Just wondering if some here can have a crack at answering some questions I have on the period when the Israelites were in the desert.

Where would the Israelites have obtained grain to produce bread for Passover and for grain offerings when they were reliant on the ‘mana from heaven’?

If a man was unclean for seven days after sex, could the high priest who was allowed to marry actually have children since that would make him unclean for a period of time?  Now, Aaron had sons so would he have been unclean after he slept with his wife

Why would a defiling skin disease that covered the whole body make someone clean when it is first considered a defiling skin disease (this one is from Leviticus, but I don’t have the verse number)?

Why was a woman unclean for a longer period of time after given birth to a girl than to a boy?

Thanks for any responses.

Where would the Israelites have obtained grain to produce bread for Passover and for grain offerings when they were reliant on the ‘mana from heaven’?

I don’t think it says, so here are two speculations:
they could have brought some from Egypt which was mirculously preserved for the 40 years,
they could have bought some from the other nations they encountered.

If a man was unclean for seven days after sex, could the high priest who was allowed to marry actually have children since that would make him unclean for a period of time?  Now, Aaron had sons so would he have been unclean after he slept with his wife

Firstly, Aaron’s sons were all adults by the time he became priest so that’s not a problem.
Secondly, the levites only entered service at the age of 25 or 30, so there was time to have children before then.
But, what about sex after children? Must they have neglected their wives? In later centuries they definitely had a roster where the priests would only be on service for a part of the year, and maybe this was the idea the whole time (I’m not sure.)

Why would a defiling skin disease that covered the whole body make someone clean when it is first considered a defiling skin disease (this one is from Leviticus, but I don’t have the verse number)?

Why was a woman unclean for a longer period of time after given birth to a girl than to a boy?

These I don’t know ;)

I’ll have a go.

Where would the Israelites have obtained grain to produce bread for Passover and for grain offerings when they were reliant on the ‘mana from heaven’?

Perhaps they traded for some grain (they were in the region of trade routes).

If a man was unclean for seven days after sex, could the high priest who was allowed to marry actually have children since that would make him unclean for a period of time?  Now, Aaron had sons so would he have been unclean after he slept with his wife

I think the HP could become unclean but he wouldn’t be able to serve in the tabernacle during this time so he would need to avoid sex and uncleanness at certain times. But yes he could have children!

Why would a defiling skin disease that covered the whole body make someone clean when it is first considered a defiling skin disease (this one is from Leviticus, but I don’t have the verse number)?

Leviticus 13:12-13. Maybe a question for a doctor. The point I think is tat it is not a contagious or spreading skin disease. The skin disease mentioned is not a defiling skin disease in contradiction to your question’s wording.

Why was a woman unclean for a longer period of time after given birth to a girl than to a boy?

Keil writes:

But if she had given birth to a girl, she was to be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her menstruation, and then after that to remain at home 66 days. The distinction between the seven (or fourteen) days of the “separation for her infirmity,” and the thirty-three (or sixty-six) days of the “blood of her purifying,” had a natural ground in the bodily secretions connected with child-birth, which are stronger and have more blood in them in the first week (lochia rubra) than the more watery discharge of the lochia alba, which may last as much as five weeks, so that the normal state may not be restored till about six weeks after the birth of the child. The prolongation of the period, in connection with the birth of a girl, was also founded upon the notion, which was very common in antiquity, that the bleeding and watery discharge continued longer after the birth of a girl than after that of a boy (Hippocr. Opp. ed. Kühn. i. p. 393; Aristot. h. an. 6, 22; 7, 3, cf. Burdach, Physiologie iii. p. 34).

... and hence a longer period of bleeding requires a longer period to cleansing hence the doubling of the 40 days (some things I’ve read suggest that this idea of longer bleeding for girls is observed/affirmed by modern medical knowledge but I wouldn’t know).

I wonder if the rite of circumcision is also involved in the differing lengths of time!?!?! Possibly the second period of 40 days for girls is a counterpart to the covenant-including-cleansing rite of circumcision in boys. Need to read more!

Others have suggested that because the mother gave birth to a daughter who herself would have monthly periods of uncleanness this is symbolically noted by the doubling of the period till purification.

I still haven’t found a totally cohesive and convincing answer but maybe something of the above comes into play. Whether either of these suggestions are in play or not the answer has to do with symbols of clean and unclean.

Ok that was me just having a go on a Sunday afternoon.

Thanks for the replies thus far.  I have another one.  Deuteronomy 22:6-7.  “ 6"If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs,(A) you shall not take the mother with the young. 7You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself,(B) that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.”

Why does taking the young but letting the mother go mean “it may go well with you, and that you may live long.”?

“Leviticus 13:12-13. Maybe a question for a doctor. The point I think is tat it is not a contagious or spreading skin disease. The skin disease mentioned is not a defiling skin disease in contradiction to your question’s wording.”

Thanks for your reply, Adam.  I have to dispute with you on the point of the skin disease spoken about in verse 12 not being “defiling” because, in the context of the passage, the description is of a “defiling skin disease”.  Verse 9 starts off saying, “When anyone has a defiling skin disease....” and verse 12 uses the definite article, “If the disease breaks out all over their skin” so as to refer to the same type of disease as verses 9 and earlier; that is a defiling one.  Indeed, the title of the passage by NIV is “Regulations About Defiling Skin Diseases” Even without being described as “defiling”, a disease is not something you would expect to make one clean.

Paul, I don’t see the word ‘defiling’ at all in the passage. The word used for leprosy/skin disease is:

H6883
צרעת
tsâra‛ath
BDB Definition:
1) leprosy
1a) in people, malignant skin disease (Lev. 13-14)
1b) in clothing, a mildew or mould (Lev_13:47-52)
1c) in buildings, a mildew or mould (Lev. 14:34-53)

The passage is making a distinction between those skin abnormalities that make unclean (defile) and those that do not.

Where a skin abnormality covers the whole body it is not an unclean-making (defiling) disease. It appears that maybe the NIV inserts the adjective defiling for ‘helping’ with meaning rather that being the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. (although as the passage makes clear, a skin abnormality can be defiling - making unclean - but not necessarily so). Read the passage in another version - e.g. esv, nasb

Keil says on this verse:

The breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off.

Paul Graham - 08 September 2008 01:12 AM

Thanks for the replies thus far.  I have another one.  Deuteronomy 22:6-7.  “ 6"If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs,(A) you shall not take the mother with the young. 7You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself,(B) that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.”

Why does taking the young but letting the mother go mean “it may go well with you, and that you may live long.”?

I think two things:

1. It is good management of the environment and care for renewable resources which God advocates. (c.f. God’s words about cutting down fruit trees). If you take both mother and young/eggs there will be no future generations.

2. symbolically the law of Moses generally forbids the mixing of things related to life and death (except in regard to atoning sacrifices - but in normal living it is forbidden). To make food (meat and eggs) which brings together (a) the life-giving relationship between a mother and her young with (b) death is therefore bad. Similar to Exo 23:19 do not boil a dead kid goat in it’s mother’s life-giving milk or Lev 22:28 Do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the same day. Life and death need to be kept separate just as clean/unclean and holy/pollution.

Because this is a command from God, and as with all commands under the covenant, obedience is rewarded with blessing and long life in the promised land - a reoccurring theme in Moses.

Paul I just edited my above comment (2.) in case you read it previously.

You will find very good answers to questions like these at www.biblicalhorizons.com

Here are some more questions: God promises to carry the Israelites back to Egypt in ships because of their sins (Deuteronomy 28:68).  Most people are familiar with how the Israelites were taken captive by the Babylonians at a later time.  But were they ever taken back to Egypt by ship?

One more: God gives Moses a song to remind the Israelites of their deliverance and warn them against foresaking him.  It in, God apparently set the boundaries of nations according to the sons of Israel.  How does this concur with reality?

Paul Graham - 10 September 2008 02:32 PM

Here are some more questions: God promises to carry the Israelites back to Egypt in ships because of their sins (Deuteronomy 28:68).  Most people are familiar with how the Israelites were taken captive by the Babylonians at a later time.  But were they ever taken back to Egypt by ship?

God used the Babylonian captivity to both discipline His mediatorial nation AND to scatter them throughout the empire for greater influence. Jeremiah warned Judah NOT to look to Egypt for help or to flee there. The synagogues established throughout the empire were furrows for Christian churches in many cases, and Paul limited his missionary journeys to this territory - the Oikumene. This captivity was followed by the restoration era - Nehemiah’s New Jerusalem.

Deut 28:68, however, was fulfilled by Titus. Many Jews were taken to Egypt in ships and sold as slaves. Old Jerusalem would not be restored because this time, it was Jesus as Jeremiah, and Jesus as Ezekiel (the “son of man") who warned Judah of the end of the Temple. This time, Jesus as Nehemiah would build a New Jerusalem out of living stones, and Hebrews talks about the “empire” to come (Oikumene - Hebrews 2:5). It came with the destruction of the Temple, and the missionary territory was expanded from Empire to World.

Another point to keep in mind is that the Gentiles were always pictured as the round “Sea” or “Laver” beneath the square “Altar” of Israel. The symbolism of ships as Gentile strength is consistent.

One more: God gives Moses a song to remind the Israelites of their deliverance and warn them against foresaking him.  It in, God apparently set the boundaries of nations according to the sons of Israel.  How does this concur with reality?

God reserved Canaan for Israel as a garden. If you remember, in Abraham’s time the Canaanites’ sin was not yet “full.” They had more chances with God, but used His patience to compound their rebellion. By Joshua’s time, they were so bad they needed to be cut out of humanity like a cancer.

The Canaanites were condemned (racially, not individually) to be slaves to Shem when Ham sinned against Noah. Like the serpent, they would eat dust and be used by God to test and purify His people. God used the “flood” of Babylonian invasion to wipe out the old Canaanite world - including Israel - which explains the judgments against these nations (including egypt) in Ezekiel. The Canaanite world was “swallowed up” by this big fish. But Israel alone, like Jonah, would spat out again, resurrected with Ephraim and Judah now united. The power of Ham was broken.

That leaves Japheth. Genesis predicts that Ham was out of Shem’s tent, but Japheth was in. The nations listed in Ezek 38-39 that Gog (Haman) brought against the Jews throughout the empire (India to Ethiopia) were Japhethite nations, and we see them converted when they submit to Mordecai’s rule at the end of Esther. Resurrected Israel conquered the world and plundered it, and the riches of the Gentiles were taken back to the new Temple.

All this prefigured the “flood” of Roman troops (Dan 9:26) that ended the old creation and allowed the Christian church to rise as a resurrected Israel. She plundered Israel of gemstones (Land) and Rome of pearls (Sea). Now she is plundering the entire world. The strong man is bound from deceiving the nations, and Christ is plundering his vessels (Matt 12:29; Rev. 20).

Paul Graham - 10 September 2008 02:32 PM

Here are some more questions: God promises to carry the Israelites back to Egypt in ships because of their sins (Deuteronomy 28:68).  Most people are familiar with how the Israelites were taken captive by the Babylonians at a later time.  But were they ever taken back to Egypt by ship?

Found this source referring to the final expulsion of the Jews in 135 A.D. after the Bar Kokhba revolt:

Now that Betar had been captured, everything came under Human control, while Palestine [Judah] was reduced to a desolate mound. Captives were sold into slavery in numbers too great to count. First they were brought to the grand annual market at the Terebinth-Eloh tree in Hebron, or in the words of Hyranumous, to the Tent-Ohel of Abraham near Hebron. Each slave sold for the price of a horse. Those captives who were not sold there were brought to the market place in Azza [Gaza] which, because of the great multitudes of slaves who were sold there, was called Hadrian’s market place. And those who were still not sold there were herded into ships and were taken to Egypt. Many died in transit, whether by starvation or by shipwreck, while many also were killed by cruel masters.

Munter, Primordia Eccl. Africanae, pp. 85f.,113.

and also

Innumerable was the multitude of those who were sold away as slaves. At the Annual market at Terehinth of Hebron they were offered fur sale in such numbers that a Jewish slave was of no more value then a horse. What could not be disposed of t here was brought to Gaza and there sold or sent to Egypt, on the way to which many died of hunger, or of shipwreck.

Emil Schurer, “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ”, Edinburgh, 1896, volume 3.

Michael, just a quick question. Do you have a source for this claim that the same thing occurred in 70 AD?

Michael Bull - 10 September 2008 02:59 PM

Deut 28:68, however, was fulfilled by Titus.

Paul Graham - 10 September 2008 02:32 PM

One more: God gives Moses a song to remind the Israelites of their deliverance and warn them against foresaking him.  It in, God apparently set the boundaries of nations according to the sons of Israel.  How does this concur with reality?

1. God is responsible for dividing the territory each nation should have.

2. When God fixed the boundaries for the nations, he did it in such as way that the many numbers of Israelites would posses the land of Canaan.

So God FIRST marked out the land of Israel according to their numbers (c.f. Joshua to a large clan give a larger inheritance, to a small family give a smaller inheritance – in other words the size of one’s inheritance is determined by the numbers of people).

Having FIRST set aside the portion he would give Israel, God THEN determined the boundaries of the nations.

Theological point: God’s purposes for Israel are a the centre of God’s dealings with the nations.

Here’s another one: if the Israelites relied on a prophet to convey God’s words to them, then who is their prophet at the beginning of Judges?  I know that at one point, there is an angel who addresses them, but I’m not sure that is the case at this point.

Hi Paul.
But was Joshua a prophet?

Are you referring to the prophet in Judges 6:8? If so his identity is unknown.

Paul, could you rephrase your question though I’m not sure I’m following.

Prophets may be both life long leaders e.g. Moses, Samuel or occasional speakers sometimes unknown.

I think biblically Joshua is a prophet in some sense.

1. He receives divine revelation and speaks God’s word/instructions to the people. note “the Lord said to Joshua” c.f. 1:1; 3:7; 4:1; 4:15; 5:2; 5:9; 6:2; 7:10; 8:1; 8:18; 10:8; 11:6; 13:1; 20:1

2. He calls the people to covenant faithfulness c.f. Joshua 23-24