Linking our Physical Diseases to our Spiritual One; the Affects are Similar

Leviticus 13:47-59 

[picture from DoItYourself.com]

Verses 47 to 59 (of Leviticus 13) describe how a leper’s clothes were to be treated by the Israelites in the Old Testament. If there were ‘marks of leprosy’ found on them, they were to be shown to the priest and he would quarantine the article of clothing for seven days.  After seven days, he would declare it unclean (if it had spread) or clean (if it had not spread).  If unclean, it would be burned. If clean, it would be deemed so and allowed to be used again. 

Thoughts on the Passage

David Guzik reminds us that in Old Testament times, the term leprosy had a broad definition and could include some forms of mold or fungi. . .. The priests had to make careful determination to see if a garment might pass on a contagious disease or if it old still be used.

Robert Jamieson says “It is well known that infectious diseases, such as scarlet fever, measles, the plague, are latently imbibed and carried by the clothes. But the language of this passage clearly indicates a disease to which clothes themselves were subject, and which was followed by effects on them analogous to those which malignant leprosy produces on the human body--for similar regulations were made for the rigid inspection of suspected garments by a priest as for the examination of a leprous person.”

He continues, “It has long been conjectured and recently ascertained by the use of a lens, that the leprous condition of swine is produced by myriads of minute insects engendered in their skin; and regarding all leprosy as of the same nature, it is thought that this affords a sufficient reason for the injunction in the Mosaic law to destroy the clothes in which the disease, after careful observation, seemed to manifest itself. Clothes are sometimes seen contaminated by this disease in the West Indies and the southern parts of America [WHITLAW, Code of Health]; and it may be presumed that, as the Hebrews were living in the desert where they had not the convenience of frequent changes and washing, the clothes they wore and the skin mats on which they lay, would be apt to breed infectious vermin, which, being settled in the stuff, would imperceptibly gnaw it and leave stains similar to those described by Moses. It is well known that the wool of sheep dying of disease, if it had not been shorn from the animal while living, and also skins, if not thoroughly prepared by scouring, are liable to the effects described in this passage. The stains are described as of a greenish or reddish color, according, perhaps, to the color or nature of the ingredients used in preparing them; for acids convert blue vegetable colors into red and alkalis change then into green [BROWN]. It appears, then, that the leprosy, though sometimes inflicted as a miraculous judgment ( Num 12:10 2Ki 5:27 ) was a natural disease, which is known in Eastern countries still; while the rules prescribed by the Hebrew legislator for distinguishing the true character and varieties of the disease and which are far superior to the method of treatment now followed in those regions, show the divine wisdom by which he was guided. Doubtless the origin of the disease is owing to some latent causes in nature; and perhaps a more extended acquaintance with the archaeology of Egypt and the natural history of the adjacent countries, may confirm the opinion that leprosy results from noxious insects or a putrid fermentation. But whatever the origin or cause of the disease, the laws enacted by divine authority regarding it, while they pointed in the first instance to sanitary ends, were at the same time intended, by stimulating to carefulness against ceremonial defilement, to foster a spirit of religious fear and inward purity.”

All that to say that God knew exactly what He was demanding of the Israelites and why. That’s the lesson for us.  Trusting God, the Creator in His laws and believing that they are for our ultimate good.

Finally, Matthew Henry provides us with some additional insights. He perhaps gives us the ‘spiritual’ significance of the passage when he writes:

“The signification also was . . . to intimate the great malignity there is in sin: it not only defiles the sinner's conscience, but it brings a stain upon all his employments and enjoyments, all he has and all he does. To those that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, Tit. 1:15. And we are taught hereby to hate even the garments spotted with the flesh, Jude 23. Those that make their clothes servants to their pride and lust may see them thereby tainted with a leprosy, and doomed to the fire, Isa. 3:18-24. But the ornament of the hidden man of the heart is incorruptible, 1 Pt. 3:4. The robes of righteousness never fret nor are moth-eaten.”

So, there you have it. The bottom line is this. A physical disease can indeed affect our possessions. A spiritual disease affects everything we do and enjoy. People know when they have a physical disease. They often miss their own spiritual disease and its consequences.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

What Our Pastors, Priests, and Ministers Could Learn From What God Wanted of the Israelite Priests

-->

Exodus 28: Aaron’s Garments, Breastplate, Robe of the Ephod, Golden Plate, Tunic, and the garments of the Priests’

Exodus 28:1-43: In chapter 28 of Exodus, God gives detailed instructions for each of the items listed in our heading. Please read your preferred version of Scripture in parallel. Below we simply highlight some of the key features of the chapter for our study.

The first thing that we note here (in verse 1 in fact) is that God Himself selects those that would be His priests, His ministers and He does so from among the people.  David Guzik writes, “The priesthood of Israel was not ‘earned’ nor aspired to. It could only be inherited by birthright. One must be born into a priestly family. The priesthood was no place for ambition or self-glory. It was only entered into by God's call and invitation.” Not only is this critical in the selection of our ministers in our churches, but it is also important to us a laity. Guzik says, “In the New Covenant, our priesthood is also not earned nor aspired to. We are priests because of our new birth into Jesus' priestly family.”

We would do well to remember both these points when it is time for us to replace our spiritual leaders in our congregations.  We need to make sure it is God’s choice and perhaps rather than going thousands of miles away to find our man (or woman as the case may be), we need to look right within our own “people” as they too qualify.

In verse 2 we see that it is the congregation’s responsibility (with their special skills as per verse 3) to provide God’s selected priests or ministers with the needs of their office (here represented by their priestly garments). Today this may include their library, means of transportation, and even a residence. And it is here we also learn that it is the peoples’ responsibility to “consecrate” (bless, dedicate, or devote) the priests to enable them to minister (not so much to them) as to God Himself.

Much is said in the chapter about an ephod – this is the apron that the priest wore to perform their formal duties. God wanted two onyx stones to be set in the apron, one on each shoulder. On the stones, the names of the sons of Israel (or Jacob) would be engraved, six on each one, in order of birth. These are to be borne by the priests before God as a memorial. Matthew Henry suggests that by having the names of the twelve sons of Israel on them, that justified all the people of all the tribes to approach God through the priests.

Verses 15 to 31 tell us about the “breastplate” and there too, twelve stones represented the twelve sons of Israel, this time located over the heart of Aaron to be carried by him as a continuous memorial. Inside the breastplate, also over the heart, were placed the Urim and the Thummim. The reference to the heart some believe is symbolic of the priests’ need not to just “serve God by serving the people” but also to love the people they serve. How often is our service to God solely out of duty without true love for those whom we serve “for” God?

Robert Jamieson says these two words signify "lights" and "perfections". He writes, “They received the name because the bearing of them qualified the high priest to consult the divine oracle on all public or national emergencies, by going into the holy place--standing close before the veil and putting his hand upon the Urim and Thummim, he conveyed a petition from the people and asked counsel of God, who, as the Sovereign of Israel, gave response from the midst of His glory. Little, however, is known about them.” He goes on, “But it may be remarked that Egyptian judges wore on the breast of their official robes a representation of Justice, and the high priest in Israel long officiated also as a judge; so that some think the Urim and Thummim had a reference to his judicial functions.”

Chuck Smith writes this about the Urim and the Thummim: “Now some believe that the Urim and the Thummim were actually two stones, a black stone and a white stone; that in the inquiring of the Lord, the priest would reach in and pull out one of the stones. If he pulled out the white stone, it was God saying yes. If he pulled out the black stone, it was God saying no. That is one of the most prominent theories of what the Urim and the Thummim actually were. Two stones by which the priest would say, "God show us, shall we go now?", and he'd pull [out a stone] and if the white stone would [come] out, "Yes, we go now", [if] the black stone would [come] out, "No, we wait". Then they would keep asking questions that could be answered by yes and no, inquiring of the Lord for directions and guidance.” In the New Testament the apostles tried to discern God’s will by drawing straws and casting lots. The problem with this is that it only allows the Infinite God two possible answers to our questions and keeps from us anything “different” God may want to say to us.

Matthew Henry suggests that whatever they were, they were directly made by God. And goes on to suggest that having these, given their meaning, “ . . . the High Priest was endued with a power of knowing and making known the mind of God in all difficult doubtful cases, relating either to the civil or ecclesiastical state of the nation. Their government was a theocracy: God was their King, the high priest was, under God, their ruler, the Urim and Thummim were his cabinet-council . . .”

Around the hem of the robe were golden bells alternating with pomegranates.  The tinkling of the bells would let the people know whenever Aaron was in the holy of holies performing his duties in accordance with God’s instructions. If the bells stopped ringing something had gone wrong and the priest had been “wiped out” by God. Thus there would be a rope tied on his foot, the end of which was left outside the veil, and if the bells were no longer heard, the other priests would drag his body out.

The chapter also describes Aaron’s plate (fastened to his turban, headgear) and inscribed with the words, “Holy to the Lord”. In verse 38 we read that through this plate Aaron was able to take away the iniquity (sin) of the holy things that people consecrated to God, making them acceptable or holy unto Him.

For Aaron’s sons, the people were to make tunics and caps.  Interestingly, these were simply for “glory and for beauty”. From that I take that God does not mind that we go to some extremes of adornment for Him (which I might add is considerably different than adornment for ourselves). This may also say something to us with respect to the dismal black (as Guzik calls it) that many of our priests and ministers wear today.  Guzik quotes Clarke who writes,

"Is then the dismal black, now worn by almost all kinds of priests and ministers, for glory and for beauty? Is it emblematic of any thing that is good, glorious, or excellent? How unbecoming the glad tidings announced by Christian ministers is a color emblematical of nothing but mourning and woe, sin, desolation, and death!"

Certainly this, along with many other things in this chapter, is worthy of our consideration today.

-->

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Also, I’ve read some good books and make some great recommendations for you at http://astore.amazon.com/accorconsu-20  which you can purchase right from there.  Finally, check us out at Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Does Moses Add His Own Condition Regarding Consecration? -- Exodus 19:14-15

So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments.  And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”
 

Every once in a while we are presented with a text in Scripture that some of us may find a little problematic or at least one that we need to dig deeper into.  This is one such verse for me, as you will see.

After God tells Moses that He wanted him to consecrate the people and to prepare them for His coming down “on Sinai”, Moses does return to the bottom of the mountain and consecrates the Children of Israel.  The people did indeed wash their garments as a symbol of their willingness to present themselves as being clean before God, but what about their hearts, their minds, and their lives or behavior?  The answer seems to reveal itself in later chapters and books of Scriptures.  While washing our clothes, we would do well, Matthew Henry suggests, to be thinking about washing our souls by repenting from the sins we have committed since our deliverance. He also writes, “It becomes us to appear in clean clothes when we wait upon great men; so clean hearts are required in our attendance on the great God, Who sees them as plainly as men see our clothes. This is absolutely necessary to our acceptably worshipping God.”  Note he is not saying we need our “Sunday best” to be worn at all times, but is calling for the equivalent in clean hearts.

But the real problematic part for me was the issue of whether or not the message of the need for consecration was only for the men?  Is that why Moses warned them “do not go near a woman” again until we have met with God?  If not, why was that said?

Commentator Chuck Smith simply states that this was spoken to men with respect to their wives.  That is, they were not to have sexual relations with them for this short period of time.  They were to just really set themselves aside for God, and God alone.  And perhaps since it was the men who in those days dominated the sexual relationships between husband and wife, Moses addressed this statement to them, while the whole consecration matter was intended for all the Children of Israel.

Moses was saying, “Look if you want to have done all you could to be ready to meet God when He comes down on Sinai, you need to focus on Him and that means no sex with your wives until after that – it’s only two days.”  You may think that what Moses was asking for was a little too much.  Well, maybe.  I must admit I am a little puzzled by it especially as we have no record here of God demanding this.  However, in I Corinthians 7:5, the apostle Paul writes the following: “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”  That’s the New Testament take on the same matter.  But it is addressed to both the husband and the wife.  Society had changed much on this topic from the day of Moses to the time of Paul.  The matter of equality of husband and wife, before God, continued to evolve as a concept in the New Testament, and neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught against this progression.

There is an excellent book on this very development, as well as two others, in Scripture written by William J. Webb. It is entitled Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring The Hermeneutics of Culture Analysis.  Intervarsity Press, 2001, is the publisher.

Did Moses add something here on his own initiative?  Perhaps he did, but God allowed it to remain as part of His Holy Word.  And Paul supported it many years later.  Did Moses do this because he felt it was appropriate and/or what God would expect?  Not sure.  This was not the last time that Moses was to act on his own.  And when he did so another time it cost him dearly.  However, here, clearly, even if he acted on his own initiative as a leader, God did not disapprove of his action.

Here’s the bottom line for me.  If we want to meet with God on the mountain and hear His voice and get His directions for our lives, it cannot be on a spur of the moment type of thing.  Great preparation is necessary.  And that means physical, mental, and spiritual consecration.  Sometimes I fear far too many of us are guilty of simply wanting what God has for us, but not willing to do our part to receive it.  Salvation may be a free gift of God that we cannot deserve or earn, but walking closely with God and benefitting from His being our Lord and Master, Teacher and Friend, requires hard work.  Just ask Moses or the host of other saints God has used mightily through the ages.

_____________________________________________________________________

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

________________________________________________________________________

 

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.