I didn’t get what you are saying. How is "purity an issue?
How would leviticus apply to those before Moses?
The way I read Romans, they had no law to follow and hence were basically innocent.
It’s not like Adam followed the laws in leviticus.
1 Like
It appears that purity was always an issue when it came to direct interface with God. The condition before the fall was unique. Man without sin inside the Garden.
The interesting point you bring up is how God interfaced with humans after the fall in prior to the law, however if man was innocent then why the flood?
We get some interesting hints of how God interfaced with pre law humans with the story of Abraham. The story of Abraham after a battle is interesting where he took the bread and wine from Melchizedek who is called the King of Salem. Paul called Jesus a Priest in the order of Melchizedek. This may give us a clue to how God interfaced with man after the fall and before the law. Perhaps it was a form like Jesus or actually Jesus prior to the formal introduction of Jesus as the Messiah 2000 years later.
1 Like
What you are talking about is christophanies…
Where God met people, for example God meets Abraham before he destroys Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham intercedes for the places.
I would expect the same for when Moses met God “face to face”.
Levitical purity doesnt really help much in “interfacing” with God.
I have always assumed Gods interaction with Adam is also similar to Gods interaction with Abraham, or God appearing in the flesh, i.e Jesus.
1 Like
Leviticus 15
31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,[b] which is among them.’
”
Quite the opposite, they were brought the law because they could not know righteousness without it. God brought the law to reveal what sin was, not because they were innocent, but because they were ignorant of their sin. Ignorance of sin does not make someone innocent. Adam and Eve before the fall were righteous and justified because they were incapable of sin, not knowing good or evil and living in the presence of God, which is different than being innocent.
Since you referenced it - Romans 2:12-13: For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
(knowing the law does not save you from judgment, doing the law might if you can do the whole law, but you probably can’t)
The law was tutor for Jews before Jesus. The point Paul makes is that all are sinners, whether you know Gods law or not, if you don’t practice it, you are going to die, but Jesus offers eternal life.
Galatians 3:23-25: But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, [a]kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our [b]tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
You cannot become pure through the law, if that’s what you mean by “Levitical purity”…in fact, that’s what most of the New Testament is about. We lost the ability to be pure when Eve took the first bite of the apple and knew good and evil through disobedience to God. Faith is the only way to righteousness, before and after Jesus.
Genesis 15:6 - And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. (regarding Abram/Abraham)
For me, I see Jesus in every story of the bible, every character, every word…or at least I can find Him there. Apologies in advance for preaching…
Eisegesis in every story of the bible, every character, every word.
Sorry, from bible college days.
Funny, I didn’t know that was a thing…haven’t had that class yet.
Leviticus 15:31 is about offerings for Sin. Adam did not have a sin problem before the fall.
If the people outside were like Adam in that they had not eaten of teh fruit of Knowledge of right and wrong, then they also wouldnt have a Sin problem (Because they can’t be held accountable for their actions… just like a lion cannot be held accountable in a moral way for its actions).
If Adam and Eve were incapable of Sin before the fall, they wouldn’t have sinned by breaking God’s commandment.
Not knowing Good or Evil points to innocence, not righteousness. For example, a 2 year old child might lie, or cause harm to others without understanding the consequences of their actions. such a child wouldn’t be held accountable for his/her
actions. However, when the child grows up and has knowledge of what his/her actions mean, then he/She is held accountable. Similarly, Adam and Eve were ignorant of right/wrong. Hence, they were not held accountable for their actions except for the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge. Once they ate of the tree, the gained knowledge (as shown by their realizing they are naked). Once they knew what was right and wrong, they would be accountable for doing wrong things or not doing the right thing.
This statement is also not exactly true.Here is what Paul says about the subject :
Romans 2: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
The law tutors us by teaching us that its impossible for human beings to fulfill the law and hence points us to our need for grace, a new creation etc
However, The Law is not required to know what Right or wrong is… our conscience tells us that, even when we are not aware of laws.
A Messianic Rabbi’s discussion of the difference between sin and cleanliness.
Being in an UNCLEAN state is not a sure-fire indication that one has sinned (although sin results in UNCLEANNESS) .
This is an important foundational principle you need to understand.
In order to make sure you understand this principle, let’s review a couple of fundamentals I’ve discussed in the past.
FUNDAMENTAL 1 : God views the world’s population as being divided into two basic groups: CLEAN people and UNCLEAN people.
FUNDAMENTAL 2: CLEAN people are those who are Israel (whether native born or grafted in) .
FUNDAMENTAL 3: UNCLEAN people are those who are NOT a part of Israel (in other words, gentiles) .
So to put it simply, from God’s perspective, Israel is CLEAN and gentiles are UNCLEAN.
To be in the direct presence of God cleanliness is required. You can be unclean even if you have not sinned. The Garden was a clean environment.
What are the direct presents of God? Do they arrive on your birthday? Or is God in this case identified with Santa?
How so? There was a lot of dirt in the Garden. Otherwise it wouldn’t work as a garden. And of course Adam was made from dirt in the Garden.
This is the case now, after Jesus. Before the Holy Spirit was given by Jesus, you needed the law and prophets to guide you. So, you are correct that I no longer live by the law, I live by faith in Jesus that He is the way. That being said, the Holy Spirit convicts me when I sin, so there is law, but it is written on my heart, not a code that I need to follow.
Good point, it seems Adam was good until Eve came along…hmmmmm, women have that effect in my life too.
I disagree…a 2 year old that lies proves that sin is part of human nature, and that 2 year old, though innocent is not righteous (clean) and cannot be in the presence of God.
1 Like
These two comments seem contradictory.
Therein lies the question of why there are separate people. I would argue that Adam was God’s chosen and the others were not. The people outside the garden could not enter into the presence of God whether they sin or not because they were not chosen. That did not make them innocent nor lacking sin, just unworthy regardless of their actions. Gentiles were not included in the salvation picture until Jesus came along. Perhaps that has something to do with the common descent argument (I don’t fully understand that yet), that Jews and Gentiles by Jesus time were all genetically one people, but divided by the law (DNA was diluted by blending cultures, but Jewish law prevented blood line recognition if not pure), so a new covenant needed to be established to afford all eternal life being that all are technically now God’s chosen by DNA distribution. The book of Ruth is a good example of the legality problem of bringing gentiles into the Jewish culture/law, but that it was done and therefore must have diluted the genes of God’s chosen.
I am again thinking out loud, proposing scenarios for discussion, not making a stand on anything.
This is supported by Genesis 4:15-17 - Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of [b]Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
Then down the line God makes a covenant with Abraham, but the DNA from Cain was already among the Gentiles. Jesus states he is the “root and offspring of David” in revelation. So, that means He created Adam and was born of the line of David (the only reference to Jesus in the bloodline before David is in John that Jesus was with God in the beginning, and was God). So, offspring of Adam including Cain are of the same bloodline as Jesus and all are now “chosen” by their past, present and future connection to Jesus through DNA (who was and is and is to come).
You should know, if you have become familiar with GAE, that there is no reason that remote descendants of Adam should have any of his DNA. There is a small exception through any strictly male lineage, of course, in the major fraction of the Y chromosome. Is it the Y chromosome that counts, then? In such a case, only a small fraction of people can be “of the bloodline”. On the other hand, if it’s not DNA that counts but genealogical descent, everybody would be.
OK, I haven’t read the book…but that makes sense.
If that is the case, then much of the Bible would also seem to be redundant. I’m no theologian, but that doesn’t seem right.
But Bill already covered that!
Adam does not seem to have been in the direct presence of God in the garden… God used to visit him and they used to walk together… this indicates God taking on human like form.
I dont see how this is different from God visiting Abraham on earth. I think you are reading stuff into the text which just isnt there.
Compare how God visits Adam vis a vis the descriptions in isaiah 6, where even cherubim cover their faces and tremble before Him. God’s visit with Adam were far more casual.