PDA

View Full Version : Atonement for women



Jeffinator
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:06 PM
Leviticus has some rules that are understandable and others that seem a little off centered. The wall I ran into is with chapter 15 and women and their monthly visit. Verses 29-30 say that after a womens period she

"must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge."

Didnt know having a period was a sin that needs atonement, it also says the same thing for men who have a discharge. I can understand the uncleanness of the act but since when is something that you cant control a sin and why? Just seems a little out there..:hmm:. I like to understand why certain things are sins and this one is hard for me to grasp.

Jabba
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:26 PM
This is just a point of view and I am not saying that it is so, but taken into consideration that God said to Adam and Eve in the beginning to 'go out and multiply', and also as a promise to Abraham that his offspring will be like 'the sand off the sea', cant it be that it was a sin in God's eyes if a woman (and man) did not strive towrads the pupose of multiplication? From the bible we also know that it was a 'curse' for a woman if she could not concieve and were childless. The other woman would look down at such a woman as being 'cursed' with a bare womb, not able to produce offspring for her husband. (Like Sarah were until the age of ninety).
Thus then, going on your period is like a 'missing' chance to produce offspring. I dont want it to sound like a woman should be classified as a 'breeding' machine, but taken into account the day and age they lived in, it might just have been applicable to them then. :hmm:
Be blessed...and have faith.

Jeffinator
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:33 PM
This is just a point of view and I am not saying that it is so, but taken into consideration that God said to Adam and Eve in the beginning to 'go out and multiply', and also as a promise to Abraham that his offspring will be like 'the sand off the sea', cant it be that it was a sin in God's eyes if a woman (and man) did not strive towrads the pupose of multiplication? From the bible we also know that it was a 'curse' for a woman if she could not concieve and were childless. The other woman would look down at such a woman as being 'cursed' with a bare womb, not able to produce offspring for her husband. (Like Sarah were until the age of ninety).
Thus then, going on your period is like a 'missing' chance to produce offspring. I dont want it to sound like a woman should be classified as a 'breeding' machine, but taken into account the day and age they lived in, it might just have been applicable to them then. :hmm:
Be blessed...and have faith.

But that still doesnt classify it as a sin though. Its a choice to have children and even Paul writes on how he wishes more people were celibate like he was. And if it is a curse to be barren then wheres the rituals to get rid of it today? Is it no longer a curse? Just interested in why He saw it as a sin.

RabbiKnife
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:39 PM
Had nothing to do with sin.

The issue was ceremonial uncleanness.

Jeffinator
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:47 PM
Had nothing to do with sin.

The issue was ceremonial uncleanness.

The women had to offer 2 birds to be killed in sacrifice of a sin offering and burnt offering. This same ritual is done with many other sins mentioned in Leviticus. Sounds like they saw it as a sin to me.

markedward
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:57 PM
Verses 15.29-30 are not about a woman's period. The text of 15.25 specifically says that this only involves the case of a woman discharging woman in a time other than the seven days of her period. Meaning, if the woman is discharging blood on any of the days outside of the seven days of her period, only then is she to bring offerings to the priest. It is not because it is a sin, it is because of ritual impurity.

I wonder how you seem to think that women are being singled out for their period (even though that isn't what these verses are about), but you somehow missed verses 15.1-15, where men are also required to bring the same two offerings to the priest in the event of bodily discharges.

Likewise, skip back to chapter 12. There we see that after childbirth, a woman is to bring offerings to the priest, "one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering". Are we supposed to conclude that the woman sinned when she gave birth? Of course not, for it was God himself who commanded mankind to "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth fully". The most Scripturally consistent interpretation is that she is bringing sacrifices for ritual impurity, not necessarily sin.

Jeffinator
Sep 2nd 2009, 09:40 PM
Verses 15.29-30 are not about a woman's period. The text of 15.25 specifically says that this only involves the case of a woman discharging woman in a time other than the seven days of her period. Meaning, if the woman is discharging blood on any of the days outside of the seven days of her period, only then is she to bring offerings to the priest. It is not because it is a sin, it is because of ritual impurity.

I wonder how you seem to think that women are being singled out for their period (even though that isn't what these verses are about), but you somehow missed verses 15.1-15, where men are also required to bring the same two offerings to the priest in the event of bodily discharges.

Likewise, skip back to chapter 12. There we see that after childbirth, a woman is to bring offerings to the priest, "one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering". Are we supposed to conclude that the woman sinned when she gave birth? Of course not, for it was God himself who commanded mankind to "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth fully". The most Scripturally consistent interpretation is that she is bringing sacrifices for ritual impurity, not necessarily sin.

The version of the bible I have been reading though uses the word "sin" offering. It does the same with every other sin mentioned in Leviticus. Are we to seclude these when they are written the same way as other sins? Also burnt offering is a ritual offering, the sin offering or sacrifice is to take place of the sin they have committed. The woman and man who have discharge are said to bring both.

markedward
Sep 3rd 2009, 12:00 AM
It does say "sin offering". But it doesn't call the event itself a "sin".

As I said before, are we supposed to conclude that giving birth is a "sin" when it says that the woman is to bring a "sin offering", when God himself commanded mankind to do give birth? The answer is no. It is, simply, ritual impurity and uncleanness.

That's all.

Jeffinator
Sep 3rd 2009, 12:27 AM
It does say "sin offering". But it doesn't call the event itself a "sin".

As I said before, are we supposed to conclude that giving birth is a "sin" when it says that the woman is to bring a "sin offering", when God himself commanded mankind to do give birth? The answer is no. It is, simply, ritual impurity and uncleanness.

That's all.

Whats impure though and why does sacrificing an animal make it pure, usually you sacrifice animals in place of sin.

Izdaari
Sep 3rd 2009, 02:05 AM
Some of us seem awfully concerned with stuff -- the Mosaic Law -- that's specifically for Jews, only given to the Jews. Seems pretty odd to me. :hmm:

Read Galatians. Paul clearly explains how much of the Mosaic Law Christians are expected to follow. He also explains the purpose of the Law, and how that purpose has been fulfilled in Christ, and that we are to trust in Him rather than in works-righteousness gained by following the Law.

markedward
Sep 3rd 2009, 05:39 AM
Whats impure though and why does sacrificing an animal make it pure, usually you sacrifice animals in place of sin.There were multiple kinds of "offerings" and "sacrifices", and they were offered for various situations, not just sin. As should be obvious from the even just the few situations we saw.

The part that is "impure" is that it is a bodily function that can be unhealthy to leave alone. Ritually, the people became impure because of the physical unhealthiness.

So...

If a person was rendered unclean, and were required to bring offerings... They first needed to make themselves physically clean. Then, they the act of bringing the offerings would made them ritually clean, which, hopefully, brought to attention the need for spiritual cleanliness (i.e., placing faith in God, and trusting in him, and trusting that he set about the Law for a reason). It was all for the purpose of foreshadowing this need for spiritual cleanliness. Sacrifices never brought this spiritual purification, but true faith in God does, and ultimately, spiritual cleanliness is found by placing faith in Christ alone. All of the parts of the Law pointed to Christ.

Steve M
Sep 3rd 2009, 02:53 PM
There were multiple kinds of "offerings" and "sacrifices", and they were offered for various situations, not just sin. As should be obvious from the even just the few situations we saw.

The part that is "impure" is that it is a bodily function that can be unhealthy to leave alone. Ritually, the people became impure because of the physical unhealthiness.

So...

If a person was rendered unclean, and were required to bring offerings... They first needed to make themselves physically clean. Then, they the act of bringing the offerings would made them ritually clean, which, hopefully, brought to attention the need for spiritual cleanliness (i.e., placing faith in God, and trusting in him, and trusting that he set about the Law for a reason). It was all for the purpose of foreshadowing this need for spiritual cleanliness. Sacrifices never brought this spiritual purification, but true faith in God does, and ultimately, spiritual cleanliness is found by placing faith in Christ alone. All of the parts of the Law pointed to Christ.
Sin offerings... here's another one...

Numbers 6:13-15 (New International Version)

13 " 'Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over. He is to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 14 There he is to present his offerings to the LORD : a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, [a] 15 together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made without yeast—cakes made of fine flour mixed with oil, and wafers spread with oil.

Why a sin offering for a Nazirite? This is for somebody who has taken A VOW OF HOLINESS AND SEPARATION.

Let me repeat;

God required a sin offering for taking a vow a holiness and separation.

What do we conclude? That somehow being holy and separate is sinful?

I'd say we conclude that perhaps our understanding of why they're offering a sin offering is a little lacking.

Brother Mark
Sep 3rd 2009, 03:16 PM
Didnt know having a period was a sin that needs atonement, it also says the same thing for men who have a discharge. I can understand the uncleanness of the act but since when is something that you cant control a sin and why? Just seems a little out there..:hmm:. I like to understand why certain things are sins and this one is hard for me to grasp.

This question was answered in the thread on a sin offering for giving birth. Here's the answer.


There is nothing sinful about giving birth. There is nothing sinful about bringing another person into the world. There is nothing sinful about being born. There is nothing sinful about a baby's nature at birth.

Sin offerings were also to be made:
on the appointment of a priest
on the termination of a Nazirite's vow
after recovery from leprosy

Perhaps the sin offerings are a reminder that some of what we go through is a direct result of the fall. Leprosy happened because the fall. Doesn't mean the one who has it sinned. A discharge happens because of the fall of man. Doesn't mean that the one has it sinned. So perhaps the sin offering is one in general instead of specific.

Steve M
Sep 3rd 2009, 05:26 PM
Perhaps the sin offerings are a reminder that some of what we go through is a direct result of the fall. Leprosy happened because the fall. Doesn't mean the one who has it sinned. A discharge happens because of the fall of man. Doesn't mean that the one has it sinned. So perhaps the sin offering is one in general instead of specific.

Or perhaps a reminder that we're all sinners.

Hebrews 9:9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Jeffinator, I recommend you study Hebrews in-depth to get an idea of what was going on with Old Testament, and what it all means.

timmyb
Sep 3rd 2009, 07:08 PM
Some of us seem awfully concerned with stuff -- the Mosaic Law -- that's specifically for Jews, only given to the Jews. Seems pretty odd to me. :hmm:

Read Galatians. Paul clearly explains how much of the Mosaic Law Christians are expected to follow. He also explains the purpose of the Law, and how that purpose has been fulfilled in Christ, and that we are to trust in Him rather than in works-righteousness gained by following the Law.


This was the same law that caused David to fall in love with God. I think understanding the heart of God behind the law is a good thing. The focus is always God, not the law in itself. The same God who gave the law to the Jews gave Jesus to the world and he did not contradict himself by doing that so there I must conclude that God is good, and so everything he does is good. Therefore the law must be good.

I understand the want of a person to understand the law. In it is found God and his character.