testament (Baptist) traditions of free will choice balanced with election.   It also provides a picture of the grace and mercy of God and His dealings with a willful, stubborn people.  The nation – the people as a whole were not all among the chosen – not all of them chose to be chosen.  Some who chose to be chosen were not racially connected or connected through familial bonds to the Hebrew race – but for those who did choose there were blessings and honored promises within conditional covenant with God.

When thinking in terms of the various passions that theologians have for their specific ideals in study it is odd to me that any one arena of thought could so involve a man or woman to the exclusion of the others.  Source criticism, form criticism or tradition or any other single hinge between the text and truths of the text is not logical to me.        It seems that all of these processes have a certain amount of merit and all have the potential of misguiding the reader -  Like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that stepped away from the sola Scriptura and included tradition, reason, and personal experience there seems to be profit in a balance in these methods.  Knowing the source to the best of our knowledge, understanding the literary style, seeing the likelihood of the author’s intent through context and historical placement must all be part of the study to understand Scripture and no single one of these should dominate.

It is so easy to identify with the Moses of Exodus chapters 3 and 4.  We can experience things that are clearly God’s hand – our own burning bushes that draw us near to God and prove His presence in our lives and before we have come down from that mountain top we are creating excuses to prove to God that we cannot do what He has asked us to do;  we don’t know all the answers, we would not be able to persuade others, we aren’t gifted with the right gifts for the job.   What we should be learning from Moses is not how best to make excuses but we should learn that God provides for our shortcomings and His power is what does the job regardless of what we are called to.   Unfortunately we don’t always learn the best lessons Scripture has for us and we can be Moses over and over again.

When a king arose in Egypt that did not know Joseph he expressed three fears about the growing number of Hebrew slaves.     

 (“ ¹they will join themselves to those who hate us and

²will fight against us and

³depart from the land” Ex 1:10)

In two of my undergrad classes and in one course at Truett I have had professors assign the task of pretending that something historically noteworthy did not happen or that someone did not exist as it is traditionally understood.  For example, I was asked to imagine in research format what the future of the church would have been if Benedict had not been born.  This often requires more intense investigation and reflection than direct study.  This was an interesting experiment for me as a class discussion direction when I taught Baptist history for Howard Payne as my internship experience.   

As I reread Genesis, some of the most familiar and some of my favorite passages, I am using this technique to look at the narratives in a different light.    What if Cain had simply turned away from God and the family instead of killing his brother?  What if Abram had not acknowledged God’s sovereignty and had refused to “sacrifice” his son?   What if Isaac had resisted fought his father and turned away from God in anger?   

This can be enlightening and frustrating but it allows me to consider God’s timing, creativity and force me to look at more difficult issues such as election and the preordained sovereign presence of a God I do not completely understand.