Studies In Theology - 12/05/2006 (Deadly Coodies, infiltration And The Potential Affiliation Of Human Sacrifice As Atonement?)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity 12/05/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12/05/2006

Chapter 25 again show incredibly severe punishment for what is described as sexual relations with Moabite women - though the punishment is applied for having feated and worshiped with them of false idols - being the Gods of Moab. ~

This brought the execution of the ring leaders supposedly, as well as a display from a grandson of Aaron (Phinehas) in pursuing an Israelite still with one of the women and thrust a spear through him into the woman as well. ~

This supposedly stopped yet another plague, but only after having killed 24,000 Israelites. ~

This is somewhat unique thusfar in a priest killing other people - having been described only as participating in sacrificial ceremonies to this point. ~

It definitely signifies a threshold having been crossed.

There was no ceremony to the emotionally charged execution of the man and woman - but is further described as being rewarded by the Lord for turning the Lords anger away from the people (Israelites).

This done for; Being as zealous among them as I was. ~

Suggesting - alluding to having had a physical presence in the past at this point. further perhaps suggesting of an embodiment within Aaron - even suggesting the present transcendental form - to be that of Aaron, through mentioning Aaron immediately previous to the statement regarding the state of former presence. ~

There is definitely an aspect of the movement of such embodiment here - which then is made all the more interesting in the recent reference to God being King of the Israelites. Then being more intriguing in the respect of that King now being referred to in a past tense physically, though obviously somehow present in the voicing of such statements. ~

This zeal shown by Phinehas was rewarded - and I have to chuckle some here, as the reward was in the form of a special covenant of which he was already a part - being that he and his descendants were already guaranteed a permanent right to the priest hood (sans of course some ailment). ~

What then is really being said about such action? ~

In 25:13, it then even refers to the killing as an act which purified the people of Israel - making them right with God. ~

Obviously this definitely associates the killing of the man and woman with not only a sacrificial offering as atonement, but then with priestly actions as well. This definitely then presents various shifts in symbolism as well as potential transference. Most definitely potential deviation through association at this point, especially when considering the various forms of other mimicry's which are quite present now, in the modern day. ~

As a note; the man (Israelite) killed - was from (the leader of no less) the tribe of Simeon. Previously noted as having been cursed for brutality by Jacob. Perhaps, as I read from 25:16 - it is that Simeon is becoming somewhat of a scapegoat in this example? ~

In 25:16 there is insight into the association and activity at Acacia Grove perhaps having political leanings - as it is stated that the Israelite leader (The Simeon), was coupled with the daughter of the Midianite leader. Which gives a different impression than some orgy like chaos.

More to the side of purposeful intention in such relations for which ever reason.

This is substantiated to some degree in stating the reason of the attack on the Midianites being that they assaulted with deceit and trickery! Definitely indicative of deeper political reasons given that the Israelites must have known of the form of worship of the Midianites before entering into such orchestrated relations with them which would have paired tribe leader with comparable social status in said relationship and exchange. ~

This being very much a possibility as the Moabites (Midianites presumably) are described as local to the place that they (the Israelites) camped - being the Acacia Grove. ~

In a larger social sense, it could be likened much as was described in 22:04 of Numbers - describing the destructive potential of the Israelites as a mob devouring everything in sight. ~

In regard to yet another example of plague - with the consistency of the plague as it is depicted, it gives me thought toward - yet again - the subtle differences perhaps between different civilizations in that area (at the time depicted).

In a similar respect, though not in the same extremes - interaction between different civilizations - and different elemental consistencies - may have made for variations of the plagues as they manifested.

Different people having different - though slight at this point - immunities and tolerances. ~

Something such as the large scale social exchanges (feasting - sexual) depicted in chapter 25, could very well have been enough to breech those subtle differences, and transmitting - even exciting - various strains being dormant (perhaps no longer even communicable in the air borne sense) until such opportunities arose?

With what is now known of such viruses - such stands to reason, especially in regard to the obvious manipulation of that larger influence depicted thus far. Perhaps the concentration in that single point of focus - then resulted in a physiological shift as well? ~

Something further to consider here is within that level of tolerance - perhaps a developed immunity through the larger scale (variations) of exposure within the nomadic aspects of the Israelites? Especially in the building of resistance and immunity to various strains as they were exposed to them - then of course transferring them to others not yet with the same tolerance? ~

Something yet further to note as previously touched on, is the difference in the idea of civilization(s) from our current perspective. We now regard such as a whole in civilization within the shrinking effect of growing population and modern communications (among other things) - where at the time of this depiction, such was definitely not the case.