Leviticus 12

[Jamdoc]

Why is a woman to give a SIN offering after giving birth?
I get that because blood is involved in giving birth which can be a spreader of disease she is considered "unclean", like with the male who has a wet dream being considered unclean... but for the male having a wet dream, he's only to wash up, no sin offering is required.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why is a woman to give a SIN offering after giving birth?
I get that because blood is involved in giving birth which can be a spreader of disease she is considered "unclean", like with the male who has a wet dream being considered unclean... but for the male having a wet dream, he's only to wash up, no sin offering is required.

Could it be recognition of fresh association with original sin?

 

[Jamdoc]

Could it be recognition of fresh association with original sin?

It's just weird that God would design a woman to give birth, but then consider it an iniquity she had to atone for to do it.
The uncleanness part I get, yes, it's a messy business and she should wash and be kept separate because that sort of thing can spread disease, same reason for other issues of blood or bodily fluids, a commandment to wash up makes perfect sense.
But the sin offering? That I don't understand.
It is in fact obeying God's first command which was to be fruitful and multiply, so it doesn't make any sense that it'd be considered a sin.

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's a consequence of the fall for sure. Death is a consequence.. our body is a body of death. A life God intends to be everlasting life is born of a fallen woman. Born in a state of sin. An offering is made because of it. I think.

 

[Clare73]

Why is a woman to give a SIN offering after giving birth?
I get that because blood is involved in giving birth which can be a spreader of disease she is considered "unclean", like with the male who has a wet dream being considered unclean... but for the male having a wet dream, he's only to wash up, no sin offering is required.

The defilement laws--unclean food, persons, garments and houses, were not about actual sin, but as in all the ceremonial laws, they were pictures, types, patterns of spiritual reality. The defilement laws were to demonstrate the nature of sin--spiritual defilement, requiring cleansing.

Childbirth being defiling would be a good way to show the corruption of the fallen nature that is produced in childbirth, to show that we are born defiled (in sin)--Psalms 51:5; Ephesians 2:3; Colossians 2:13.

Jesus and Mary were required to go through the purification ceremony, even though Jesus was not born in sin (Luke 2:22-23), because Jesus submitted to all of the law (Matthew 3:15).

And a remarkable pattern of the gospel can be seen here in Luke 2:23: "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord."

God bought back (redeemed) from the destroying angel all the firstborn of Israel, both men and animals, in the tenth plague (Exodus 12:21-29).
Because God purchased them from death, they were his by right (Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:12-15, Exodus 13:22-29). Therefore,
1) firstborn animals were consecrated (given over to God) by sacrifice (Exodus 13:15), unless it was an unclean animal, which was then either redeemed (bought back) or destroyed (Exodus 13:13, Exodus 34:20), and
2) firstborn sons were consecrated to God for full-time service to him (Exodus 13:2).
3) God then substituted the Levites and their livestock for consecration to his full-time service in place of the firstborn sons of Israel and their firstborn animals (Numbers 3:9-13, 41, 44-51, 8:15-19), and then gave to the Levites his right to ownership of all firstborn males, both men and animals (Numbers 18:14-15).
4) Therefore, all the firstborn sons of Israel had to be bought back (redeemed) from the Levites for five shekels of silver (Exodus 13:13, 15, 30:16, 34:20; Numbers 18:15-16), being a

Picture, pattern of the church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12:23),
1) who have been delivered from the destroying angel (Satan, 1 Peter 5:8; John 10:10) and
bought back (redeemed) from eternal death (Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13)
by Christ, our priest (Levite), who was substituted for us (Matthew 20:28), and
2) to whom God has exclusive right by purchase (1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 7:23; Acts 20:28b; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:9, Revelation 14:4),
3) and who, therefore, are to be consecrated to the Lord (Romans 6:13; 2 Corinthians 5:15), and a

Picture, pattern of the destruction of all the unclean (i.e., unbelievers) who are not redeemed/consecrated (John 3:18, John 3:36; Hebrews 12:14),

Both pictures being the gospel.

God redeemed us for consecration and holiness. (Titus 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:20.)

 

[Jamdoc]

The defilement laws--unclean food, persons, garments and houses, were not about actual sin, but as in all the ceremonial laws, they were pictures, types, patterns of spiritual reality. The defilement laws were to demonstrate the nature of sin--spiritual defilement, requiring cleansing.

Childbirth being defiling would be a good way to show the corruption of the fallen nature that is produced in childbirth, to show that we are born defiled (in sin)--Psalms 51:5; Ephesians 2:3; Colossians 2:13.

Jesus and Mary were required to go through the purification ceremony, even though Jesus was not born in sin (Luke 2:22-23), because Jesus submitted to all of the law (Matthew 3:15).

And a remarkable pattern of the gospel can be seen here in Luke 2:23: "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord."

God bought back (redeemed) from the destroying angel all the firstborn of Israel, both men and animals, in the tenth plague (Exodus 12:21-29).
Because God purchased them from death, they were his by right (Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:12-15, Exodus 13:22-29). Therefore,
1) firstborn animals were consecrated (given over to God) by sacrifice (Exodus 13:15), unless it was an unclean animal, which was then either redeemed (bought back) or destroyed (Exodus 13:13, Exodus 34:20), and
2) firstborn sons were consecrated to God for full-time service to him (Exodus 13:2).
3) God then substituted the Levites and their livestock for consecration to his full-time service in place of the firstborn sons of Israel and their firstborn animals (Numbers 3:9-13, 41, 44-51, 8:15-19), and then gave to the Levites his right to ownership of all firstborn males, both men and animals (Numbers 18:14-15).
4) Therefore, all the firstborn sons of Israel had to be bought back (redeemed) from the Levites for five shekels of silver (Exodus 13:13, 15, 30:16, 34:20; Numbers 18:15-16), being a

Picture, pattern of the church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12:23),
1) who have been delivered from the destroying angel (Satan, 1 Peter 5:8; John 10:10) and
bought back (redeemed) from eternal death (Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13)
by Christ, our priest (Levite), who was substituted for us (Matthew 20:28), to
2) whom God has exclusive right by purchase (1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 7:23; Acts 20:28b;
1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:9, Revelation 14:4),
3) and who, therefore, are to be consecrated to the Lord (Romans 6:13; 2 Corinthians 5:15), and a

Picture, pattern of the destruction of all the unclean (i.e., unbelievers) who are not redeemed/consecrated (John 3:18, John 3:36; Hebrews 12:14),

Both pictures being the gospel.

God redeemed us for consecration and holiness. (Titus 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:20.)

Wow, now that's a good answer.
I was just confused because I only ever thought of sin as being disobeying God, but reproducing is obeying Him.

and good explanation on the consecration of the firstborn, I'd only partially understood it previously, like they were dedicated to God but then... they went back to their homes and eventually inherited their father's land, so it didn't seem like they were pushed into a life of purely serving God like the Levites.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why is a woman to give a SIN offering after giving birth?
I get that because blood is involved in giving birth which can be a spreader of disease she is considered "unclean", like with the male who has a wet dream being considered unclean... but for the male having a wet dream, he's only to wash up, no sin offering is required.

I take you've never seen a woman give birth. I'd say it's a gift for the woman because it's a sin offering without shame since everyone has to do it and you just say "it's because of the baby". Basically what's said in the "birthing tent" may stay there, but since you got to do a sin offering don't hold back.

 

[Clare73]

I take you've never seen a woman give birth. I'd say it's a gift for the woman because it's a sin offering without shame since everyone has to do it and you just say "it's because of the baby". Basically what's said in the
"birthing tent" may stay there, but since you got to do a sin offering don't hold back.

"Slightly" irreverent. . .

Try digesting post #6 for a more informed view.

 

[DamianWarS]

"Slightly" irreverent. . .

Try digesting post #6 for a more informed view.

The law has layers of meaning and purpose. There is the prophetic, spiritual, abstract and generally deeper meanings as you see in the previous post which I agree with but there is also the surface, the concrete and very practical side which shows God cares about not just the grand things but also how it affects our lives as well and he is able to knit it together as one. I would say on a level every law is like this.

In the ancient world without modern medical knowledge with simple things like how to wash your hands then staying away from pork or getting circumsized are actually quite practical. Most of the law is this way but admitting this doesn't void the deeper meanings.

I know I sounded facetious but going into labour the stress of the event is enough. There is a sense of freedom knowing that everyone has to offer a sin offering and if there was something about the experience that left the mother unsure she is able to seek redemption without the shame.

There is a pragmatic sense to it that allows a women to maintain her dignity but also her heart, she makes the sin offering and whatever it means in her own heart can be a secret between her and God but on the surface it's her obligation so there is nothing unusal and there is no shame.

In a shame culture getting a free pass on shame can be like removing the consequence. I'm not saying women are sinful doing labour, I'm sure a lot of different things happen but given the surrounding laws regarding blood and menstruation and that women grow up in this mind set I think the sin offering is a part of the care for the woman to allow her to seek redemption and even psychological healing from whatever she is feeling as sinful or unclean after the event.

It definitely has deeper meanings and purpose but I think it also has surface practical purposes too that is looking to the needs of a woman after just giving birth.

 

[Clare73]

The law has layers of meaning and purpose. There is the prophetic, spiritual, abstract and generally deeper meanings as you see in the previous post which I agree with but there is also the surface, the concrete and very practical side which shows God cares about not just the grand things but also how it affects our lives as well and he is able to knit it together as one. I would say on a level every law is like this.

In the ancient world without modern medical knowledge with simple things like how to wash your hands then staying away from pork or getting circumsized are actually quite practical. Most of the law is this way but admitting this doesn't void the deeper meanings.

Nope. . .the NT does not present the Levitical laws as health laws, it presents them as religious laws which had to be changed because of the change to a new priesthood (Hebrews 7:12) which was not authorized to administer them, and not changed (set aside because they were weak and useless, Hebrews 7:18) because of improved medical knowledge.

I know I sounded facetious but going into labour the stress of the event is enough. There is a sense of freedom knowing that everyone has to offer a sin offering and if there was something about the experience that left the mother unsure she is able to seek redemption without the shame.

I wish that were all it was.
It was a pathetic attempt to reduce God's word to the level of conventional human reasoning having absolutely nothing to do with its purpose, and mocking it.

There is a pragmatic sense to it that allows a women to maintain her dignity but also her heart, she makes the sin offering and whatever it means in her own heart can be a secret between her and God but on the surface it's her obligation so there is nothing unusal and there is no shame.
In a shame culture getting a free pass on shame can be like removing the consequence. I'm not saying women are sinful doing labour, I'm sure a lot of different things happen but given the surrounding laws regarding blood and menstruation and that women grow up in this mind set I think the sin offering is a part of the care for the woman to allow her to seek redemption and even psychological healing from whatever she is feeling as sinful or unclean after the event.

It definitely has deeper meanings and purpose but I think it also has surface practical purposes too that is looking to the needs of a woman after just giving birth.

That is all just so much human psycho-babble baloney of man's reasoning generated by
the fallen human mind.

 

[Jamdoc]

I take you've never seen a woman give birth. I'd say it's a gift for the woman because it's a sin offering without shame since everyone has to do it and you just say "it's because of the baby". Basically what's said in the "birthing tent" may stay there, but since you got to do a sin offering don't hold back.

Only if you consider words in English to be magic sin words, which I don't. That's man's standards, not God's.

 

[DamianWarS]

Nope. . .the NT does not present the Levitical laws as health laws, it presents them as religious laws which had to be changed because of the change to a new priesthood (Hebrews 7:12) which was not authorized to administer them, and not changed (set aside because they were weak and useless, Hebrews 7:18) because of improved medical knowledge.
I wish that were all it was.
It was a pathetic attempt to reduce God's word to the level of conventional human reasoning having absolutely nothing to do with its purpose, and mocking it.

That is all just so much human psycho-babble baloney of man's reasoning generated by
the fallen human mind.

So you reject the practical side to laws?

 

[Clare73]

So you reject the practical side to laws?

I reject assignations with no Scriptural basis.

 

[DamianWarS]

I reject assignations with no Scriptural basis.

That's a fairly non answer so I'll ask in a different way, what do you see as the practical benefit of this law? (ie. How does it help the woman?)

 

[Clare73]

That's a fairly non answer so I'll ask in a different way,
what do you see as the practical benefit of this law? (ie. How does it help the woman?)

Not a reference point for me in God's laws. . .they are for his purpose.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not a reference point for me in God's laws. . .they are for his purpose.

Why would you think the question of how the law helps the woman is in conflict with a God centred purpose? Laws have practical application even if they have greater purpose. Have I offended you so much you refuse to engage me?

 

[Clare73]

Why would you think the question of how the law helps the woman

And your practical application is your own reasoning, with no Biblical warrant.

is in conflict with a God centred purpose? Laws have practical application even if they have greater purpose.

Did I say they were "in conflict?"

Have I offended you so much you refuse to engage me?

I hope not. . .

 

[DamianWarS]

And your practical application is your own reasoning, with no Biblical warrant.

Please feel free to offer a practical application that is biblically warranted

 

[Clare73]

Please feel free to offer a practical application that is biblically warranted

I see no need for a practical application in God's law.
His purpose is adequate.

 

[DamianWarS]

I see no need for a practical application in God's law.
His purpose is adequate.

I feel like we're talking in circles. The practical doesn't need to be in conflict with a God centered purpose and may be a part of it.