• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Bible Commentary: Leviticus 12

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi Everyone,

Recently, I've been reading through the Bible again, and thought I'd offer tidbits of personal commentary for your information, amusement, comments, or questions--as you see fit. Hope you find it interesting!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Leviticus 12

Lev 12:1 And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying,
Lev 12:2 Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, If a woman has conceived seed and has borne a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as on the days of her menstrual impurity she shall be unclean.
Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Lev 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying thirty-three days. She shall touch no holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are fulfilled.
Lev 12:5 But if she bears a female, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty-six days.
Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove, for a sin offering to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest.
Lev 12:7 And he shall offer it before Jehovah, and make an atonement for her. And she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that has borne a male or a female.
Lev 12:8 And if her hand cannot reach to a lamb, then she shall bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons. The one shall be for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed.


Years ago when I first read this passage, I was curious why the different treatment for males than females? Of course, it could have simply been God giving a specific sign or difference between them, but what if there was a physical reason as well?

After giving birth, a woman often experiences physical damage than needs time to quit bleeding, then afterward, time for the tissue to heal.

Here we see that, for male babies, a woman is considered "unclean" in for seven days, but for a female baby she is "unclean" for fourteen days. After birth, this amount of time allows the bleeding to stop and the surface tissues to heal. But why the time difference? I don't really know, but have a suggestion, which I will present below.

There is, after the period of uncleanness, a period of 33 days that a woman is in the "blood of her purifying" for a boy, and 66 days for a girl. Again, why the difference?

Even though the days of uncleanness are seven or fourteen, respectively, it seems that she still continues to be "unclean", or at least in an intermediate stage between clean and unclean, for the remainder of the time of her "blood of her purifying". We know this because Leviticus 12:7 says, "...then she will be cleansed..." and 12:8 says, "...then she will be clean".

During a time of menstrual or blood uncleanness, a husband and wife are not supposed to be together sexually (Leviticus 15:24-25)

So, for a male, a husband and wife are apart 40 days, while for a girl they are apart 80 days.

I believe there are two practical reasons for this.

The first is that a woman needs time to heal internally, and to be certain that she does not have an infection common to childbirth. While a week or two isn't really sufficient to allow complete healing, forty to eighty days is enough that she will heal.

The second is that mothers nurse their babies and secrete hormones in the milk. Research reveals that sex causes hormone changes that have profound effects on the human body. If these hormones are secreted in breast milk, they can cause changes in the baby's brain and body during growth.

It turns out that a male baby would experience these hormone surges 40 days earlier than a female baby would, if the parents engage in intercourse soon after the waiting period according to this law. It also turns out that the hormones may be responsible for helping boys become more masculine in their brains and bodies, while girls do not get these hormones for another 40 days, during critical stages of their development.

In other words, following the Law in this area may have helped men to be more masculine and women to be more feminine among the Israelites. This would help in family interaction, procreation, and would tend to lower the incidence of homosexuality among them (which is often linked to hormone issues).

Of course, it could all simply be a sign to the Israelites, but it's always interesting to see that God may have had a very practical reason for giving them instructions that would help the Israelites to become a great people.


John for Christ
 
Thank you for the wonderful verse that you have shared. I copied some of them to share with my friends. On the life of a busy person like me, I always give time for this thing because I know it will make me spiritually guided.
 
How is a man supposed to hold out 40 to 80 days with no sex after having experienced sex with his wife if he is only married to one woman?

I can understand how he could hold out with no sex before marriage because he has not gotten hooked yet, having had no experiences.

I think it would be easier for a man, to resist temptation in these 40 to 80 days if he had a second wife, this would be an argument for polygyny in my mind.

Although it would not prove polygyny to be moral, it would simply show that it makes sense.
 
I don't usually comment on Biblical posts but this one is so particularly wrong that I feel it is necessary.

(Ritual) uncleanliness has nothing to do with hormones, it is about life and death. Males are not lifegivers but females are, henceforth the mother is tumah for a short time because males only have their soul within them, she is only responsible for his soul, she is tumah for longer with her female children, because she is also responsible for the souls that come from her female children. It is a state that is separate and holy. It is spiritual, it has nothing to do with making boys more masculine and girls more feminine, that is just reconstructionist madness.

DTT, do you think that every man who has had sex is addicted to it?
 
Isabella said:
DTT, do you think that every man who has had sex is addicted to it?

Don't know. I would not know how to test such a thing. But I think someone is less likely to have problems if they were not exposed to it. I do not think it is normal and natural for people to look with lust at people they are not married to, I think this comes from people being raised in a sinful society. Also if a married person is "addicted" to it, it might not be a problem so long as they can resist temptation through their spouse such as is recommended in 1 Corinthians 7:2-6. Perhaps addicted is not the proper word, because it is not necessarily something bad, but can be something good resulting in increased population. I think people are naturally designed to get pleasure in order to have a craving for their spouse which builds a stronger friendship, but when people have this pleasure through people other than their spouse(s) it produces inordinate behavior, friendships and desires.
 
How about the idea that sex is pleasurable because it is? Yes we have a biological imperitive and that is why sex produces such lovely sensations but I don't think that it is uncontrollable or addictive any more than any other pleasurable thing is.
If it was, there would be no such thing as asexuals and celibates.

Bels
x
 
Isabella said:
Males are not lifegivers but females are, henceforth the mother is tumah for a short time because males only have their soul within them, she is only responsible for his soul, she is tumah for longer with her female children, because she is also responsible for the souls that come from her female children.

Is there a Biblical basis for this belief ? If so, then please site the book, chapter and verse.
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Fairlight said:
Isabella said:
Males are not lifegivers but females are, henceforth the mother is tumah for a short time because males only have their soul within them, she is only responsible for his soul, she is tumah for longer with her female children, because she is also responsible for the souls that come from her female children.

Is there a Biblical basis for this belief ? If so, then please site the book, chapter and verse.
Blessings,
Fairlight


Is there a biblical basis for neo natal hormone therapy??

If so please site book, chapter and verse.
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
How is a man supposed to hold out 40 to 80 days with no sex after having experienced sex with his wife if he is only married to one woman?

Control himself ???
Contrary to popular opinion, men are capable of restraint :)
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Isabella said:
Fairlight said:
Isabella said:
Males are not lifegivers but females are, henceforth the mother is tumah for a short time because males only have their soul within them, she is only responsible for his soul, she is tumah for longer with her female children, because she is also responsible for the souls that come from her female children.

Is there a Biblical basis for this belief ? If so, then please site the book, chapter and verse.
Blessings,
Fairlight


Is there a biblical basis for neo natal hormone therapy??

If so please site book, chapter and verse.

Yep! Just what I thought ! I'll take that as a "NO" :D
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
John_for_Christ said:
Bible Commentary: Leviticus 12

Post by John_for_Christ » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:49 pm
Hi Everyone,

Recently, I've been reading through the Bible again, and thought I'd offer tidbits of personal commentary for your information, amusement, comments, or questions--as you see fit. Hope you find it interesting!

This may be a bit late, John, but thank you for an interesting article! :)
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Take it however you like Fairlight, I don't write for your benefit. The op was discussing something that is a part of current Orthodox Jewish tradition and I was giving the philosophy behind the practice, the OP was inventing a reasoning that works for him, which is fair enough but is certainly nothing to do with anything but his own world view. I have an opposing one, shared by far more people...

You believe what you want my dear, you do anyway.
 
Isabella said:
Take it however you like Fairlight, I don't write for your benefit. The op was discussing something that is a part of current Orthodox Jewish tradition and I was giving the philosophy behind the practice, the OP was inventing a reasoning that works for him, which is fair enough but is certainly nothing to do with anything but his own world view. I have an opposing one, shared by far more people...

You believe what you want my dear, you do anyway.
Isabella said:
I have an opposing one, shared by far more people...
What is your worldview?
 
By the way the reason, I have not taken sides for the reason behind leviticus 12 having different times for the mother giving birth to a girl baby and boy baby so far, is because......

I have not seen a reason that I can know for sure explained in the Bible and I do not want to go beyond what is written.

Personally it does not bother me that the times are different in my opinion if God commands it, we do not always need to know why, sometimes it is okay to simply obey.

In my opinion a more useful question is does this passage apply for Gentile Christians in this time period? Because we should know if we need to obey it from a practical standpoint.

By the way what happens if the mother gives birth to twins, one boy and one girl?
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Isabella said:
I have an opposing one, shared by far more people...
What is your worldview?

I think that is a bit too complex for this thread! :P

My thoughts on this topic are quite simple, the OP is doing the exact same thing that commentators have done of old. He as questioned 'why' why this? Unlike you DTT, it isn't good enough to just obey for him/them, they need a reason. For some, the idea that sons are more favoured is simply unpalatable, that doesn't sit very well with modern folks. Current Orthodox reasoning is, and has been for a time has to do with the life giving capabilities of women. Sometimes (confusingly) mixed in with death also (due to the menstrual cycle etc)> In other words, Orthodox Judiasm has managed to put into tradition a philosophy which instead of degrading women and female babies, actually elevates them to something that is kodesh - Holy during this period that is ritually unclean. If we are talking spiritual reasoning, yes this is something I accept.

Now the OP is doing the same thing that people have done for centuries, he says:

I believe there are two practical reasons for this.

Believe.....these are his thoughts, feelings and assumptions, these have no biblical basis and he is making a total assumption (and actually a false one) about the nature of sex hormones and breast milk, so with no Biblical or scientific basis for this 'idea' what we just have is one man finding a way to make sense of this law that means something to him, which he does, IMHO, have every right to do. The problem lies when someone hypocritically praises one 'opinion' and damns another just because one idea suits her worldview better, or perhaps the messenger is less favoured (ahem :o ), regardless that one idea has just pulled out a scientific reasoning out of the air! Believe what you want by all means, we all have that freedom, but at least be critical and self aware enough to realise where something is coming from.

Hope that helps DTT,
Bels
x
 
Isabella said,
I don't usually comment on Biblical posts but this one is so particularly wrong that I feel it is necessary.

(Ritual) uncleanliness has nothing to do with hormones, it is about life and death. Males are not lifegivers but females are, henceforth the mother is tumah for a short time because males only have their soul within them, she is only responsible for his soul, she is tumah for longer with her female children, because she is also responsible for the souls that come from her female children. It is a state that is separate and holy. It is spiritual, it has nothing to do with making boys more masculine and girls more feminine, that is just reconstructionist madness.

DTT, do you think that every man who has had sex is addicted to it?

Thank you for "your opinion". I do feel that it is legitimate for you to share your ideas and thoughts here. However, it would be very nice of you to recognize the same opportunity for others. John-For-Christ (not me btw) was sharing his opinion of a Biblical topic. Upon general and specific reading of his notes and yours, they are both equal in regard to facts, logic and presentation. Why then the air of superiority and condemnation? We learn from questions and examining theories, as well other means of study. You have not substantiated anything in the above quoted comment. If you are to attain logical superiority, please back it up with facts and reason. Other wise, I appreciate reading "your opinion" for what it is, "opinion only". Insinuation and inuendo are not the tools of a mature mind.
 
In case you missed it John, I did post that the OP was writing an opinion which was 'fair enough' and he has the right to it.

Do please read my posts before condemning them.

Thank you,
Bels
 
I can not judge Leviticus 12 as right or wrong, unless I start with a moral system. Since Leviticus 12 is part of my moral system I will not find it to be wrong.

Those who judge leviticus 12 as degrading are starting with a moral system outside of Leviticus 12.

I start with physical axioms and some other axioms that I use to determine the validity of the Bible containing God's word and then use the Bible to determine my morality, on the assumption that God who is right about physical things is also right about moral things.

Those who start with moral axioms :? ...... the results are not pretty by a certain standard :cry: For if two people disagree about if adultery is moral, neither can convince the other that he/she is wrong because they both started with their belief as an axiom. :shock:

That is in part why I do not care if someone views it as degrading to men or women, or even if it really is ;) . Because in my opinion it is a logical fallacy to start with a moral axiom like it is wrong to degrade people. :idea: (That is if God said, you should degrade women by obeying Leviticus 12, then it would be good to degrade women by obeying Leviticus 12, however that would not necessarily mean it is good to degrade women in other cases.)

Besides I see nothing degrading about waiting longer :D , the idea that it is degrading is based on a series of assumptions that are not clearly stated in the Bible as far as I see it.
 
Back
Top