-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lev 12
- Thread starter Judith
- Start date
I love this type of questions. While we know that laws of this nature don't apply to us, God did put them in the Bible for a reason. And we are to study them.
You'll get a lot of answers here.
But ... here's mine for what it's worth.
[1] Why the sin offering for merely giving birth? Being unclean was not a sin per se, but women and men alike were declared unclean in regards to all types of bodily emissions.
Giving birth and experiencing pain was part of a woman's curse. It still is. A curse upon women because of sin. While having babies and raising children is a great blessing and joy - the initial pain and bloody mess is a curse.
In my opinion (and I am no expert), the sin offering was for having to engage in the effects of a curse from God. An appeasement, in other words, for being cursed as a pregnant woman and giving birth in such a messy way and bloody way.
While don't women still have to do this? Same reason we don't do any of the strange ceremonial laws. The only shedding of blood that cleanses and saves is Jesus Christ's blood.
[2] Why a longer period of seclusion is a baby girl is born? Did you know that it's not uncommon at all for baby girls to be born with a bloody discharge from their own vagina and to experience one once brought home even?
Some say it's because of a hormonal exchange between the mother and the baby girl, but I don't know.
Hmmm...
TWO females having a bloody discharge. Hence, 66 days for seclusion as opposed to 33 for a male child.
There is no penalty here. No favoritism.
convicted1
Guest
Leave it to women knowing how to discuss womenly things womenly... 
:saint: :smilewinkgrin: :1_grouphug:
:saint: :smilewinkgrin: :1_grouphug:
Archie the Preacher
Member
Never heard this one before...
First: net.bible.org/#!bible/Leviticus+12:1 has a discussion note attached to this passage talking about what you asked.
Second: The "Law" had two functions (and perhaps more depending how one divides it up) - one function was to guard the health and well being of the Israelites, and the other was to demonstrate how adherence to a set of rules would not justify man (and woman) before the Lord. (Paul speaking about the Law in Romans 7:7 and the surrounding paragraph.)
So I think the 'blood purification' time after birth was quite possibly to protect the woman from infections and complications arising from 'knowing' one another shortly after birth. I don't have a guess why it was longer for girl babies.
I also took a quick look at the Judaism 101 website. They mention the longer period for girl babies and don't have an explanation either.
I am sure the Lord had a reason; He doesn't seem to do anything on a whim or caprice. But as with many other things, I can't guess why.
First: net.bible.org/#!bible/Leviticus+12:1 has a discussion note attached to this passage talking about what you asked.
Second: The "Law" had two functions (and perhaps more depending how one divides it up) - one function was to guard the health and well being of the Israelites, and the other was to demonstrate how adherence to a set of rules would not justify man (and woman) before the Lord. (Paul speaking about the Law in Romans 7:7 and the surrounding paragraph.)
So I think the 'blood purification' time after birth was quite possibly to protect the woman from infections and complications arising from 'knowing' one another shortly after birth. I don't have a guess why it was longer for girl babies.
I also took a quick look at the Judaism 101 website. They mention the longer period for girl babies and don't have an explanation either.
I am sure the Lord had a reason; He doesn't seem to do anything on a whim or caprice. But as with many other things, I can't guess why.
Hi Judith, we can draw applications from a passage that are applicable to our lives, but may not shed much light on the actual message of God.
So the safe and easy answer is we do not seem to know, because commentaries are all over the map.
Some of them, however contain this thought: The rules that categorize a person as unclean, do not seem to arise from any sin of the individual, but arise "naturally" from our physical bodies. So the whole "undeserved uncleanness" points not to some correctable behavior, but as a reminder of our fallen man (or woman) of flesh nature. In that light, the women who already experienced childbirth pain, was cursed with even more pain. So the undeserved and unequal period, upon reflection, might cause a person to consider our fallen condition, or more joyously, how we have been made holy and blameless and clean, by the sin offering of Christ.
As I said, this is slicing the baloney far to thin to teach as doctrine, but at least it provides food for thought.
Van
So the safe and easy answer is we do not seem to know, because commentaries are all over the map.
Some of them, however contain this thought: The rules that categorize a person as unclean, do not seem to arise from any sin of the individual, but arise "naturally" from our physical bodies. So the whole "undeserved uncleanness" points not to some correctable behavior, but as a reminder of our fallen man (or woman) of flesh nature. In that light, the women who already experienced childbirth pain, was cursed with even more pain. So the undeserved and unequal period, upon reflection, might cause a person to consider our fallen condition, or more joyously, how we have been made holy and blameless and clean, by the sin offering of Christ.
As I said, this is slicing the baloney far to thin to teach as doctrine, but at least it provides food for thought.
Van
Last edited by a moderator: