Monday, November 2, 2020

Leviticus. Day 72, Rules For Priests, Part Three: Disqualifying Conditions

Our passage today contains a list of disabilities and deformities that disqualified a man from the priesthood in ancient Israel.

It seems discriminatory to us, in our day, to disqualify a man for office based on something he can't help. But we know the Lord does not approve of discrimination, for He issued a stern warning that anyone who mistreats the disabled will have to answer to Him: "Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:14) So let's take a look at the disqualifying physical characteristics and discuss the purpose of them below.

"The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to Aaron: For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles." (Leviticus 21:16-20) Descendants of Aaron who have any of these conditions, which include those visible to the public (blindness, lameness, etc.) and those that would be hidden from the public (damaged testicles) cannot serve at the tabernacle. In my background study it appears that the majority of scholars believe this prohibition is intended as a metaphor. The Lord literally meant that men with these conditions couldn't serve Him as priests, but their physical disabilities and deformities are a metaphor for stains and blemishes and spots upon the character. 

The word translated as "defect" in verse 16 actually means "stain, blemish, or spot". Having the priests be visible examples of physical excellence is intended to be a reminder to the people that they must maintain excellence of character. No one with a moral or spiritual stain or blemish or spot can render service to the Lord. After all, we were unprofitable to Him while we were lost in our sins, weren't we? We are being unprofitable if, after coming to the faith, we fall into sin's trap and decide to stay there and wallow in it for a while and "enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season". (Hebrews 11:25) At a time like that we are not being a godly example to our fellow man and we are not being good representatives of our God. So whether we are living in sin that's out in the open, or whether we are harboring hidden sin, verses 16-20 are intended to remind us that we can't provide any useful service to our Lord while we are living in opposition to Him. Instead we are to devote everything we are to Him: our minds, our hearts, our souls, our hands, our feet, our eyes, our ears. We are to "offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God---this is your proper worship". (Romans 12:1) 

Most of us will probably never be called upon to lose our lives for Christ (to be martyred for our faith), but all of us are being called upon to devote ourselves to Him (to offer ourselves as living sacrifices). We shouldn't look at or listen to unholy things. We shouldn't use our hands and feet to perform unholy deeds. We should focus our thoughts on Him and on His laws as much as possible, for we are His representatives in a fallen world. If unbelievers don't think Christians seem very godly or even very likable, why should they want to hear our testimony about Jesus Christ? If they see no compassion or love or joy or holiness in our lives, why should they conclude that the Christian faith offers them anything the world doesn't?

In addition I think the presence of physical defects in the priests might cause the congregation to erroneously conclude that these men have sin in their lives that they are being punished for, or that there is generational sin that caused their family line to be cursed by God. A prevalent superstition in ancient times was that a person who developed a disability was being stricken by God as punishment for living in sin. Another prevalent superstition was that a child born with a disability was a judgment of God upon the parents for living in disobedience to Him. We find reference to this superstition in John 9:2 when Jesus and the disciples come upon a man by the roadway who was born blind. The disciples ask Jesus, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" The disciples don't understand that in a fallen world polluted by sin, disabilities simply happen due to naturally occurring errors of DNA or due to things that go wrong while the baby develops in the womb or due to an accident or injury of the expectant mother. Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned." Jesus isn't saying that the man or his parents are perfect and sinless. He's saying that the man's blindness didn't occur as a judgment from God as punishment for sin. Neither the man nor his parents had specifically done anything that brought blindness upon him. 

In our day in most cultures we wouldn't think that a child is born blind to punish his parents, but in ancient times this was a common belief and I think that's an additional reason why the priests of Israel weren't to have any physical defects, so no one in the congregation would think, "This man is a sinner, even though he's hidden his sin so well we don't know what it is." If the congregation believed their priest was living in sin, they could hardly be expected to listen to his advice. They would not only disrespect and disregard his authority, but they might come to disrespect and disregard the authority of the Lord.




No comments:

Post a Comment