Graduate Theological Foundation

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 1

Health, Wellbeing, and Wholeness in Leviticus and its Implications for Public Health in the 21ST Century: A Theological and Pastoral Case Study Focusing on the Levitical Priest as a Public Health Practitioner

Steven Rowitt

A dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Ph.D. (All But Dissertation)

Completion Program

Rev. Hugh Page, Jr., D. Min., Ph.D., Ordinarius

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 2

Ordinarius

Hugh R. Page, Jr., D. Min., Ph.D. Dean, First Year of Studies Associate Professor of Theology and Africana Studies University of Notre Dame

Reviewed by

Jodie Clark, M.D., M.P.H. Assistant Professor Department of Health Sciences Nova Southeastern University

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 3

Dedication

To the glory of God, for He alone is truly worthy of our highest praise. And to my wife,

Yvonne, for her unfailing love and support and to my daughter, Rachel, who is the apple of my eye. God has bestowed upon me many blessings and I will be eternally grateful to Him for the knowledge of His grace and the family He has given me.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 4

Acknowledgements

I have many people to thank, not the least of which is my Ordinarius, Dr. Hugh Page Jr., for his patience, guidance, and scholarly expertise. I want to thank Dr. Jodi Clark for her willingness to read and comment on my research. I would also like to acknowledge my professors at Touro University International for taking a chance on a severely disabled adult learner and accepting me into their Ph.D. in Health Sciences Program. Additionally, they gave me the opportunity to serve as a graduate assistant throughout my graduate studies working with some of our fine men and women serving in the armed forces who are enrolled in Touro’s undergraduate programs. Finally, I would like to thank my wife and daughter for their constant encouragement and support and all of my brothers and sisters in the faith who have encouraged and supported me over the years.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 5

Abstract

This dissertation engages in an experimental reading of the Levitical Code based on a hypothesis that the Levitical Code can be read in part as a public health document; that the Levitical Priest can be treated as a public health official; and that such a reading can be informative for the practice of ministry in the 21st century. The Levitical priesthood and its unique service as the proto-public health institution and ministerial intercessors to the ancient Israelites were responsible for the health, wellbeing, and wholeness of the children of Israel from the time of their Exodus from Egypt until the destruction of the Herodian Temple in 70 AD. In recent times, an emphasis on diet, nutrition, the prevention and control of chronic diseases, has become a major focus of the modern public health paradigm. It is hoped that this retrospective theological and pastoral case study will result in a set of aphorisms for modern pastoral care derived from the Levitical prototype, thereby benefiting modern clergy and the people of faith that they hope to serve.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 6

Table of Contents

Ordinarius & Reader 2 Dedication 3 Acknowledgments 4 Abstract 5 Contents 6 Abbreviations 7 List of Tables and Charts 8 Introduction 9 Methodology 15 Rationale 16 Definitions 22 Literature review 24 Historical & Contextual Concerns 62 Levitical Priests as Public Health Practitioners 68 Levitical Priests as Intercessors 70 Levitical Priests and the Sacrificial System 73 Levitical Priests and Modern Clergy 79 Commonalities between the Levites and New Testament Clergy 80 Public Health: Environmental and Historical Consideration 85 Public Health: Diet and Disease in Ancient Israel 87 Public Health and Lifestyle Diseases 93 Public Health and Environmental and Infectious Diseases 96 Public Health and Dietary Considerations 105 Public Health: Ancient Medicine in Judaism and Early Christianity 108 Application to Ministry: Modern Clergy 114 Application to Ministry: Modern Chaplains 130 Application to Ministry: Modern Christian and Biblical Counselors 134 Application to Ministry: Grief Counseling Post 9-11 137 Implications for Future Research: Ministry to the Disabled 140 Implications for Future Research: Overcoming Barriers to Healing 142 Implications for the Future: Pastoral Care 144 Conclusion 148 Addendum: Discussion of Biblical Diseases 152 Comparison Chart of Ancient Illnesses (Table 2) 158 Bibliography 159

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 7

List of Abbreviations

ABD All But Dissertation AMT American Medical Technologists APA American Psychiatric Association BC Before Christ AD Anno Domini COR Corinthians DEUT Deuteronomy EPH Ephesians EX Exodus GAL Galatians GTF Graduate Theological Foundation HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus JPS Jewish Publication Society LEV Leviticus MD Medical Doctor MPH Master Public Health MRSA Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus NT New Testament NUM Numbers PE Pastoral Epistles PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder S Surah SAM Samuel SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome STAT Abbreviation for statim, Latin for immediately TUI Touro University International WHO World Health Organization

All biblical references are from the New American Standard Version of the Bible.

List I- List of Abbreviations

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 8

List of Tables and Charts

I List of abbreviations, p. 7.

II Comparison of ministry chart Levitical priests and modern-day clergy, p. 81.

III Flowchart for Levitical priest and modern-day clergy, page 84.

IV Comparison table of ancient illnesses and possible modern-day counterparts, p. 158.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 9

Introduction

The clergy of three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and to a lesser extent

Islam, all consider the Bible a relevant document with regard to their respective faiths. Judaism considers the Tanakh or the Hebrew Scriptures to be its seminal document, while Christianity holds the Old and New Testaments, or the Christian Bible in its various canonical versions, as foundational to the Christian faith. To a lesser degree, Islam acknowledges its relationship to the

Patriarchs of the Old Testament as well as the historical validity of the Gospels. The holy document of Islam is the Qu’ran wherein Abraham, in common with Jewish and Christian tradition, is characterized as the father of the faithful. Islamic writings acknowledge that Allah had previously given the Torah to the Jews and the Gospels to the Christians:

Yet before it was the Book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a Book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn the evildoers, and good tidings to the good- doers. (S. 46:12)

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. (S. 3:3 Khalifa)

Often the Levitical priesthood is obscured by the ceremonial activity taking place in the tabernacle in the wilderness and the Temples in Jerusalem that afterward replaced the Tent of the

Meeting. The interactions of the Levitical priesthood, serving the children of Israel on behalf of

Yahweh, are steeped in the voluminous sacrifices and offerings, festival Holy days, and intercessory activities prescribed in the Torah. For this reason, we do not usually see these priests as the pastors of their day.

By the first century AD, many more Jews lived outside of Palestine than within its borders; however, the temple remained the focal point of Jewish people throughout the world.

The spiritual lives of the Jews of ancient Palestine centered on the activity and ministry of the

Levitical priesthood and the Second Temple. Many Jews would make pilgrimages to the temple

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 10 from their homes; thereby fulfilling their responsibilities to attend temple worship on the mandatory holy days.

David A. DeSilva (2004) gives us a description concerning the centrality of the Israelite temple and its sacrifices:

During most of the first century, the temple was the focal point of Jews throughout the

world. This was the place where God promised to meet Israel, to hear its prayers, and

accept its sacrifices. Many Jews would make pilgrimages from their homes throughout

the Diaspora and throughout Palestine on occasions of high festivals. The temple

provided not only a symbol of the connection of all Jews to their ancestral land but also

an occasion for renewing those connections. As long as the temple cult ran smoothly,

according to God’s instructions, a ready means of access to God (however limited) was at

hand. The wellbeing of the people could be secured and transgressions against God’s law

covered so they would not jeopardize the covenant between a sinful people and its holy

God. (p. 75)

With the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the rabbinical clergy of the local synagogue replaced the Levitical priesthood. This historic event, coupled with the following Diaspora, resulted in a shift away from the centrality of the priesthood, a de-emphasis of the Levitical

Code, and the cessation of Temple worship and the significant place it held in the lives of the

Jewish people.

Medicine and religion have long histories dating back to the dawn of man. In times past, these cultural constructs have intertwined. However, in the beginning of the 21st century, they have on many levels merged into a complete partnership.

My personal life has mirrored this combination of medicine and religion. My secular education is in the field of medical laboratory science. I worked for almost two decades as a

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 11 nationally certified Medical Technologist (AMT) and State licensed Clinical Laboratory

Supervisor in Broward County, Florida. My career took a turn from one form of healing ministry, e.g. medicine, to another when I became an ordained minister of the Gospel of Jesus

Christ in 1981 through the auspices of the American Messianic Mission Inc./Beth Yeshua (House of Jesus).

When I realized I had a responsibility to prepare for the ministry, I enrolled in the

International Seminary in Plymouth, FL and pursued a Master of Theology degree. Working the graveyard shift, I was able to use the calm periods between calls from the emergency room, the occasional STAT glucose for a brittle diabetic, or type and crossmatch for a gastrointestinal bleed or trauma patient, to study required texts and prepare term papers. Following in the tent- making footsteps of ministers dating all the way back to the Apostle Paul, I continued to work for several years on the 11p-7a shift in the hospital laboratory. In this way, I could fulfill my ministerial duties while continuing to provide for my family.

In June of 2001, I personally suffered a devastating medical condition called rhabdomyolysis. This potentially fatal myopathy left me completely paralyzed, on a respirator, and in acute kidney failure. A once self-professed workaholic and tent-making minister had succumbed to multi-organ system failure weeks after beginning to take a fatal combination of medications. Medications that were clearly contraindicated with a “black box” warning, however, my physician failed to take me off one before prescribing the other.

When I worked in the medical laboratory, we used to refer to patients who were in conditions similar to mine with the tongue-in-cheek diagnosis of “impending death syndrome.” I spent 6 weeks in intensive care and two months in the hospital. This was followed by two more months in a rehabilitation hospital learning to walk again. I know firsthand what it is to experience a traumatic illness, subsequent disability, and the long road to recovery that follows a

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 12 prolonged period of ill health. It was during those long and tedious months of physical therapy that I began to understand the fine lines that exist between illness, healing, and cure.

The bright side of this experience was my return to school. I envisioned a life of limited mobility and I did not want my mind to deteriorate the way my skeletal muscles had. I searched for a regionally accredited educational program that would accept someone who could not physically attend classes, even to satisfy a short on-campus residency requirement. Thankfully, I found a Ph.D. program in Health Sciences at Touro University International (TUI) in Cypress,

California that would accept me.

I completed the entire course requirements except for the dissertation at TUI. I graduated with a GPA of 3.848 and was awarded their Certificate in Advanced Studies in Health Sciences.

I subsequently enrolled in the Graduate Theological Foundation’s (GTF) All But Dissertation

(ABD) Completion Program. This dissertation is being written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. in Health Sciences at GTF. In order to enroll in GTF’s ABD

Completion Program, students must have left their previous institution in good standing after completing ABD required coursework from a regionally accredited university.

During my ministerial service, I have worked extensively in the field of pastoral counseling. I hold two certifications in counseling. One is with the American Association of

Christian Counselor’s accrediting agency, the International Board of Christian Counselors as a

Board Certified Pastoral Counselor. The other certification is from the American Psychotherapy

Association where I am a Diplomate and a Board Certified Professional Counselor. I believe that my training and experience as a clinical laboratory scientist, coupled with my ministry service since 1986 as the Senior Pastor and Director of Counseling at Biblical Alternatives

Fellowship, FT. Lauderdale, FL, places me in a unique position to evaluate the interactions between the medical world and communities of faith. In addition to this combination of clinical

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 13 and pastoral training, my firsthand experience of coping with a severe disability also aids me in this endeavor.

Coupled with my clinical and pastoral training and experience, I am familiar with, and understand the dangers of, researcher bias. Although this project is not quantitative in nature, I have solicited help from consultants who will assist me in reviewing and assessing my work.

One of these is an educator holding both a Medical Doctorate as well as a Master of Public

Health.

Bacteriologist and public health pioneer, Charles E. A. Winslow (1920), defines Public

Health as “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health, through organized community efforts.” The earliest applications of epidemiological practices in the modern era are generally traced back to the life and times of Dr. John Snow (1813-1858), a legendary figure in the history of public health, epidemiology, and anesthesiology.

The newly emerging Germ theory would advance the fields of medicine and epidemiology more than any other discovery in the history of the medical arts. However, the ancient threads of modern public health can be traced almost two millennia back to remote antiquity.

The major regions of medical development in ancient times were Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. The history of medicine in these regions showed evidence that the practice of the medical arts was often shrouded in religious and/or mystical ceremonies. It is the work of

Hippocrates that stands out as the one scholar who organized and wrote extensively on the state of the medical arts during in that era. While these works are the earliest extant Greek medical writings, it is generally understood that many of them are certainly not his. Some five or six, however, are generally granted to be genuine and among these is the famous “Oath” (Eliot,

1910).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 14

Much of what has evolved in Western civilization, with regard to the practice of medicine, finds its roots in ancient Israel as revealed in the Old through the New Testament documents. Christopher Hamlin (2004) explains the Judeo-Christian view of disease:

In the Old and New Testaments alone, disease had a multiplicity of conflicting

significations. It represented the dispensation of God to an individual, perhaps as

punishment or a test. To act against disease by intervening to help others stricken by a

dangerous epidemic was an act of devotion. If one died in such a situation, it was a sign

of grace; if one did not die, and helped to save others, it was equally a sign of grace.

The laws of hygiene in the Pentateuch permitted a naturalistic interpretation of disease.

Unclean acts or other transgressions, like failing to isolate contagions from society,

generated the retribution of disease, perhaps through God’s appointed secondary or

natural causes. Disease might even be naturally communicative; in such a case,

communal decisions to maintain the Levitical laws were meant not only of acting against

potential epidemics but of maintaining the police of the community and perhaps of

augmenting its welfare. (p. 23; Douglas, 1966; Winslow, 1980; Amundsen & Ferngren,

1986; Dorff, 1986)

The Levitical priesthood and ancient Israelite culture formed the basis for a healthcare system replete with a set of interacting resources, institutions, and strategies, that were intended to prevent or cure illness within the community. Instructions concerning the diagnosis and quarantine of contagious disease (Lev. 13) nutritional instructions (Lev. 11) as well as the proper sanitization of plates and cooking utensils (Lev. 6:28) reflect the public health oriented instructions of Leviticus.

Acting on the instructions in Leviticus, the priesthood performed services that aided the individual person in coming to grips with their ailments, either psychologically induced via a

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 15 guilty conscience due to overt transgressions outlined in the Torah or those unintentional trespasses encountered without forethought or malice. The numerous sacrifices and offerings speak eloquently to the psychological and moral aspects of the ministry of the Levitical priests.

My professional experience has spanned the fields of medical technology and pastoral ministry for more than thirty years. My personal life has included the experience of a devastating illness followed by an ongoing permanent disability. This illness began with complete paralysis and progressed through a slow and painful time of rehabilitation. During this process, I began to understand how a personal disease could only be truly comprehended within the larger context of illness. Additionally, I learned that healing could be experienced as a part of the disease/illness process without a total restoration of the patient to a pre-disease state, e.g. cure. Taking into consideration the way my personal and professional life has evolved; I believe

I am well positioned to evaluate the office of the Levitical priests with an eye towards learning lessons that will benefit 21st century ministers and their congregations.

Methodology

This dissertation engages in an experimental reading of Levitical Code based on a premise that it can be read in part as a public health document; that the Levitical Priest can be treated as a public health official; and that such a reading can be informative for the practice of ministry in the 21st century.

The hypothesis being examined in this dissertation stems from the relationship between the ancient Levitical Priest and his community of faith, the children of Israel. It is posited that this model can be compared with the Levites combining certain aspects of public health and pastoral ministry paradigms. This illustration can be further contrasted to a modern clergyman who is operating within their particular community of faith. The factors associated with the

Levitical priesthood can inform us today about the successful practice of ministry with regard to

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 16 the role of clergy and the psychosocial, physical, and spiritual wellbeing of their own faith-based community.

If we only looked at the psychological implications of the sacrificial system of atonement and purification, we would be able to make numerous comparisons to the pastoral model; however, Leviticus included actual disease states as well. Applications to the modern clergy abound when the model of the Levitical priesthood is compared to the activities of modern ministers. In many ways, this model of the Levitical priest is even more analogous to the ministry of a contemporary chaplain.

I hope to identify some salient parallels between the Levitical priesthood and modern-day clergy, thereby highlighting the difference between cure and healing, while offering a more complete understanding of the healing process in Leviticus as it pertains to modern ministry.

Rationale

This dissertation intends to identify selected precursors to modern public health and epidemiology that are found in the ancient sacred writings of the Israelites, specifically the book of Leviticus.

We will examine the unique relationship that pastors have with their parishioners when they are facing a crisis associated with transgressing God’s commandments, serious illness, and/or long-term disability that may, or may not, be related to willful disobedience. The book of

Leviticus provides insights into the practice of ministry prior to the destruction of the temple in

70 AD. Even with all our medical advancements and insights into the pathology and cure of disease, the ancient Levitical Code still speaks to us today. We remain people who must go through life coping with illness, dealing with the psychosocial implications of our own frailties and moral shortcomings, and facing the ultimate inevitability of our own demise.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 17

According to biblical sources, the Levitical priests are envisioned as acting as the proto- public health practitioners of antiquity. They examined the people for signs of physical contagion, oversaw and enforced the only documented use of medical quarantine before the first century AD. Offerings that, by their very descriptions, e.g. sin, guilt, fellowship, trespass, all implied forgiveness and reconciliation to an imperfect people living in the presence of a holy

God.

The similarities between the ancient Levitical priest and their modern-day ministerial and medical counterparts are most noticeable with regard to their common goals, i.e. the physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of those they serve. Both groups can be said to focus on the reading and interpreting of disease within their own particular paradigm. This is not from the traditional medical perspective, but as part of their ministerial praxis, i.e. individual soulcare, congregational ministry, etc.

Progress within the practice of medicine has evolved considerably over the past three millennia. Today we understand the importance of treating a patient holistically. We know that psychological wellbeing is an essential factor in the health of the individual. Additionally, we understand that without utilizing a holistic approach; we will ultimately fail in our goal to minister effectively to those we hope to serve.

No matter what the actual cause, the outcome, either cure as the result of treatment or healing by coming to terms with terminal illness or long-term disability, the place that spiritual support has in this process should be examined more thoroughly. The pastor is no less a partner with God in ministry to the current-day congregant than the Levitical priest was to the ancient

Israelite approaching the tabernacle or temple for atonement, physical examination to determine the state of illness or cure, and/or the ceremony of ritual purification (cleansing) with water, e.g. micvah.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 18

Public Health is the science and art of preventing disease. The practitioners of public health most often serve local communities. Much of their work is focused on the general health and wellbeing of population groups living within a particular geographical location. Presently, the science of epidemiology has grown considerably beyond its earliest application. As we have noted, a history that dates back to the life and times of Dr. John Snow and his solving the mystery of the Broad Street pump cholera epidemic of 1854 (Whitehead, 1865).

Members of the Levitical priesthood functioned within the Israelite community as the overseers and caregivers of a healthcare system. The priests acted in concert with the information outlined in the book of Leviticus. These instructions included the sacrifices, offerings, strategies for the control of contamination, and physical inspection for the sake of reintroduction into the community of faith for those afflicted with a contagious disease. All of those Levitical practices were intended to protect the community and insure the public health and wellbeing of the population they served.

The Levites personally ministered to the psychosocial needs of the people as they faced the personal toll the possibility of disease might take, i.e. the possible separation from the community due to quarantine and/or a variety of other applications that were outlined in the sacrifices and offerings of the priesthood. Those duties included the assuaging of a guilty conscience for sins committed on an individual basis, or as a community in general, through the various sacrifices and offerings described in detail in the book of Leviticus.

Many of the instructions contained in the Book of Leviticus, centuries before the works of Hypocrites and almost three millennia prior to the work of the Father of modern epidemiology, Robert Snow, contain unusual insights into the need for the suffering to come to grips with their illness. The Levitical Priests, acting on the instructions given, were indeed the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 19 precursors to the clergy of our modern era as well as the forerunners to our modern public health practitioners.

Dr. Snow’s, part clinician part forensic pathologist, discoveries concerning tainted water and the spread of cholera at the now infamous Broad Street pump garnered the attention of the medical establishment. This hastened the abandonment of the “bad air” or miasma theory of disease. Snow had, as one historian writes, “used meticulously gathered data and the power of statistics to bring about the beginning of the end for cholera in Britain” (Powell, 2002, pp. 4-5).

Many scientists theorized the possibility of a microbial cause for disease; however, it was not until the work of Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Joseph Lister (1827-1912), and Robert Koch

(1843-1910) that the microbiological basis for disease became firmly established. Hector Avalos

(1995) notes:

An important development that predated germ theory that began with great vigor in the

eighteenth century was an emphasis on hygiene (public and private). It is within this

framework that many works on biblical illnesses pointed to the Priestly Code as an

example of the best hygienic code in antiquity. (p. 4)

As the contemporary public health paradigm continued to develop, the modern-day counterparts to the ancient Israelite clergy also evolved. Frequently taking their cues directly from the Torah, the New Testament clergy continued to minister to their respective congregations. Roman Catholicism has always seen itself as the legitimate keepers of the apostolic tradition, tracing their apostolic authority back to the Apostle Peter.

Within the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions, clergy have often been intimately involved in healing. These traditions have read and deployed Levitical customs in their various ways as analogues for pastoral praxis.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 20

This is not the appropriate forum to enter into a general discussion on the biblical theories of atonement, i.e. Christus victor or dramatic model, penal substitution, healing, etc. However, it is commonly understood that the ancient Levitical priests offered animal sacrifices with many of them pertaining to the activities of substitutionary atonement (Balentine, 2002, p.147; Radner,

2008, p. 182; Wenham, 1979, p. 27). Christians see the Messiah as not only their legitimate

High Priest, but also the ultimate fulfillment of the various sacrifices and offerings codified in the book of Leviticus. Numerous New Testament passages confirm these truths:

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17)

Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (I Peter 1:18- 19)

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. (I Cor. 6:7)

It is also clear from the various statements of faith and theological writings of both the

Catholic and Protestant traditions, that the Messiah is understood as both the embodiment of the

Levitical Priesthood as well as the ultimate fulfillment for the various sacrifices and offerings delineated in the book of Leviticus. The New Testament quotes the Messiah offering this insight to his contemporaries:

“You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:38-40)

The connection between the ministry of the Messiah, and its relationship to the activities foreshadowed in the Levitical sacrifices and offerings, is emphatically stated in the letter written to first century Jewish Christians as the author states:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 21

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

But in those sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins year by year.

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

“THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’”

After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them.” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:1-14)

With the connection between the Levitical Priesthood and the New Testament clergy established, we can examine the ways these ministries parallel one another. We can look at how the Levitical priests acted as both the proto-public health practitioners and the pastoral ministers of their particular faith-based community. These lessons can be used to inform the clergy of

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 22 today in ways that will benefit them as they, and their congregations, face the challenges of 21st century ministry.

A Discussion of Basic Definitions

When presenting a comparative analysis from the perspectives of medical anthropology and biblical scholarship in a hermeneutical format, defining our terms becomes vitally important.

This is even more evident when we are discussing such subject matter as sickness, healing, disease, and the impact that health has on the individual and the community at large.

Health is a very difficult term to define. Historian John J. Pilch (2000) observes the definition is largely derived from the work of medical anthropologist Arthur Kleinman:

Kleinman’s definitions (1980; Kleinman, Kunstadter, Alexander, & Gate, 1978) are

generally and widely shared in medical anthropology (Caplan, Engelhardt Jr., Tristram,

& McCartney, 1978; Cassell, 1976; Eisenberg, 1977; Englehardt, Jr., 1981, 1986;

Fitzpatrick, 1984; Landy, 1977; Ohnuki-Tierney, 1981, 1984) even if sometimes

modified (Young, 1982). (p. 24)

Pilch (2000) continues to explain how any definition of health is a descriptive and culturally normative concept that plays a defining role in a given society:

In the United States, where a major cultural value is achievement and self-sufficiency,

health might be defined as “the ability to perform those functions which allow the

organism to maintain itself, all other things being equal, in the range of activity open to

most other members of the species (for example, within two standard deviations from the

norm) and which are conducive towards the maintenance of its species” (Engelhardt Jr.,

1981).

The classic definition offered by the World Health Organization (WHO) is, “a

state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 23

disease and infirmity.” This definition is routinely challenged by Western specialists

because of its focus on health as a “state.” Non-Western populations, however, find the

definition very meaningful since their cultural values place a high priority on wellbeing

from a variety of perspectives. (p. 24)

Sickness is a blanket term used to label real human experiences of diseases and/or illness.

This is the proper domain of medical anthropology, though special attention is paid mainly to illness (Twaddle, 1981). Pilch (2000) explains:

Disease is not a reality but rather an explanatory concept that describes abnormalities in

the structure and/or function of human organs and organ systems. This includes

pathological states even if they are not culturally recognized. Disease is the arena of

biomedicine and the biomedical model. (p. 24-25; Grmek, 1989; Lipowski, 1969)

Illness is another term requiring some clarification for the purposes of this dissertation.

Pilch (2000) continues to elaborate on the explanatory aspects of illness:

Illness, too, is not a reality but an explanatory concept that describes the human

perception, experience, and interpretation, of certain socially disvalued states including

but not limited to disease (Worsley, 1982, p. 327). Illness is both a personal and social

reality and therefore in large part a cultural construct (Kleinman, 1974b; Lewis, 1981).

Culture dictates what to perceive, value, and express, and then how to live with illness.

(p.25; Kleinman, 1980, pp. 417-418; Ohnuki-Tierney, 1981, 1984; Weidman, 1988;

Kaplan, 1983)

“Curing is the anticipated outcome relative to disease, that is, the attempt to take effective control of disordered biological and/or psychological processes” (Pilch, 2000, p.25).

Here medical anthropology gives us very important insights into the sickness and healing paradigm.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 24

“Healing is directed towards illness, that is, the attempt to provide personal and social meaning for the life problems created by sickness” (Pilch, 2000, p.25). It is in this framework that we see an important function that the Levitical priesthood provided to the community of

Israelites they served. It is within this broader context of health that we can glean insights into the workings of the modern clergy with respect to making sense of our encounter with disease, and even death.

Western medicine focuses primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of disease or illness.

In this context, Western medicine can be successful. Pilch (2000) continues to explain:

The complaint against modern biomedicine is that it is concerned only with curing the

disease while the patient is searching for healing the illness. This dichotomy separates

nearly all human societies view as essential in healing, that is, some combination of

symptom reduction along with other behavior or physical transformation that reflects that

society’s understanding of health and the provision of new or renewed meaning in life for

the sick person. (p. 25; Etkin, 1988, p. 300)

Defining our terms allows us to be specific in our attempts to develop a theological and pastoral case study of the Levitical Priest as a Public Health Practitioner. It will aid us in our examination of these Old Testament ministers and enable us to glean insights that will more effectively assist us in making applications to modern-day ministry.

Literature Review

This literature review is selective. I have chosen works with an eye towards situating my project within a fairly narrow band of research dealing with anthropological and healthcare implications in the book of Leviticus. The work of several outstanding scholars serves as the foundation for the relatively recent emergence of the field of medical anthropology. In addition to this, I have included the pertinent research on religion and health from experts within this field

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 25 of research. This will provide a framework for the evaluation of the religious impact of the

Levitical Code on the health and wellbeing of the faith-based communities of the Old and New

Testaments.

When attempting to compile a literature review of the works of authors that can shine the light of medical and cultural anthropology on the ancient Israelites, we need to understand something of how ethnic and cultural groups begin to form. How did a group like the Israelites begin to stand out and separate themselves from other surrounding cultures and ethnic groups?

Harold Attridge (2004) gives us insight into the formation of societies:

Ancient societies, like all human groupings, set boundaries on human behavior, defining

actions that disrupted human relations in various ways as wrong. Some actions such as

murder, incest, or theft were almost universally condemned, although what counted as

truly unjustifiable homicide or illicit sex might vary and the boundaries of the moral

community with which such actions were prohibited might vary. Other actions could

easily accrue to a list of wrongful acts, from the trivial (making others sad, as in Egypt) to

the profound (rebellion against God, as in Israel). Whatever the faults, people of all

societies found way of committing them, either inadvertently or maliciously. Religious

systems, understood here to be the complex of rituals and stories that provided a

symbolic matrix for societal institutions, provided mechanisms for dealing with these

actions and eliminating their results. (p. 71)

Hector Avalos (1995) offers an excellent historical overview of the previous scholarship in the field of biblical healthcare. He begins by noting:

J.P. Trusen was one of the 19th century scholars that wrote about biblical medicine from a

non-critical stance. In his 1853 book, Die Sitten, Gebräuche und Krankheiten der alten

Hebräer (The Manners, Customs, and Diseases of the Ancient Hebrews), Trusen divides

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 26

his work into the following four sections. The customs and practices of the ancient

Hebrews, Midwifery, the Mosaic Law code, and the analysis of specific biblical passages

that related to illness. (p. 6)

Trusen’s (1843) publication of Darstellung der biblischen Krankheiten (Representation of the biblical diseases and medicine related to the passages of Scripture) describes circumcision, love potions, midwifery, the Mosaic Criminal Justice, sodomy, pederasty, masturbation, gonorrhea, plague, disease of the eyes, etc. with regard to the Old and New

Testament writings.

Trusen’s work was published prior to the widespread establishment of the Germ theory of disease. Avalos (1995) continues:

Trusen wished to show that biblical healthcare (which for him included the New

Testament writings) was superior to that found in any other corpus. He sought to show

the eternal wisdom (“ewige Weisheit”) of biblical health practices. However, on a rare

occasion Trusen could also show himself to be a keen observer of social institutions. In

view of the descriptions of Levites as hygienic inspectors of persons, Trusen called the

Levites “Polizeiärtze” (police physicians), a term which, as we shall show below, may

have some validity. (p. 7)

It is Trusen’s view of the Levites as “police physicians” that offers support concerning the hypothesis of this research. He is one of the first physicians to expound on the healthcare aspects of the Levitical priesthood. When we consider the era in which Trusen practiced medicine, and the limitations of medical knowledge during his lifetime, his contributions can be seen as insightful. This is especially true with regard to his analysis of specific biblical passages that include references to pathological conditions. As Historian Sarah Iles Johnston (2004)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 27 explains, “the identification of most diseases in the Hebrew Bible is notoriously difficult, especially in cases of epidemics (Num. 25; I Sam. 5:6-12).”

Another important figure in the history of the study of biblical healthcare is Wilhelm

Ebstein. Hector Avalos (1995) explains:

Wilhelm Ebstein of Göttingen published Kie Medizin im Alten Testament (Medicine in

the Old Testament) in 1901. He wrote at a time when the microbial causes of various

diseases had been well established. Much of his work is devoted to hygiene reflecting the

importance of the topic during Ebstein’s lifetime. The new knowledge of microbes led

Ebstein to apply some of these new discoveries to the descriptions of illnesses found in

the Bible. (p.7)

Ebstein was a brilliant German internist who, unlike Trusen, applied some of the insights of the historical-critical schools that developed in Germany in the later half of the nineteenth century. Although most of his work was devoted to hygiene and the pathology and therapy of metabolic diseases (van Son, Konstantinov, & Zimmermann, 2001), it is Ebstein’s 1903 publication of Die Medizin des neuen Testaments und des Talmud (The Medicine of the New

Testament and the Talmud) where the unique qualifications of Ebstein as a medical physician and Talmudic scholar affords us insights into the relationship between the ancient Jewish physicians of the Talmud and the Levitical Code. Ebstein is the first to make the connection between these Talmudic medical interpretations and the ministry of the Levitical priests of Israel.

It is Ebstein who began to make a connection between the newly emerging germ theory of disease and the biblical plagues. In his estimation, we could now explain many of these biblical epidemics as natural events. I consider Ebstein’s work as demonstrating an important aspect in the evolution of the relationship between religion and health. He was able to go beyond his pre-germ theory contemporaries and make important connections between the events of the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 28

Bible and the possible underlying infectious agents at work in what the Bible characterizes as judgments of the Almighty.

One of the foremost students of the Bible, from a medical perspective, is Julius Preuss

(1861-1913). Preuss studied medicine at the University of Berlin completing his course of study in 1886. Preuss’s biographer, Fred Rosner (1997), notes:

Preuss was a physician of fine training and wide experience, a learned scholar in Hebrew

literature as well as in medical and general history. He studied Talmud with Rabbi

Biberfeld and the famous Rabbi Ritter, later Chief Rabbi of Rotterdam, never having

attended a Jewish school in his youth. Preuss's unusual Hebraic background, his vast

knowledge of Jewish thought and Hebrew literature, and his scientific method, make his

book Biblisch-Talmudische Medizin (Biblical Talmudic Medicine) the authoritative

work on the subject to this very day. (p. 23)

Preuss was a pathologist who became principally involved in the examination of the human body of the ancient Israelites. He attempted to collect systematically all the references to illnesses in the Bible and the Talmud. Unlike his contemporary Ebstein, Preuss was familiar with the Semitic language and literature.

This potent combination of a trained pathologist and medical anthropologist find their nexus in Julius Preuss. His impeccable scholarship and tireless efforts produced what remains an authoritative contribution on the subject of biblical and Talmudic medicine that is unsurpassed in the annals of the medical anthropology of the Hebrews.

There is no greater account of the contributions that Julius Preuss made to the field of medical anthropology than those expressed in an editorial by renowned cardiologist and medical historian, J. O. Leibowitz. Leibowitz memorialized Preuss (2004) in the May 1961 issue of the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 29

Hebrew periodical Koroth where he expresses the enormity of the contributions to medicine and

Judaica of Preuss’ book:

…Preuss was one of the greatest Jewish historians of medicine, endowed with intimate

insight in the field of early Hebrew medicine, outstanding in his critical approach, wide

knowledge and unbiased honesty. Dear to our heart, his memory may serve as a shining

and stimulating example for present and future historians. (P. xxvi)

The combination of medical historian, trained pathologist, and Talmudic scholar is not only a powerful mixture of scientific disciplines, but also one that most accurately expresses the focus of this research. With the exception of the insights of Wilhelm Ebstein, prior to Preuss’s

1911 publication of Biblisch-Talmudische Medizin (Biblical Talmudic Medicine), other works concerning Biblical-Talmudic medicine were nonexistent. In fact, Preuss’s work was heralded as “a reliable, comprehensive, and scholarly exposition of the subject by a first-class physician on the one hand, and a thorough Semitic philologist, who made the history of medicine his life's study, on the other” (Macht, 1914). Preuss’s primary biographer, Fred Rosner (1977), explains:

Preuss's work is an anthology of all his articles published over many years in a variety of

scholarly journals (see bibliography). In the preface to his book, Preuss points out that

the number of commentaries, textbooks, and individual works on the Bible is enormous.

Preuss's book, covering the entire subject of Biblical and Talmudic medicine, is the first

compiled by a physician in which the material is derived directly from the original

sources. (p. 28)

Preuss defines the term physician, rophe' in Hebrew and asya in Aramaic, as being words that were associated with the physicians of ancient times among the Semitic people. He examines these physicians of antiquity in some detail, i.e. fees and responsibilities to their patients. He affirms the view of Judaism that the physician is considered a messenger of God

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 30 who becomes liable for intentional injury to a patient. He notes, “Physicians could testify as expert witnesses in civil court and could be used to examine criminals with regard to their ability to tolerate corporal punishment.” Of particular interest is the physician being called to evaluate the severity of illness with regard to the possible desecration of the Sabbath or the Day of

Atonement (Rosner, 1977). In this respect, the involvement of a trained physician seems to have replaced the Levitical Priest as the “Polizeiärtze” or police physicians of the Diaspora.

Like all men and women of science, Preuss is constrained by the limitations of the body of scientific knowledge available during his lifetime. Since the ancient Hebrews left us no specific medical texts, our only sources of knowledge on this subject are the medical and hygienic references found in the Jewish sacred, historical, and legal literatures (Friedenwald,

1944). Even with his incomplete understanding concerning the etiology of certain disease states, and his limited knowledge of the inner workings of the anatomy and physiology of man available to him during his lifetime, Preuss offers exceptional insights into the practice of medicine from the viewpoint of the Talmudic sages and examples from the biblical record.

One of the recurring themes we encounter from the theology of the Old Testament is the theme that God alone is viewed as the only One who can truly heal disease. Both the Levitical priests as well as Jewish physicians endorsed this view. Rosner (1977) explains:

God alone could heal sickness. It was God who “healed Abimelech” (Gen. 20:17).

When his sister, Miriam, was stricken with leprosy, Moses cried to the Lord, saying,

‘Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee’” (Num. 12:13). God Himself tells the Children

of Israel in the wilderness, “I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put

upon the Egyptians; for I am the Lord that heals thee” (Ex. 15:26). In the thirty second

chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy (verse 39), Moses proclaims in the name of God: “I

kill and I make alive; I have wounded and I will heal…” Similar statements occur in Job

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 31

5:18 (“He wounds, and His hands make whole”), Isa. 19:22 (“And the Lord will smite

Egypt, smiting and healing”), Isa. 57:18 (“I have seen his ways and I will heal him”), Isa.

57:19 (“Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near, says the Lord, and I

will heal him”); Jer. 30:17 (“For I will restore health to thee, and I will heal thee of thy

wounds, says the Lord”), Jer. 33:6 (“Behold, I will bring healing and cure, and I will cure

them”), II Kings 20:5 (“Behold, I will heal thee”), II Kings 20:8 (“What shall be the sign

that the Lord will heal me”), Hosea 6:1 (“ Come let us return to the Lord, He has torn and

He will heal us, He has smitten and He will bind us up”), Ps. 103:2-3 (“Bless the Lord, O

my soul…Who heals all thy diseases”), Ps. 107:20 (“He sent His word and healed them”),

II Chron. 30:20 (“And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah and healed the people”), etc.

Whenever there is mention of a “cure” in the positive sense of the term, what is meant is

a vis medicatrix naturea deriving from Divine power. (p. 8)

Preuss illustrates the biblical view that God alone is Jehovah Rapha, e.g. the Lord that heals. This is the same view of healing that the Levitical priests sought to promote and, according to Preuss, this same viewpoint influenced the Jewish medical community well into the modern era.

In contrast to the medical approach of Preuss, stands Klaus Seybold. Seybold used the case study approach focusing on the Psalms. Seybold holds a special place in this research because he was interested in the restorative power he saw in the Bible. Avalos (1995) notes:

It is Seybold’s attempt to reconstruct a “restoration” process for patients after an illness,

particularly in the Hebrew Bible that stands as an important contribution to the

anthropological approach to the ancient healthcare system of Israel. Seybold’s effort to

examine the post-illness process of restoration is reminiscent of the work of Arthur

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 32

Kleinman and his contention that disease states include a psychological, social, and

cultural reaction to illness. (p. 11)

In their book, Sickness and Healing, the authors, Klaus Seybold and U. B. Mueller, admit something that other biblical researchers would readily support, that is, “We know practically nothing about ancient Israelite medicine.” What Seybold and Mueller (1978) did know is:

The ancient Israelite sick person was thus not able to expect help from common

medicinal practice. Accordingly, knowledge of physiology was in general at a

comparatively low level. If we collect the manifold and disparate examples offered by

the Old Testament, we get a very typical overall picture. (p. 23)

Seybold and Mueller, like those before them, were able to make comparisons between the ancient Israelites and the neighboring cultures, i.e. Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Seybold and Mueller (1978) explain:

According to the Old Testament documents, the situation of the sick person in Israel

differentiated itself from that in cultures surrounding Israel in four points.

(1) In general a sick person had virtually no aids at his disposal worth

mentioning, no physicians in the real sense, and no knowledge of medicine.

(2) In general he had access to no really recognized or tolerated healing

procedures or practices, including no ritualistic incantations or exorcism-related

manipulations.

(3) Well into the later period, a sick person in ancient Israel was limited in both

directions, and these limitations reduced his possibilities both in general and in principle.

That sick person in ancient Israel did not have immediate access to that which was so

readily available to the blind father from Amarna, the mayor of Nippur, the carpenter

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 33

from Syracuse, or the unknown person with the amulet of Chadattu. Here he met with

limitations and hindrances.

(4) The sick person in Israel had undisturbed, unconditional access to only one

path – at least according to the Old Testament – if he wanted to comprehend his illness

religiously, namely to turn to his God in supplication and prayer. (p. 35)

It is the special relationship between the people of Israel and the Levitical priesthood that forms the nexus for the healthcare system of the ancient Israelites. It is this basic understanding of Yahweh’s role as both healer and savior that forced this limitation upon the Israelites. This again confirms that from the perspective of the ancient Israelite only the God of Israel can heal disease.

Another important aspect of the work of Seybold and Mueller is their view of the curative influence of the Psalms. As it pertains to the use of Scripture in the counseling process, this approach has found its way into the Christian counseling paradigm (McMinn, 1996; Carter &

Narramore, 1979; Collins, 1981, Crabb, 1981; Hurley & Berry, 1997; Johnson, 1992). J. V. Kinnier

Wilson (1982) elaborates on Seybold’s view of the recuperative power of the Psalms:

It is concerned with the idea that some of the Hebrew Psalms are to be regarded as

“medical” documents in that their whole purpose was to help or sustain a person in his

suffering. Already in his Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen

zur Bestimmung und Zuordunugh der Krankheits- und Heilungspsalem (The prayer of the

sick person in the Old Testament: Investigations to the regulation and Zuordunugh of the

illness and Heilungspsalem) (Seybold, 1962), K. Seybold has begun to look at certain

psalms in this way, and since 1965, I have myself argued that several were composed to

help persons suffering from psychological disorders. (p. 359)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 34

The work of Klaus Seybold, coupled his collaboration with Ulrich Mueller, offer information that can be considered foundational for our research into the health and wellbeing of faith-based communities. Their view that the instructions in the Psalms could have curative power has particular relevance to this dissertation. Seybold and Mueller saw the Psalms as having therapeutic significance. With Seybold and Mueller’s view of the restorative power of the Psalms in mind, we hope to establish the beneficial and recuperative corollary between the

Levitical Code and the children of Israel as well as extending that positive association to their modern-day clerical counterparts.

No overview of this subject matter would be complete without the inclusion of the work of the eminent psychiatrist and anthropologist, Arthur Kleinman. In his book, Patients and

Healers in the Context of Culture, he takes an interdisciplinary approach. He utilizes relevant behavioral and social science concepts making them part of the analytical process. In

Kleinman’s (1980) words:

The reliance on “common sense” often masks ignorance of the relevant behavioral and

social science concepts that should be part of the foundation of clinical science and

practice. This is the reason that social science needs to be brought into medicine and

psychiatry as a clinically applied science that systematically analyses the clinically

relevant effects of sociocultural determinants on sickness and care. (p. vii)

Kleinman (1980) gives additional reasons to include the social sciences in the practice of medicine stating:

Regardless of which society we chose to examine, we would always find people we

could identify (and more importantly, whom the local population would identify) as

healers and patients. Despite the patent dissimilarities, we also would find some

similarities (universals), not only in regard to these special social roles, but also with

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 35

respect to how illness is construed and experienced and how treatment is selected and

organized. (p. 8)

For Kleinman, culture, healthcare systems, and clinical reality are inexorably linked together regardless of geographical and historical considerations. Kleinman (1980) elaborates on this relationship:

Patients and healers are the basic components of such systems and thus are embedded in

specific configurations of cultural meanings and social relationships. They cannot be

understood apart from this context. Illness and healing are also a part of the system of

healthcare. (pp. 24-25)

This holistic approach to healthcare is probably the best way to look at the subject matter of this dissertation. Ancient Israel had a distinct culture. The patient and healer relationship between the individual Israelite and the God of Israel finds its locus in the Levitical priesthood.

Hector Avalos (1995) notes:

The role of the temple in health care cannot be understood very well unless we outline the

health care system of Israel as far as the date will permit. In particular, we shall outline

how the concept of Yahweh, views of disease, and various therapeutic options available

in ancient Israel interacted with the role of the temple. (pp. 238-239)

A healthcare system may be defined as a set of interacting resources, institutions, and strategies that are intended to prevent or cure illness in a particular community. They usually include the diagnosis of illness, the options available to the patient, and modes of therapy administered. Leviticus offers clear insights into ancient Israelite society and many of the above- noted characteristics existed in the Israelite community at that time.

Medical anthropology often discusses the relationship between illness and disease.

Kleinman (1980) makes the following distinctions:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 36

Disease refers to a malfunctioning of biological and/or psychological processes, while the

term illness refers to the psychosocial experience and meaning of the perceived disease.

Illness includes secondary personal and social responses to a primary malfunctioning

(disease) in the individual’s physiological or psychological status (or both). Illness

involves the processes of attention, perception, affective response, cognition, and

valuation directed at the disease and its manifestations (i.e., symptoms, role impairment,

etc.). (p. 72)

In addition to involving secondary and personal responses to disease, Kleinman (1980) describes illness within the context of family and social network:

Viewed from this perspective, illness is the shaping of disease into behavior and

experience. It is created by personal, social, and cultural reactions to disease.

Constructing illness from disease is a central function of healthcare systems (a coping

function) and the first stage of healing. That is, illness contains responses to disease that

attempt to provide it with meaningful form and explanation as well as control.

Paradoxical as it may seem, illness is part of care. It is both a psychosocial and cultural

adaptive response. In some instances, it may provide virtually all there is of therapeutic

efficacy; in others it may cause more problems for clinical care than disease does, but in

all cultures it is considerably more important than has heretofore been realized. (pp. 72-

73; cf. Eisenberg, 1976; Fabrega, 1974; Kleinman, Eisenberg, & Good, 1978)

Kleinman (1980) continues to clarify the differences between disease and illness.

The usefulness of this distinction is its emphasis on the fact that, no matter what the

nature of the disease and its causes; disease involves a psychological, social, and cultural

reaction, the illness. Though both disease and illness may involve psychosocial and

cultural factors, they are of a different order: in physical disease they may cause, maintain

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 37

the course of, or determine the outcome of the disease; in psychological disease, they are

the stuff of the disease itself. But in illness, they are the behavioral and societal response

to the disease that provide it with meaning and constitute it as a symbolic form. Without

illness, there is no signification attached to the disorder. That is why illness is always a

cultural construction. Without setting disease in the context of meaning, there is no basis

for behavioral options, no guide for health-seeking behavior and the application of

specific therapy. Hence, the major mechanism by which culture affects the patient and

his disorder is via the cultural construction of illness categories and experiences. (p. 78)

When one examines the interactions between patients (the Israelites) and their caregivers

(the Levitical priesthood) within the context of the instructions outlined in Leviticus, we see

Kleinman’s illustration at work. For Kleinman, the healthcare system illustrated in the book of

Leviticus models a more modern healthcare system with all the participants fulfilling certain roles, i.e. patients, caregivers, interacting resources, institutions, strategies. For Kleinman, these essential roles are inexorably linked together and are intended to prevent, manage, or help cure illness in relation individuals and their families.

This relationship between cure and healing is best illustrated with regard to the Levitical laws concerning leprosy. While leprosy in ancient Israel was clearly not Hansen’s disease, it was a contagious disease that required a diagnosis, quarantine, as well as the possibility of cure and re-integration into the Israelite community. It is important to note that the Levitical priesthood was never seen in the context of curing a specific ailment. Israelites never went to their priests for cure per se; cure was always known to be the province of the God of Israel and not the prophets or priests. The process by which Israelites came to terms with their illnesses through the statutes outlined in the book of Leviticus is very similar to the modern-day minister

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 38 and the way they can aid the parishioner in coming to terms with sickness, e.g. facilitators of the healing process.

The insights of Kleinman are particularly important with regard to the theme of this research. His work stands out with respect to his insistence that social science had to be integrated into the medical model. For Kleinman, it is not enough to understand the pathology of disease within the traditional practice of medicine. Disease must be understood within the context of an overall healthcare system. Kleinman defines the experience of illness in the broader context of a social and cultural response to disease, as a cultural construct, thereby enabling the medical community to view all forms of illness in a way that gives meaning and purpose to the sufferer. As the afflicted is able to come to terms with their illness, the healing process begins.

This brings us to one of the most informative scholars with regard to the cultural anthropology in Leviticus, Mary Douglas (1921-2007). Douglas’s 1966 publication, Purity and

Danger, was the first of her major contributions to the field of anthropology. Douglas offers a cross-cultural examination of the symbols people create with regard to impurity and pollution.

Rather than viewing the prohibitions in the Old Testament as being hygienic in nature, Douglas postulates that the Levitical prohibitions were a function of moral symbolism based upon the

Israelite’s notion of what is, and is not, acceptable.

With her 1999 publication of Leviticus as Literature, Douglas repudiates her previous view of the Levitical prohibitions being linked to impurity. She disavows her earlier position and postulates the Israelite prohibitions as a function of a coherent social system where clean animals are distinguished according to model. Now cleanliness is associated with mode of locomotion and anything that violates its class or mixes categories is considered unclean and

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 39 therefore, would also be excluded from the sacrificial system. It is in the context of cultural anthropology that Douglas offers a novel means of examining the ancient Israelite population.

Explaining the reason for her decision to evaluate the Levitical Code from an anthropological perspective, Douglas (1999) makes the following statement in reference to the pollution theory:

I would never have felt impelled to attempt an anthropological reading of Leviticus if

during African fieldwork I had not been confronted by local dietary rules, and so thought

of looking up the passage in chapter 11 on the forbidden animals. (p.vi)

The more that the pollution theory developed, and the more that pollution was

seen as the vehicle of accusations and downgrading, the more I was bound to

acknowledge that it does not apply to the most famous instance of Western tradition, the

Pentateuch. (p.viii)

In the preface to the 2002 Routledge Classics Edition of the reprinting of Purity and

Danger, one can see further development in Douglas’ thought. She notes the flaws in her previous views and comes to a different set of conclusions. She sees Israelite laws as being the result of their precarious position as a small tribal nation, recently liberated and facing enemies that are very real and somewhat aggressive. She indicates this as the primary reason for the

Levitical prohibitions (Douglas, 2002).

Many of the prohibitions in the Pentateuch can be understood as a response to the social, political, and cultural factors encountered by the Israelites following their departure from Egypt.

These experiences can be seen, from an epidemiological point of view, as a combination of variables impacting the children of Israel, i.e. their previous captivity as slaves of the Egyptians, their refugee status, their reaction to the practices of the tribes they encountered during their wilderness wanderings, and the influence of their closest Mesopotamian, Syro-Canaanite, and

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 40

Anatolian neighbors. For these reasons, the resulting Priestly Code can be viewed as a social construct within the Israelite nation that helped to bond them together into a religiously and morally cohesive faith-based community.

With regard to the aim Leviticus as Literature, Douglas (1999) continues to promote this new theme:

This study’s aim is to reintegrate the book (Leviticus) with the rest of the Bible. Read in

the perspective of anthropology, the food laws of Moses are not expressions of

squeamishness about dirty animals and invasive insects. The purity rules for sex and

leprosy are not examples of priestly prurience. The religion of Leviticus turns out to be

not very different from that of the prophets that demanded humble and contrite hearts, or

from the psalmist’s love of the house of God. (p. 1)

Douglas (1999) sees Leviticus as revealing a set of religious conceptions legislating for justice between persons and persons, between God and his people, and between people and animals. She is perplexed as to why anthropologists have gotten the message of Leviticus so wrong. She holds that anthropologists are trained to study religion in comparative perspective, being studied alongside other religions of its period and region. She goes on to quote the eminent professor of ancient history, Morton Smith, who said:

It would be misleading to regard “the religion of Israel as a unique entity” and who

recommended thinking of “the religion of the Israelites as one form of the common

religions of the ancient Near East.” Douglas comments, “Though it sounds such sensible

advice, it turns out to be impossible to follow. There is no lack of information about the

religions of Canaan, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, or Egypt. But the Bible itself made a clean

sweep of its regional connections.” (p.2)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 41

This is indeed supported by the recurring theme of separation repeated throughout the

Biblical writings. It is noted primarily with regard to the nation of Israel and then repeated in the

New Testament with reference to those who had placed their faith in Jesus Christ:

Thus you shall keep the sons of Israel separated from their uncleanness, so that they will not die in their uncleanness by their defiling My Tabernacle that is among them.” (Lev. 15:31)

“Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. (II Cor. 6:17)

Douglas continues to explain the differences between the ancient Israelites and their neighbors. First, and foremost in her mind, is the lack of reference to a monarchy by the editors of Leviticus. Douglas (1999) explains:

The first major difference is monarchy. The role of king is completely missing in biblical

rituals. The people in surrounding regions were all kingdoms, some large, some small;

sacral kingship with cosmological theories about the king’s body figured in various

forms, with rites for royal inaugurations and funerals. (p.3)

Placing Douglas’s observations within the context of the biblical record, we eventually see the children of Israel pleading for an earthly king to replace the leadership of the Judges (I

Sam. 8:4-6). They would persist in this request by asking Samuel to appoint a king to lead them

“such as all the other nations have” (verse 5). They would ignore the warnings of Samuel, i.e. replacing their heavenly King, Yahweh, with an earthly ruler would be disastrous for them (I

Sam. 8:7-18) and be tantamount to rejecting God as their rightful Ruler (verse 7).

Douglas comments on a second, but no less important, difference in the Israelite society.

She observes that there is a lack of cults of ancestors and propitiation of ghosts in Israel. While necromancy was prevalent in neighboring cultures, the Israelites had specific prohibitions against such activities. She goes on to say, “There are plenty of signs of cults of the spirits of the dead in

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 4 2 the Bible, but the religion recorded by Leviticus and Deuteronomy abhors interaction with the dead, there is no official cult of ancestors” (Douglas, 1999, p. 4).

These prohibitions are directed towards both the physical as well as the spiritual realms as noted in the following passages:

‘You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Lev. 11:8)

‘Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean. (Lev. 11:26)

“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

“For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. (Deut. 18:9-12) Douglas continues to explore this theme throughout Leviticus as Literature and addresses the matter of atonement. She points out, “Fulminations against eating blood, profiting from blood, blood of homicide, and illicit uses of blood, reverberate against the teaching of respect for life and the consecrated blood of the sacrifice” (Douglas, 1999, p. 231).

Douglas offers keen insights into the cultural anthropology of the Levitical Code. It appears that her initial conclusions concerning the reasons for the Levitical denunciations concerning blood were, at least in part, due to what appears to be the narrow and somewhat limited focus of studying cultures and religions comparatively through the lens of social anthropology and evolutionary biology.

The academic discipline of social anthropology has served as a major guiding component of evolutionary biology for over half a century (Evans-Pritchard, 1951; Blanton, 1965; Ortner,

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 43

2006; Tiffany, 1978). This model has many benefits, however, it may also constitute a unique and unusual form of researcher bias, i.e. the inability to think “outside the box” of one’s educational orientation and field of expertise. That is, initially Douglas could only view the book of Leviticus through the lens of her anthropological training. She automatically assumed a common dynamic was at work in the prohibitions and rituals of indigenous tribal cultures she had previously studied in Africa. She then associated the dynamic at work in those African tribes with regard to pollution connecting them with the regulations she encountered in the

Levitical Code. These same prohibitions and rituals Douglas would later conclude could not be fully applied to the Israelites of the Old Testament.

While using a researcher’s area of expertise and educational training to evaluate cultures and traditions is not problematic per se, and is, in fact, an acceptable and fruitful model for examining various customs and societies researchers encounter; Douglas admits that her earlier conclusions in Purity and Danger did not hold true for these Israelite tribes of antiquity. She notes that, “Both Deuteronomy and Leviticus fulminate against foreign cults, especially those of

Canaan and Egypt. The religion of the Pentateuch claims to have nothing in common with the neighboring religions,” (Douglas, 1999, p. 2). As previously noted, the evolution of her thought concerning the reasons for the priestly prohibitions can be directly traced back to her own explanation of how her African fieldwork initially led her to attempt an anthropological reading of the book of Leviticus.

I am impressed with the way Douglas we able to re-evaluate her previous work and come to a different set of conclusions. She was able to move beyond the insights of her anthropological training and earlier views. Concerning the aim of Leviticus as Literature,

Douglas desires to reintegrate the book with the rest of the Bible. She repudiates her previous conclusions about the Levitical Code being the result of expressions of fastidiousness about dirty

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 44 animals and insidious insects, or priestly prurience with regard regulations concerning sex and leprosy. She concludes that the religion of Leviticus is completely compatible with the other sections of the Old Testament, e.g. the prophets and the Psalms, (Douglas, 1999, p. 1).

I have one comment pertaining to the work of Mary Douglas and it is by no means limited to her work alone. Douglas and many other anthropologists have some difficulty linking the Levitical prohibitions and instructions concerning the ritual shedding of blood with the stated reason for the sacrificial system in Lev. 16: 11, 15, 17:11. While not all anthropologists and Old

Testament theologians have difficulty connecting the sacrifices and offerings in the Levitical

Code to the theme of substitutionary atonement, it is clear that many of them do.

The ritual shedding of blood is a recurring theme throughout the Old Testament. The initial mention of the shedding of blood follows the disobedience of Adam and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, (Gen. 3:21). Although the shedding of blood is only inferred in the story of Adam and Eve, the author of Genesis records what could be construed as the first animal sacrifice, “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them”

(Gen. 3:21). This theme continues during a restatement of the Abrahamic Covenant, (Gen.

15:8). It is part of the post-Flood worship of Noah and his family (Gen. 8:20) and it is the central focus of the Passover (Ex. 12:7, 13, 22).

It is likely that one possible reason for this aversion to connecting the stated reason for the shedding of blood described in Leviticus, e.g. ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement’ (Lev. 17:11),is in response to Judaism’s loss of the Levitical priesthood, the sacrificial system, and Temple worship.

The historic split between the Judaism and Christianity may have added to the de- emphasis of the blood atonement in the minds of many theologians. This would continue as

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 45 rabbinical Judaism distanced itself from the Christological interpretations of such verses. Still, the stated reason for blood atonement, coupled with certain holy days, i.e. the Day of

Atonement and Passover where blood atonement is a central theme, cannot help but support the conclusion that substitutionary atonement is a valid reason for the Levitical instructions in relation to the shedding of blood.

While I would have liked Douglas to go a bit further than her stated goal to integrate the book of Leviticus with the rest of the Old Testament, I believe her work to be an outstanding contribution to the field of medical anthropology as well as foundationally important to this research.

The final scholar of note concerning this section of the literature review is the author of

Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece,

Mesopotamia and Israel and Healthcare and the Rise of Christianity, Hector Avalos. Avalos became the first to combine systematically critical biblical studies with medical anthropology.

As noted previously, Avalos does an excellent job of reviewing the history of the field of medical anthropology including an overview of the previous scholarship.

Avalos (1995, p. 250) defines illness, “as any condition that regardless of physical danger as defined by modern Western medicine, renders a person physically or mentally unfit to execute a social role defined as “normal” by society, at issue, here ancient Israel.” These distinct differences are also noted by the different concerns of the patients regarding prognosis.

Taking a traditional approach to cultural anthropology, Avalos compares the illness and healthcare of Israel (The temples of Yahweh) with that of Greece (The Temples of Asclepius) and Mesopotamia (The Temples of Gula/Ninisina). He takes an interdisciplinary approach combining, “the best insights of medical anthropology with the best of critical studies” (Avalos,

1995, p. 22).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 46

One of the more interesting comparisons is made between the alleged causes of illness among the neighboring cultures in ancient times. According to Avalos, the search for the

“sender/controller” of an illness was of paramount importance and a large variety of such beings could be responsible for an illness. While comparing the prayers of the Hebrew and the

Mesopotamian patients, Avalos (1995) explains:

Both groups of patients frequently assumed that sins, often hidden, are were responsible

for the illness. This illness was an instruction of the god. But while in Mesopotamia the

search for the “sender/controller” of an illness was a source of great psychological

anxiety and involved a sometimes labor-intensive set of rituals, in Israel a monolatrous

theological system eliminated the search for a variety of divine “sender/controllers” as a

source of anxiety, and divinatory rituals were relatively simple. (p. 258)

In Israel, most prognoses center on whether or not the patient would recover as Avalos

(1995) goes on to elucidate:

One may simply explain this recurrent feature as due to a literary disinterest by the

biblical author(s) in the particulars of illness. However, it may be linked to the distinct

Israelite aspects of the causes of illness in the biblical texts. The only question left was

whether or not Yahweh would permit a recovery, or why Yahweh had decided to strike

the patient. (p. 274-275)

These valuable comparisons between the Israelite Temple and its place in the pantheon of ancient Near Eastern civilizations put the scope of this research into historical perspective. For

Avalos, the evolution of the healthcare system of Israel did not develop in a vacuum. He correctly underscores the influence Israel’s neighbors would have on them as well as the differences and similarities between Israel and their neighbors in Greece and Mesopotamia.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 47

Avalos is able to explain the unique role of Israel’s temple in the overall healthcare system of ancient Israel and the role it played in the lives of the Israelites. He goes on to elaborate on the petitionary, the therapeutic, and the thanksgiving functions of the Israelite

Temple (Avalos, 1995, p. 365).

A clear link between healthcare and the Levitical priesthood is demonstrated with regard to the priest’s role as an ancient public health officer. According to Avalos, this relationship is established in the Levitical rules with regard to leprosy. It is important to remind ourselves that the Israelite priest in Leviticus seeks signs of this disease, not for the purposes of diagnosis alone, but also to exclude the patient from the community (Avalos, 1995, pp. 365-366).

Similarly, the priesthood was also involved in public health serving in the role of health inspector. The priest would pronounce whether or not a patient was disease free subsequent to the initial diagnosis and quarantine. As Avalos (1995, p. 366) notes, “All of the references to the priest in the health care system involve a role as a “purity inspector,” or as a “post-therapeutic consultant,” and not a therapist per se.

In keeping with the theme of this dissertation, there is support that the priest did not limit his work to the Temple proper. Avalos (1995) elaborates:

It should also be noted that the priesthood in Leviticus does not always restrict

inspections to the temple gates. In the case of houses which were suspected of leprosy

(Lev. 14), the priest goes to the suspected house. This aspect may represent a significant

expansion of the priestly establishment into non-temple venues. The main concern is the

purity not only of the temple, but of the dwellings of the inhabitants. (p. 367)

Avalos (1995) concludes his comments on the priestly ministry of the Levites noting:

The vision of the future in Isaiah and Ezekiel see a time when it will be unnecessary to

exclude any Israelite from the temple because of illness. Illness shall become irrelevant

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 48

in the theological system. Illnesses that could not be cured in the past shall be cured

because all of Israel shall evince genuine repentance. Instead of simply excluding from

the temple those who cannot be cured, there will finally be the means to cure formerly

incurable illnesses that produced impurity (and exclusion from the cult). (p. 371)

In addition to the application of modern critical methods of interpretation into the field of biblical studies, Avalos (1999) notes:

The distinctive aspects of Christian health care may be seen when we compare it with the

health care systems offered by other Greco-Roman religious and secular traditions as well

as the health care evinced in Leviticus. Despite the diversity of Judaism, the book of

Leviticus remained perhaps the most influential scriptural authority on health care in

most forms of Judaism in the first and second centuries. (p. 3)

One of the advantages of his approach in Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East:

The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia and Israel as well as Healthcare and the Rise of

Christianity is the stated strategy of Avalos (1995):

In order to explore the role of the Israelite temple in illness and healthcare, it is

worthwhile to compare it with the temples known to have had a role in their respective

healthcare systems. The intention of the study is to provide some illustrative case studies

that shall place Israel’s temple in a comparative perspective. (p. 34)

Avalos notes there have been a number of scholarly studies that focus on the theological issues with regard to illness and healing in the Bible. Among them are G. Hasel (1983), P.

Humbert (1964), A. Lods (1925), and C. Westermann (1975). Avalos (1995) explains:

Although there is an effort to deal seriously with some of the historical and philological

issues, the purposes of such studies are usually apologetic and religio-centric insofar as

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 49

they assume the validity of the theological presuppositions of the scholar’s tradition but

not those of the non-biblical ones. (p. 17)

The contribution of Avalos to the field of medical anthropology should not be underestimated. Because he is evaluating the religious system of Israel in the context of healthcare, his work has particular relevance to this dissertation. Of interest is the difference between the dynamic of the Mesopotamian religious system and its constant search for a spirit- induced cause of an illness, e.g. the sender-controller. This is in contrast to the Israelite view that Yahweh alone afflicts and heals His people.

While comparing the Israelite healthcare system with their Mesopotamian and Egyptian counterparts is informative, there is no explanation as to why the Israelite healthcare system differs in several distinct ways from their neighbors. In Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide,

Billie Jean Collins (2004) notes:

Illness and healthcare had a complicated evolution in ancient Israel. Although we have

archaeological evidence for healing practices from at least the Neolithic period

(trephinated skulls at Jericho), the Hebrew Bible remains the most important source for

the study of illness and healthcare in the biblical period.

As modern medical anthropology shows, health care should be considered a

system of interacting ideologies, resources, personnel, and strategies meant to maintain

and/or restore health in any ancient or modern community. Perhaps the most distinctive

feature of the Israelite health-care system depicted in the canonical texts is the division

into legitimate and illegitimate options. This division is partly related to monolatry,

insofar as illness and healing rest ultimately upon YHWH’s control (Exod. 15.26) and

insofar as non-Yahwistic options are prohibited. There is no clear evidence for purely

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 50

secular approaches to health care, and the terms magical and non-magical are not useful

when speaking of biblical health care. (p. 460)

Collin’s statement constitutes an excellent summary of the conclusions of the authors covered in this literature review. I am in complete agreement with this view and find that it parallels much of the work of Avalos, Douglas, Preuss, and especially Kleinman.

Avalos applies certain insights from the Documentary or the Wellhausen hypothesis to the healthcare system of Israel. He disagrees with Sebold’s view that noted a lack of medical applications within the ancient Israelite community. Due to the fact that Avalos believes the

Pentateuch was derived from originally independent, parallel, and complete narratives that were subsequently combined into their current form by a series of redactors; he considers that different medical practices emerged during the period of influence of the various contributing authors of the Torah. Avalos explains:

Israel had recognized and tolerated healing procedures. And we have seen specific

descriptions of such procedures in the work of the prophets. We have demonstrated that

prophets, prayer, the temple in certain traditions, “self-medication,” and household care

were all legitimate options in the Israelite health care system and deserve to be viewed as

part of a “tolerated healing procedures and practices” just as much as a modern physician

is part of our tolerated practice. (p. 417)

It is important to remember that many of the insights of modern scholarship should not be seen as eliminating or repudiating the previous scholarship with regard to the ascendancy and popularity of the source critics. Avalos does admit that Seybold and Mueller were limited as representatives of the critical approach to illness and healthcare in the biblical traditions. Avalos

(1995, p. 416) concludes, “We can now evaluate those conclusions with more confidence to see if our medical anthropology approach has changed any of them.” This closing statement reflects

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 51 the view of Avalos that medical anthropology is fine-tuned through the academic lens of biblical criticism.

Avalos’ complete reliance on the source critics that is both a strength and weakness of his approach to biblical research. The Bible is a unique document that purports to be divinely inspired. By taking a purely naturalistic approach to the Bible, Avalos may be committing the sin of researcher bias, not in the usual sense of the term, but rather limiting or skewing your view of the subject matter by bringing a purely naturalistic presupposition to bear concerning the topic being studied. This subject matter that all of the various contributors characterized, or at least inferred, as being of divine origin.

This dissertation addresses the relationship between the ancient Levitical Priesthood and its community of faith while using that model to compare the Levites to their modern pastoral counterparts. Any such endeavor should cite the pertinent research on matters of faith and its impact on mental health and emotional wellbeing. In recent times, the relationship of spirituality and religion with physical and mental health has been the subject of much research. The link between religion, spirituality, and health has been well documented (Ellison & Levin, 1998;

Yeung & Chan, 2007; McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2001). For the past several decades, researchers have studied religion and coping with stress (Siegel, Anderman, &

Schrimshaw, 2001; Park, 2005; Koenig, George, & Siegler, 1988), finding that in the United

States (and many other areas of the world) most people report that their religious beliefs and activities provide comfort during periods of increased stress. This was especially true in the face of acute or chronic illness (Koenig & Cohen, 2002).

While the ceremonial and sacrificial system, so well established in the book of Leviticus, offers the penitent absolution through its various sacrifices and offerings, the effect on the conscience of these activities should not be underestimated. Many studies have been done

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 52 indicating that a preponderance of evidence links psychosomatic illness to negative emotional states (Kuldau, 1982; Wilson & Mintz, 1989; Solomon & Moos, 1964, 1965; Solomon, 1981;

Kleinman, 1998; Koenig, 1999, 2005).

As Mary Douglas and others have noted, pollution and purity are central themes in

Israelite religion. Israel Knohl (2004) explains, “It is in the priestly tradition that we have the clearest connection between sin and pollution, the central rite of the Priestly Code is the rite of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16).” We find this emphasis on the practice of ritual cleansing with water, e.g. micvah, in the Old Testament being promoted in the New Testament through John the Baptist’s micvah of repentance and the ministries of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12) and the Apostle Peter (II Peter 3:21). These examples can be seen as variations on the same theme, e.g. cleansing and renewal.

In recent years, certain aspects of health and wellbeing have become the subject of focused research as psychiatrist and medical researcher Harold Koenig (2002) explains:

In fact, studies do suggest that religious beliefs and practices contribute to positive

emotions such as well-being, life satisfaction, and happiness. In a recent systematic

review of the scientific literature that uncovered 100 studies of this relationship, 79%

reported a significant positive association between religious involvement and greater

well-being (Koenig, McCullough, et al., 2001). Among 10 prospective cohort studies, 9

found that greater religious beliefs or activity predicted greater well-being over time.

Thus, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a connection between religious involvement

and positive emotions. We identified 14 studies that examined the relationship between

religiousness and optimism or hope. Of those studies, 12 found a significant positive

correlation and 2 found no association. The research team of Martin Seligman (1998

president of the American Psychological Association, best known for their work on

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 53

learned helplessness) discovered that persons from fundamentalist Christian groups were

more optimistic than persons from liberal religious traditions (Sethi & Seligman, 1993,

1994). These investigators traced greater optimism to the content of hymns and liturgies

of fundamentalists whose themes tended to focus on joy, victory over adversity, and

salvation. Studying a random sample of nearly 3,000 older adults, Idler and Kasl (1997)

similarly documented an association between religious involvement and optimism that

was particularly strong among subjects who were experiencing the stress of physical

disability. (pp. 13-14)

Another area of study that has been thoroughly examined over the last two decades is religion, depression, and anxiety. Koenig (2002) continues:

Examining 850 medically ill older men, Koenig, Cohen, Blazer, et al. (1992) found

significantly lower rates of depression among those relying on religious beliefs and

practices to cope with the stress of their illnesses. In a follow-up study of 201 of these

patients, degree of religious coping at baseline predicted significantly fewer depressive

symptoms 6 months later. (p. 14).

The most valuable area of research, with regard to the premise of this dissertation, concerns the mechanisms of the religion-physical health relationship. We are studying the relationship of the ancient Israelites within their own healthcare paradigm. We are looking for parallels to a more modern framework that combines certain aspects of public health and ministry in a more holistic approach that will facilitate health promotion in our congregations and communities.

The more obvious areas of health behaviors related to religious conviction, i.e. lower rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, cigarette smoking, unhealthy sexual behaviors, driving under the influence, and other more hazardous and risky behaviors, are all well-documented in the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 54 scientific literature (McCullough, Koenig et al., 2001; Poulson, Eppler, Satterwhite, Wuensch, &

Bass, 1998; Dull & Skokan, 1995; Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998; Pargament, 1997;

Siegel & Schrimshaw, 2002).

Understanding that this is a large body of research, I have chosen to focus on the work of several leaders in this field of religion and health research. The first author to be considered is psychiatrist and behavioral scientist, Harold G. Koenig. Koenig’s (1998) Handbook of Religion and Mental Health stands out as an unparalleled resource, not only for physicians with an interest in the relationship between religion and health, but perhaps even more for those who doubt its significance (Charles, 2001). The work is almost universally accepted as the most thorough review of all the empirical studies and reviews on the subject of religion and health to date (Plante, 2001; Moberg, 2001).

It is important to put the research on religion and health into the context of this dissertation. We are examining the similarities between the ancient Levitical priest and their modern-day ministerial and public health counterparts. These parallels are most noticeable with regard to their common goals, e.g. the physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of those they serve.

As we have noted in our introduction, both groups can be said to focus on the reading and interpreting of disease within their own particular paradigm. The Levites and the Israelites included a physical aspect with regard to the determination of possible contagious diseases and/or impurity from a socio-religious point of view that included a formula for forgiveness and reconciliation outlined in the Levitical sacrifices and offerings. The New Testament clergy, while not directly influencing the health of their congregations via examination and possible quarantine, can be enlisted to expand their scope of ministry by becoming role models for healthy lifestyle choices. They can act as facilitators of a faith-based way of life founded upon

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 55 ideology offered within the framework of the New Testament. By including public health related issues such as healthy lifestyle choices, modern clergy can improve upon and go well beyond the aspects of the Levitical model. As clergy investigates their expanding roles in a postmodern world, models of pastoral ministry have evolved well beyond the congregation- centered parish model of ministry that dominated the 20th century.

Progress within the practice of medicine has also evolved considerably over the past three millennia. Today we understand the importance of treating a patient holistically. We now understand that psychological wellbeing is an integral factor in the health of the individual and without a holistic approach; we will ultimately fail in our goal to minister effectively to those we hope to serve.

Harold Koenig is a leading authority on spirituality and health. In Faith and Mental

Health: Religious Resources for Healing, Koenig (2005) admits:

Although not a theologian, I recognize and respect the role that theology plays. Theology

(“the study of God and the relations between God and the universe”) has influenced

almost every social and political movement in the United States since the colonial days.

The influence of Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, on our government,

political parties, social values, medical care system, and even scientific establishment is

enormous, whether recognized for not. Understanding the different theological streams is

essential, then, to appreciate the role that religious organizations have placed and

continue to play for the poor, the sick, and those with severe and persistent mental illness.

(p. ix-x)

It is this link between religious faith and health and the influence that clergy has on particular communities of faith that is the focus of our study. The research on this subject is

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 56 germane to the topic of this dissertation and is, therefore, included in our literature review.

Koenig (2005) goes on to explain this unique relationship between religious faith and health:

People of faith, whether they are from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or

Buddhist religious orientations, have a duty and responsibility to care for those who are

sick, weak, poor, or in some other way troubled or in need. The founders of every great

religious tradition and their sacred scriptures urge followers to care for the needy and to

regularly perform acts of charity and kindness. When it comes to mental illness,

however, there are many factors that prevent religious people from reaching out as they

normally would to others. (p. 15)

This practice of helping the poor and infirm has a long history within the Judeo-Christian tradition. The instructions in the Old and New Testaments both include an emphasis on charity for those in need. Koenig’s comment concerning the stigma associated with mental illness is both accurate and timely. Even today, many people do not understand the etiology of mental illness. The Old Testament has very little to offer beyond the feigned psychosis of King David

(I Sam. 21:10-15), the torment of King Saul (I Sam. 19:9), and the apparent depression and suicidal ideation of Elijah (I Kings 19:3-5), that can enlighten us in this matter. Additionally, the

New Testament sheds little light on the subject of spirituality and mental health with its references to evil spirits and numerous references to demonic entities causing physical aliments, i.e. mute (Matt. 9:32-33), blind and mute (Matt. 12:22), seizures (Matt.17:14-18), convulsions and self-destructive behavior (Mark 9:17-25), convulsions (Luke 9:38-39).

To be sure, mental illness is a complex and debilitating condition that can affect the entire family. It illustrates the need for individuals and communities of faith to become educated in order to help bear the burdens of those who are suffering from emotional and mental problems.

The impact that mental illness can have on the entire family reminds us that all illness must be

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 57 understood in terms of a cultural construct. When understood in this way, pastors who are undershepherds, and congregations who are extended spiritual families, can aid those who are struggling with all forms of disease.

Sometimes, religious orientation can have the opposite and undesired effect, as Koenig

(2005) goes on to explain:

Although it is clear that religious people and religious organizations have often led the

way in providing compassionate care to those with mental and emotional problems, this

doesn’t necessarily mean that religious beliefs and practices enhance mental health,

protect against mental illness, or speed recovery. In fact, as we learned in the last

chapter, there are claims from both sides concerning the risks and benefits of a devout

religious faith. Are religious beliefs and practices associated with worse mental health,

more neurosis, and poorer adaptation to stress, as claimed by highly respected mental

health professionals such as Freud, Ellis, and Watters? Is religion associated with better

mental health, greater well-being, and greater family and community solidarity, as

claimed by religious professionals? Or does religion serve a selective process, including

only the mentally healthy who are capable of participating in religious activities and

excluding those with emotional or mental illness who cannot? (p. 43)

Hoping to answer some of the above-noted questions, and sort through the differing opinions of religious professionals and pundits, Koenig defined his terms and evaluated the available body of research. The results, including the earlier and later studies of the association between religion and health, showed a consistent positive relationship between religion and health as Koenig (2005) explains:

Since 2000, several studies have confirmed the association between religion and well-

being in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia (Ellison, Boardman,

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 58

Williams, & Jackson, 2001; Pargament, Tarakeshwar, Ellison, & Wulff, 2001;

Hammermeister, Flint, Havens, & Peterson, 2001; Ferris, 2002; Cohen, 2002; Francis,

Robbins, & White, 2003; Francis & Kaldor, 2002; Wink & Dillon, 2003; Kim, Seidlitz,

Ro, Evinger, & Duberstein, 2004), although few have found a weak (Tsuang, Williams,

Simpson, & Lyons, 2002; Diener, & Clifton, 2002) or non-existent relationship

(Hunsberger, Pratt, & Pancer, 2001). Of note is that none have reported a negative

association. (p. 51)

One can follow Koenig’s progression of thought concerning the relationship between religious faith and health and wellbeing in his 1999 publication of The Healing Power of Faith.

Koenig’s review of the research available at that time led him to propose a new model of disease prevention, e.g. the “Prevention Model for Religion’s Effects on Health.” Koenig and Cohen later edited The Link between Religion and Health: Psychoneuroimmunology and the Faith

Factor that included an abundance of quantitative studies linking religious faith with the available scientific data. Koenig (2002) offers the following conclusions:

There is growing epidemiological evidence that religious beliefs and behaviors are

correlated with mental health and predicts both better physical health outcomes and

longer survival. Exactly how religions influence physical health, however, remains an

enigma. Establishing plausible biological and physiological mechanisms by which

religion conveys its health effects is of utmost importance for advancing our knowledge

about the religion-health relationship. Given the strong associations between religious

involvement, social support, and stress reduction, it seems almost natural that religious

beliefs and practices might affect health through neuroendocrine and immune pathways.

(p. 295)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 59

Koenig has noted that epidemiology has studied the links between religious faith, spirituality, and health and wellbeing. One of the leading epidemiologists in this field of research is Jeff Levin. In his book, God, Faith, and Health: Exploring the Spirituality-Healing

Connection, Levin (2001) comments on the trend in statistically significant findings among medical researchers:

Remarkable findings like these are becoming commonplace in medical journals.

Scientists have begun using the phrase “epidemiology of religion” to refer to this growing

field of medical research. But just several years ago, few physicians and scientists knew

that such data existed. Now, thanks to these studies, researchers have begun to realize

that expressions of spirituality have measurable effects on health and well-being. This

information is causing a revolution in medical research, medical education, and clinical

practice. (p. 3)

Linda Chatters (2000) is another expert in health behavior whose focus of study is religion and health. She explains:

Recent research has validated the multidimensional aspects of religious involvement and

investigated how religious factors operate through various biobehavioral and

psychological constructs to affect health status through proposed mechanisms that link

religion and health. Methodological and analytical advances in the field permit the

development of more complex models of religion's effects, in keeping with proposed

theoretical explanations. Investigations of religion and health have ethical and practical

implications that should be addressed by the lay public, health professionals, the research

community, and the clergy. Future research directions point to promising new areas of

investigation that could bridge the constructs of religion and health.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 60

Chatters and Levin (1998) combined efforts to provide an overview of research on the influence on psychiatric and mental health outcomes by summarizing the existing empirical findings and recent theoretical developments in the field. They conclude:

Finally, the research findings and theoretical issues reviewed in this chapter underscore

the importance of appreciating the conceptual diversity both of religious expression and

of what constitutes mental health. Given that the current perspectives on religious

involvement in the mental health field are so severely limited, there is a tendency to view

religious behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs in a fairly stereotypical (and prejudicially

negative) manner. (p. 46)

In an effort to apply the lessons learned from the ethnic studies movement that began in the Vietnam War era and persists to this day in the form of multiculturalism, research studies were designed with an ethnocentric focus. They did so in an effort to insure that certain groups who were previously excluded from the benefits of equal opportunity would not continue to be overlooked or discriminated against. As a result, they focused on these areas of inequality and many social scientists began to research how religion affected the lives of certain minority groups.

In their book, Religion in the lives of African Americans, authors Taylor, Chatters, and

Levin (2004) state their goals:

To review recent theoretical and empirical literature in the social, behavioral, and health

sciences on selected topics related to the role of religion in the lives of African

Americans.

Second, in keeping with our own training and perspective on research, we wanted

the reviews of the literature to reflect research findings that are largely based on

nationally representative samples of African Americans…

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 61

Third, we wanted to write a book that would address a variety of topic areas in

such a way that it would have intrinsic interest and appeal to a fairly broad cross-section

of readers.

Fourth, in addition to the discussion of survey research investigations that employ

various quantitative approaches to date, we also felt it was important to include

information from qualitative studies of the role of religion in the lives of African

Americans.

Lastly, we wanted the book to be useful to readers in several ways and potentially

to serve as a catalyst for their own reading and investigations of these topics. (pp. 4-6)

The vast majority of the research presented in this book is focused on religion, mental health, and wellbeing in the African American community. Coupled with the African American population, studies in gerontology with regard to this population were also included. While their work was very helpful in focusing on the African American community specifically, their research confirmed the phenomena of positive mental health outcomes and increased psychological wellbeing among those where religion played a central role in their lives. Taylor et al. (2004) recap their findings with regard to religion and positive wellbeing:

To summarize, considerable empirical research has been conducted over a period of at

least 20 years points to a significant influence of dimensions of religiousness on

indicators of mental health and psychological well-being that seems to vary by, but is not

explained away by, race. (p. 223)

The research of Koenig, Levin, Chatters, and Taylor combine to form a large body of evidence in support of an overall positive relationship between religion and health. The inclusion of their research in this literature review supports the contention that the religion of the

Old Testament in general, and the Levitical Priesthood specifically, met several important

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 62 psychological and psycho-social needs for the ancient Israelite community. It further supports the contention that modern clergy can facilitate a greater application of the benefits of religious faith within their own respective congregations as well as their communities at large.

This review of the literature provides insight into the contributions of the leading experts in the fields of medical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and Talmudic medicine. Those who could be considered the forefathers of modern medical anthropology, from J.P. Trusen to his post Miasma theory contemporaries, Wilhelm Ebstein and Julius Preuss, have contributed to this review of the pertinent literature. The works of modern scholars Klaus Seybold, Ulrich

Mueller, Arthur Kleinman, Mary Douglas, and Hector Avalos have rounded out this section of the literature review. They represent the pertinent anthropological research and existing scholarship relevant to subject matter being examined, e.g. the healthcare of the ancient Israelites and the ministry revealed in the book of Leviticus.

In addition to the medical and cultural anthropologists, this literature review includes the work of several medical researchers, social scientists, and behavioral health science experts.

Their work confirms the important place religion plays in the overall health and wellbeing of people of faith. Their findings support the need for continued investigation into religion and health, a more holistic and proactive approach to ministry, and the future role religion will play in the health and wellbeing of all people of faith everywhere.

Historical and Contextual Concerns

The book of Leviticus is the third book of the Torah. The book is known as Vayikra in the Hebrew canon and is literally translated “He called.” The meaning of Vayikra finds its origin in the writings of the sages of Judaism who relate the term to the opening verse of Leviticus, e.g.,

“The Lord called to Moses.” The actual title, Leviticus, originates from the 3rd century AD’s

Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and is a direct reference to the tribe of

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 63

Levi, through whom the Levitical priesthood arose. Ephraim Radner (2008) explains the placement of Leviticus in the historical account:

The narrative placement of Leviticus within the order of the Pentateuch is clear. At the

beginning of the second year after their departure from Egypt, and following the initial

setup of the tabernacle at the foot of Sinai, built according to the specifications given to

Moses by God (Exod. 40:16-38), “the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” (p. 29)

The Old Testament writings as well as the Gospels and the Pastoral Epistles of the New

Testament have undergone a great deal of scrutiny from biblical critics. Radner (2008) explains the reasoning used by Wellhausen and others with regard to the analysis of Leviticus.

These kinds of questions, however, motivated the critical analysis of Leviticus according

to its history of composition, a practice that generally assumed its non-Mosaic authorship.

In the late nineteenth century, Julius Wellhausen, applying insights gathered from

previous scholars, first formalized the notion that Leviticus derives from a separate

documentary source from within the Pentateuch. He called this the Priestly (P) collection

of materials and associated it with a late postexilic community of scribes tied to the

Second Temple. The theory of multiple sources, both for the Pentateuch as a whole and

within Leviticus itself, has since been elaborated and emended many times, in attempts to

take account of various linguistic, ritual, and theological divergences identified within the

text. These attempts, furthermore, involve the speculative positing of various historical

settings from which the particular portions of the text, small and great, might arise –

settings and origins that some scholars date back to the pre-exilic period (either in the

northern kingdom of Judah or in Judah or even before David). There is great diversity

among the historical critics over this question of setting and dating. Critics of the

documentary method have also emerged, some using critical approaches to argue for an

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 64

ancient origin to the text’s major substance, others to undercut the critical effort

altogether. (p. 32)

Modern biblical criticism or higher criticism originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. Although the Tübingen School’s theological insights were eventually disgarded, the branch of literary analysis known as the critical-historical method evolved and expanded over time to include the analysis of all of the books of the Bible. At the core of biblical criticism is the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts. This view grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries as John Hayes

(2006) explains:

By the end of the 17th century, the historical-critical method (the quest for the sensus

historicus) was reasonably well developed (though not necessarily widely

accepted)…The causes and nature of events in the Bible must be understood in terms of

historical analogy, what was possible then is possible now and vice versa (the latter

perspective was more hinted at then openly declared). (p. 459)

By about 1835, the conclusions that continue to dominate academic study of the Bible had been formulated. Scholars of the historical critical method divided authorship of the Torah into a combination of several different sources, e.g. Deuteronomic (D), Deuternomistic (E),

Elohist (J), and Yahwist (P), followed by the Redactors (R) who combined J and E to create J E circa 750 AD. A second Redactor combined J E with D and P creating the final version circa

400 AD.

One scholar whose work on Leviticus is noteworthy and thorough is Jacob Milgrom

(1923-2010). Although he is best known for his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, his commentaries on Leviticus (Milgrom, 1998, 2000, 2004) remain the gold standard concerning Levitical analysis from a theological perspective. They provide an excellent case for non-Mosaic

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 65 authorship of Leviticus. Milgrom (2004) sees two competing ideologies at work in Leviticus, P and H, noting:

The compilers of the Torah were theologically pluralistic. They were willing to include

variant traditions into the master text that became our Bible . . .The text itself does not

make a truth claim among the traditions, nor does it try to reconcile them blithely. (p. 5)

This researcher considers the Old and New Testaments, generally referred to as the

Christian Bible, in the canonical configuration widely accepted among Protestants, to be a trustworthy and historically accurate document. When viewed as God’s authoritative word, the literature of the Bible offers dependable insights that can be relied upon to inform and guide those who have placed their trust in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. This view is in contrast to many of the biblical critics of the nineteenth century who brought to bear a purely naturalistic and secular presupposition to the literature of the Bible. Their approach paralleled what was transpiring in the sciences due to the 1859 publication, and near universal acceptance, of Charles

Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of

Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

This dissertation assumes the book of Leviticus can be read as an historical narrative offering substantive and valuable insights into the interactions between the ancient Levitical priests and the faith-based community they served. While I appreciate the insights offered by the various branches of biblical criticism, i.e. textual, source, form, tradition, historical, redaction among others, my approach to the Bible remains traditional and conservative.

The intercessory ministry of the Levitical priesthood was established shortly after the

Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. During the wilderness wanderings, the tribes of Israel were organized with the tabernacle being centrally located within the camp (Num. 2). It was under

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 66 these circumstances that the Levitical priesthood begins to intercede on behalf of the children of

Israel.

Against this backdrop of 400 years of slavery, the tabernacle and the priesthood became the locus of Israelite worship. This continued until the construction of the Old temple under the reign of King Solomon circa 10th century BC, and persisted until the destruction of the Herodian temple in 70 AD.

The importance of the post-exodus tabernacle in the lives of this exiled population is demonstrated in the lengthy instructions given for the construction of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and the establishment of the priesthood that would oversee it. Chapters (25-31) of the book of Exodus contain detailed instructions for the building and oversight of the tabernacle

(25- 26), the altar for the burnt offering (27), the priestly garments (28) and the consecration of the priests (29), instructions for the altar of incense, atonement money, the basin for washing, and the anointing oil and the incense (30). All of the instructions in the book of Exodus become the means for the fulfillment of the Levitical sacrifices and offerings as recorded in the Old seven chapters of Leviticus.

The living conditions facing these newly liberated slaves were at best spartan. While there are no clear indications of the specific ailments and diseases they were facing, this striking promise emerges from the text of Deuteronomy:

“The LORD will remove from you all sickness; and He will not put on you any of the harmful diseases of Egypt which you have known, but He will lay them on all who hate you.” (Deut. 7:15)

This promise establishes Yahweh as both healer and protector of his people. It characterizes him as the righteous judge who will also punish the enemies of the Israelites. This can be seen as a restatement of the promise God made to Abram, “And I will bless those who

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 67 bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed,” (Gen. 12:3).

As Mary Douglas (1999) notes in her book Leviticus as Literature, “a negative bias runs throughout source criticism, a prejudice against the priestly editors.” She continues, “The distinctive priestly style of the chapters 1-16 is deemed unattractive, loftily abstract, impersonal, dry” (p. 33).

A later comment by Douglas concerning animal sacrifice, while going into great detail regarding the actual details of the sacrifice, i.e. the draining of blood, the quartering of the animals and the placement of the parts on the altar, forbidden items (p. 67- Chapter 4), the obvious and stated reason for these sacrifices is seemingly ignored, e.g. substitutionary atonement (Lev. 17:11). Instead there appear several instances of dead (death) becoming symbolic of birth (p. 68), and the use of the burning of the sacrifice as it actually changes for transformation from one kind of existence to another (Douglas, 1999).

While there is much discussion of the prohibition of eating blood and suet with regard to the sacrificial requirements, Douglas cannot find a suitable explanation for this ban. This appears to be another example of what could be characterized as the incomplete nature of her original thesis stated in Purity and Danger, i.e. that Douglas would be able to effectively explain certain prohibitions with regard to eating blood or fat, without reference to the stated reason for most of the Levitical offerings, e.g. the sin, guilt, trespass offerings.

Douglas offers an interesting, though not perfect, lens through which to view Levitical regulations. Her sober misgivings about her earlier conclusions in Purity and Danger, that “the prohibitions on unclean animals are not based on abhorrence but are part of an elaborate intellectual structure of rules that mirror God’s covenant with his people,” (Douglas, 1966, p. xv), seem to support this view with regard to inadequate nature of her original hypothesis.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 68

Without making the mistake of constantly looking for closure from a post-modern perspective, or being excessively simplistic by taking a narrow view of the meaning of these

Levitical offerings and overly emphasizing a Christian view of substitutionary atonement, it is important to look beyond the medical and cultural anthropology of Douglas et al., and establish some of the ties that bind the Levitical priesthood to the clergy of the 21st century.

We will attempt to be specific about certain disease states affecting the children of Israel, however, even without the specifics of disease, the ministry of intercession and reconciliation can easily be demonstrated in Leviticus. A useful heuristic corollary can be drawn between the ministry of the New Testament clergy and the Levitical priests that preceded them (see Flow- chart III, p.87).

Levitical Priests as Public Health Practitioners

Referring once again to the WHO definition of health, “A state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity,” we can make certain comparisons between the modern practice of public health and the precursors to our modern paradigm, the nation of Israel, albeit in Israel’s infancy.

There are well-established connections in the book of Leviticus to the containment and healing of contagious disease. The position the Levitical priesthood held within the Israelite community has certain parallels to the practice of public health today. While it is beyond the scope of this current work to comment on the nutritional value of a kosher versus a non-kosher diet, there is room for some speculation with regard to the positive impact of the dietary instructions given in the book of Leviticus. This is primarily because the nutritional instructions contribute to the holistic nature of the Levitical Code.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 69

Every culture in the world has something that resembles a medical system. While there are commonalities among them all, each one has its own focus. George Foster (1976) explains how prior training and investigation might skew a researcher’s views:

Impressive in ethnographic accounts of non-Western medicine is the tendency of authors

to generalize from the particulars of the system(s) within which they have worked.

Subconsciously, at least, anthropologists filter that data of all exotic systems through the

lens of belief and practice of the people they know best. Whether it be causality,

diagnosis, the nature and role of the curer, or the perception of illness within the wider

supernatural and social universe, general statements seem strongly influenced by the

writer’s own personal experiences. (p. 773)

As we have noted, this sentiment is similar to what Mary Douglas described with regard to the practice of training anthropologists to study religion comparatively, i.e. being studied alongside other religions of its period and region. While we expect scholars to utilize the training they have received by bringing to the table a particular focus, this can have the consequence of limiting one’s perspective by obscuring, altering, or even eliminating alternative points of view.

Another factor that should be addressed is the problem of terminology. There is no acceptable way of removing some of the prejudicial implications from the vocabulary we use to describe the cultures of antiquity. Some of the terms used in the past illustrate this difficulty, i.e. primitive, ancient, or peasant. For this reason, I have included a section giving definitions that are hopefully without some of the more prejudicial connotations.

Foster (1976) continues to echo the concerns of his contemporaries when he describes the problems of terminology noting:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 70

Throughout most of anthropology’s brief history, ethnologists have labeled the

institutions of the people they have studied as “primitive,” “peasant,” or “folk,”

depending on the basic societal type concerned. Until relatively recently, anthropologists

have investigated primitive religion, primitive economics, primitive art, and of course,

primitive medicine. The seminal writings of the ethnologist-physician Erwin

Ackerknecht during the 1940s display no uncertainty as to what interested him: it was

“primitive medicine,” a pair of words that appeared in the title of nearly every article

he published. Caudill too, in the Old survey of the new field of medical anthropology

spoke unashamedly of “primitive medicine.” (p. 774; Caudill, 1953, p. 771)

Practitioners of public health have expanded their practice far beyond the inspection of and possible quarantine of suspected contaminated individuals. The general health and wellbeing of the people they serve can be seen in the practice of the Levitical priests within their own community. The Levitical priests ministered, primarily, as intercessors that directly served the purposes of Yahweh. It is in this expanded definition that the priesthood of Israel can be seen fulfilling the tasks usually attributed to contemporary public health practitioners.

Levitical Priests as Intercessors

Israel has had a long history of interaction with its Creator. While there are commonalities between the ancient Israelites, the Canaanites, and the Mesopotamians, the fact that the Israelites were monotheists sets them apart of all others. Avalos (1995) comments on the hegemony that existed with regard to the Israelite healthcare system and its surrounding neighbors:

The relationship between the Israelite health care system and its religious history was

marked by a tension between strict monotheism (i.e. the belief that Yahweh was the only

supernatural being that exists) and the belief that Yahweh lived alongside numerous

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 71

divine beings who could act as his agents in healing (and in sending plagues), or who

could act on their own volition, a volition that was sometimes contrary to that of Yahweh.

The consensus in Old Testament theology views Yahweh as the only “sender/controller”

of an illness, and the only healer as well. (p. 241)

As we have already noted, the biblical text indicates the only one who is truly able to cure illness is Yahweh. This distinction is a very significant feature of the ancient Israelite community. The following characterization is attributed to the God of Israel by the author of the book of Exodus with a similar declaration echoed by the prophet Jeremiah:

And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.” (Exodus 15:26)

‘For I will restore you to health And I will heal you of your wounds,' declares the LORD, ‘Because they have called you an outcast, saying: “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”’ (Jer. 30:17)

It is clear from these passages that the Israelites understood that only Yahweh has the power to heal, e.g. cure. This is especially important due to the fact that one of the diseases noted in the Torah is characterized as being incurable, e.g. severe boils that cannot be cured:

The LORD will strike you on the knees and legs with sore boils, from which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. (Deut. 28:35)

The role of the intercessor is well established in the Bible. For a variety of reasons, direct contact between the Creator and His creation has been limited. Theologians have debated the reasons for this, however, the fact remains that intercession is a key component in the relationship between God and man. The book of Job contains this suffering saint’s lament concerning his need for an intercessor.

“For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him, That we may go to court together.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 72

There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (Job 9:32-33)

The intercessory nature of the Levitical Code is illustrated in the ordination of the priests and the instructions concerning mediation they were given. One of the reasons for the intercessory aspects of the ministry of the priesthood can be traced back to the account of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The reaction of the children of Israel, who witnessed the

God of Israel descending upon Mount Sinai, is recorded as being rather profound. A description of what they saw is followed by this emphatic plea recorded in the book of Exodus.

All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance.

Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.” (Exodus 20:18-19)

Isaiah elicits this same reaction when he experiences a vision of Yahweh on his heavenly throne during his call to ministry. Yahweh’s response, with regard to Isaiah’s fearful reaction, is an apparent reference to substitutionary atonement. While this is not the subject of the current study, the reference itself does speak to the theme of intercessory ministry with regard to the trespass and burnt offerings found in the book of Leviticus.

Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.

He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.” (Isaiah 6:5-7)

It is this ‘fear of the Lord’ or reverential awe for the overwhelming experience of seeing

God in his glory that fueled the ancient Israelite’s request that Moses be the one who would

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 73 speak directly to God on their behalf. This practice of intercession would continue as a recurring theme throughout the Pentateuch.

Levitical Priests and the Sacrificial System

While Judaism and Christianity may be at odds concerning the need for substitutionary atonement as it relates to soteriology, the myriad sacrifices and offerings that inhabit the book of

Leviticus constitute much of the workload of the Levitical priesthood. This aspect of the ministry of the Levitical priest should not be disregarded. The intercessory feature of ministry is of particular importance when researching the relationship between the Levitical priests and their modern-day counterparts.

With the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, all sacrifices and offerings outlined in

Leviticus ceased. The termination of the sacrificial system brought about the end of the work of the Levitical priesthood. Often the nature of these sacrifices, the odiousness of the shedding of blood and the butchering involved, has alienated many scholars from focusing on them.

The Jewish philosopher, scholar, and physician, Moses Maimonides is considered one of the most influential sages and preeminent Torah scholars of the Common Era. In his writings, there is an uncertainty with regard to the sacrifices and offerings codified in the Pentateuch.

Theologian Gary A. Anderson (1992) explains:

There is perhaps no better reflection of this ambiguity than the work of M. Maimonides

(1135-1204). On the one hand, Maimonides was an assiduous sympathizer of every

detail of the sacrificial system as it was reflected in Jewish tradition. In his Mishnah

Torah, Maimonides organized all the legal decisions that had accumulated rather

haphazardly about sacrifice in biblical and rabbinic literature. No other compiler of

Jewish law gave sacrifice this type of attention. However, in his Guide for the Perplexed

Maimonides speaks discursively about the sacrificial system, nearly condemning it. In

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 74

his evaluation of the sacrifices and offerings, he cites the standard prophetic critique of

sacrificial worship (I Sam. 15:22; Is. 1:11; Jer. 7:22-23) and says that sacrificial worship

was never God’s desire for humankind (Twersky, 1972). The laws were given to Moses

because the people needed them to counteract the attractions of contemporary paganism.

Scholars have long been perplexed over the double-mindedness on the part of one

Maimonides. Yet his perplexity strikes at the very root of what most modern readers of

the Bible at least implicitly believe about the sacrificial system. On the one hand, there is

the feeling of responsibility towards the sacrificial material in the Bible – it must be

organized, systematized, and understood – yet on the other hand, there is the constant

uncertainty as to its true religious significance. (p.871)

As a Hebrew Christian, I understand the dilemma faced by the sages and rabbinical authorities of Judaism. Since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, history has left the Jewish people without a functioning sacrificial system. Prior to 70 AD, the Jews were previously commanded to bring sacrifices to the Levitical priests for various expiatory sacrifices as well as other less transgression-based offerings. Nevertheless, after 70 AD, the Jewish people were left without the means to obey those instructions. Even the blood rites of Passover and the Day of

Atonement cannot be carried out in compliance with biblical instructions without the reinstitution of Temple worship and the sacrificial system. Therefore, it is understandable that rabbinical Judaism has embraced another method of propitiation where God’s judgment against sin is concerned, i.e. fasting and prayer, while downplaying the centrality of substitutionary atonement with regard to the Levitical sacrifices and offerings.

Judaism is not alone in its uncertain views concerning the Levitical sacrifices and offerings. The early Church father, Origen (circa 185-254), made reference to the ambiguity of these instructions regarding the sacrificial system in a homily on the book of Numbers (Homilia

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 75

27). Christopher A. Hall (2009) explains Origen’s concerns with regard to how a novice might react to an initial reading of the book of Leviticus:

If the book of Leviticus is read, his mind immediately stumbles and he flees from it as

from something that is not his own food. For the one who had come to learn how to

worship God and how to receive his commandments concerning justice and piety, hears

precepts given about sacrifices and rites taught that concern immolation. Why should

one not immediately turn away from what is heard, and so to speak, refuse the food as not

suitable for him? (p. 168)

These objections aside, the activity of the Levitical priests can be implicitly understood as intercessory. There was a distinctly physical aspect to the work of the Levitical priesthood. The preparations for the sacrifices and offerings, the maintenance and care of the holy vessels, instructions concerning the night watches and the Temple guards, the casting of lots for service, public prayer, the laying on of hands, and their ministerial work as facilitators of propitiation are all clearly connected to the sacrifices and offerings described in the Torah. All of these activities were part of the Levitical oversight of the day-to-day temple ministrations.

One of the fundamental features of the Levitical priesthood was its role in the mediation of reconciliation. Aelred Cody (1993, p. 610) explains the historical evolution of the early

Israelite priesthood saying, “The historical roots of the early Israelite priesthood probably lie, culturally, in the cultic systems of the Canaanites and the other Northwest Semitic peoples.”

Other scholars have traced the etymology of the Hebrew word for Priest back to several possible significations. As Cody has already noted, the Semitic word kŵn is believed to be the basis for root word Kohen is thought to derive from the verb Kahan, which appears to have the same meaning as kŵn, e.g. “to stand.” Therefore, the priest is one who stands before God as his servant or minister (Burke, 1962). This may very well be the reason for the conclusion that the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 76

Levitical priest was ‘one who stands up for another, and mediates in his cause,’ (Jeffers, 1996).

As Edersheim (1994, p.57) notes, with regard to the ordination of the Levitical priests, “For this purpose God chose the tribe of Levi, and out of it again the family of Aaron, on whom He bestowed the ‘priest’s office as a gift’ (Num. 18:7).”

A closer look at the inner workings of the Temple priesthood yields a number of insights into the function of these intercessors, and a variety of sacrifices outlined in the Leviticus.

Biblical scholar, Alfred Edersheim (1994), in his book, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, elaborates on the preeminence of the sin offering noting:

This is the most important of all the sacrifices. It made atonement for the person of the

offender whereas the trespass-offering only atoned for one special offense. Hence sin-

offerings could be brought on festive occasions for the whole people, but never the

trespass-offerings (comp. Num. 28, 29). In fact, the trespass-offering may be regarded as

representing ransom for a special wrong, while the sin-offering symbolized general

redemption. (p. 94)

With the relationship of the ancient priesthood as intercessors established with regard to substitutionary atonement, the actual parallels between these ancient priests and their modern priestly counterparts can be more thoroughly examined.

One of the most stunning similarities we find between the Levitical priesthood and modern clergy is in the context of the laying on of hands. We see this practice repeated throughout the book of Leviticus during the fellowship offering (Lev. 3:2), the sin offering (Lev.

4:15), and during the ordination of the priests (Lev. 8:10, 14). According to modern rabbinical tradition, little emphasis has been placed upon the Levitical practice of the laying on of hands.

This is not the case within Catholic and Protestant traditions. In the book of Leviticus, great significance has been placed upon the penitent laying his hand on the burnt offering (Lev. 1:4).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 77

This was done for the individual as the he contritely confessed his sin, and in theory, symbolically imputed that sin into the animal being sacrificed. The Levitical Priest would then, simultaneously, slay the animal and collect the blood according to the ceremony outlined in the

Torah. This ritual was repeated on behalf of the entire congregation Israel during the Day of

Atonement with the High Priest laying both hands on the offertory sacrifice:

“When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

“Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.

“The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:20-22)

Edersheim (1994, p. 107) continues to confirm the centrality of sacrifice in the Levitical

Code noting, “The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else – atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness.”

We have numerous rabbinical sources that view the importance of sacrifice coupled with the centrality of blood representing the life or soul as noted in Lev. 17:11. Edersheim (1994) summarizes the view of several ancient Jewish sources on the subject of substitutionary atonement:

Rashi says on Lev. 17:11, “The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood; therefore I

gave it to atone for the soul of man – that one should come and atone for the other.”

Similarly, Aben Ezra writes, “One soul is a substitute for the other.” And Moses ben

Nachmann concurs, “I gave the soul for you on upon the altar, that the soul of the animal

should be an atonement for the soul of the man.” These quotations might be almost

indefinitely multiplied. Another phase of Scriptural truth appears in such rabbinical

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 78

statements as that by the imposition of hands, “The offerer, as it were, puts away his sins

from himself, and transfers them upon the living animal;” and that, “as often as any one

sins with his soul, whether from haste or malice, he puts away his sin from himself, and

transfers them upon the living animal;” and that, as often as anyone sins with his soul,

whether from haste or malice, he puts away his sin from himself, and places it upon the

head of his sacrifice, and it is an atonement for him.” Hence, also, the principle laid

down by Abarbanel, that, “after the prayer of confession (connected with the imposition

of hands), the sins of the children of Israel lay on the sacrifice (of the Day of

Atonement).” This according to Maimonides explains why everyone who had anything

to do with the sacrifice of the red heifer or the goat on the Day of Atonement, or similar

offerings, was rendered unclean; since these animals were regarded as actually sin-

bearing. In fact, according to rabbinical expression, the sins-bearing animal is on that

ground expressly designated as something to be rejected and abominable. (pp. 86-87)

With such an array of rabbinical commentary on this subject, it is evident that the New

Testament view of sacrifice is entirely in accordance with that of the ancient synagogue. It seems sensible to make the connections between the penitent Israelite, the offering being offered, and the priest who oversees and actually sheds the blood of the sacrifice as the offerer is confessing his sin.

This “hands on” aspect of the healing power of forgiveness in the life of the Israelite reminds us that the early believers of the New Testament were already practicing the laying on of hands, as an adjunct to prayer, with an emphasis on seeking God’s grace for the healing of illness.

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 79

It has been argued by some that early Christians rejected secular medicine for several centuries, depending instead on miraculous healing or healing by spiritual means (Dawe, 1955).

Christians certainly continued to seek divine healing in the early centuries of Christianity, particularly through prayer and anointing with oil, the latter being employed by both clergy and laity. Most modern clergy, with the exception of hyper-religionists who eschew all medical involvement seeing it as a failure to rely exclusively on the exercise of their faith, use all avenues for healing at their disposal. This includes prayer, fasting, the laying on of hands, and the use of anointing oil in conjunction with everything that modern medicine offers to successfully cope with illness, and overcome or cure disease.

Levitical Priests and Modern Clergy

Modern clergy continue this tradition of intercession in a variety of ways. The preaching of the gospel is itself a message of reconciliation and healing. The parallels between various

Christian denominations and the Levitical priesthood are both numerous and, in many ways, complimentary.

The Roman Catholic Church offers last rites as a sacrament where the priest anoints a dying Catholic with oil and prays for their salvation, e.g. extreme unction. The Orthodox and

Roman traditions each acknowledge anointing of the sick as sacramental.

The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the sacrament of Holy Unction during the afternoon and evening of Great and Holy Wednesday. This sacrament is offered for the healing of soul and body and for forgiveness of sins. At the conclusion of the service of the Sacrament, the body is anointed with oil, and the grace of God, which heals infirmities of soul and body, is called down upon each person.

Pentecostal and charismatic Protestant churches emphasize faith healing, deliverance ministry, and prayer services where the laying on of hands and anointing with oil are part of their

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 80 tradition. The mainstream Protestant denominations, e.g. Baptists, Methodists, Disciples of

Christ, Congregationalists, United Church of Christ, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and a growing non-denominational movement, offer some form of pastoral or Christian counseling to their parishioners.

Although many of the pastoral activities of the New Testament clergy are based upon the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, there is a connection to, and a kinship with, the ministry of the Old Testament Levitical Priests. Several of them have roots going back into the Old

Testament, i.e. confirmation, baptism, communion, etc. Many of those associations will be further examined in the next section.

Commonalities between the Levites and New Testament Clergy

There are many differences between the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament and the clergy of the New Testament. There are, however, numerous similarities and common practices as well. The historical connection between the children of Israel of the Old century AD and the church are indisputable. Joan Taylor (1993) notes, “Jewish Christians, also called

Hebrew Christians, Christian Jews or Judaizers, were early Christians who maintained Jewish religious practices, from the period of the inception of Christianity until approximately the fifth century.” They are associated with the Jewish-Christian Gospels. Alister McGrath (2006) claims, “The 1st century Jewish Christians were totally faithful religious Jews. They only differed from other Jews in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.” However, as Christianity grew throughout the Gentile world, Christians were cut off from their Jewish roots (Akers, 2000;

Boatwright, Gargola, Talbert, & Richard, 2004; Wylen, 1995; Dunn, 1992).

Additionally, both Judaism and Christianity find their origins in the Law (Torah), the writings (Nevi'im), and the prophets (Ketuvim) of the Old Testament. Christianity has built much of its liturgy upon, and derives many of its traditions from, the priesthood and practices of the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 81

Levitical Code. A brief comparison between the Levitical Priests and their New Testament counterparts, comparing activities that have some degree of commonality from albeit disparate sections of the New Testament writings, will serve to expose some of the parallels between these groups and solidify their connection for the purpose of this theological and pastoral study.

Old Testament Levitical Priests New Testament Clergy

Given specific instructions, Lev. 21-22----Given specific instructions, I & II Tim.; Titus

Marriage, Gen. 2:24------Marriage, Mark 10:3-9; Eph. 5:25

Passover, Ex. 12------Communion, I Cor. 11:23-26

Micvah, Lev. 14------Baptism, I Cor. 12:13

Laying on of hands, Lev. 1:4, 16:21------Laying on of hands, Acts 6:6; I Tim. 4:14

Anointing the sick with oil, Is. 1:6------Anointing the sick with oil, Mk. 6:13

Dispensers of justice, Lev. 19, 24:10-23---To judge disputes in the Church, I Cor. 6:4-5

The locus of the sacrifices, Lev. 1-7------Promotes the Messiah’s sacrifice, Heb. 1:1-3

Table II- Comparison of ministry chart for Levitical priests & modern-day clergy

When the Levitical instructions are examined in the light of the modern definition of

Public Health, these correlations include a broader definition than just the identification, containment, and treatment of contagious diseases. The Levitical instructions to the Israelite community can be understood as incorporating a holistic approach to the people’s overall health and wellbeing. These included dietary instructions as well as directives for disease containment.

The epidemiologic component of the Levitical instructions makes sense when examining the historical and cultural factors pertaining to the Israelite community of the Old Testament.

The Israelites possessed a distinct ethnic and religious bond as well as a common dietary

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 82 tradition. The New Testament community is far more inclusive. They consisted of both Jews and Gentiles who had placed their confidence in the God of Israel through a common faith in

Israel’s Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

This does not mean that the Church does not have certain public health variables in common, i.e. the tendency not to smoke or abuse alcohol or drugs, less apt to be sexually promiscuous, etc. Indeed, many studies have examined these variables with regard to the positive effects of spirituality on a person’s overall health and wellbeing.

In addition to health and religion references in the literature review, health educators

Levin and Chatters (1998) comment on the empirical research concerning religion and mental health:

For the past century, numerous epidemiologic and clinical studies have documented the

influence of religious affiliation and religious involvement on physical and mental health

outcomes. While remaining a generally obscure area of research, over 200 published

studies have investigated religious differences in a wide range of health outcomes and

have examined the effects of dimensions of religiosity on health status indicators and

measures of disease states (Levin & Chatters, 1998; Levin & Schiller, 1987). Especially

large bodies of published data exist for cardiovascular disease (Levin & Schiller, 1987),

hypertension and stroke (Levin & Vanderpool, 1989), cancer (Troyer, 1988), and overall

and cause-specific mortality (Jarvis & Northcutt, 1987). (p. 34)

These studies add support for the hypothesis of this research. Levin and Chatters (1998) summarize the conclusion of their meta-analysis:

In large part, results from these studies have been consistent in indicating a salutary

relationship between religious involvement and health status. However, since most of the

studies in this literature were not designed solely and explicitly to investigate this issue,

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 83

coupled with the paucity of true experimental evidence, no one study is ideally designed

to “prove” that religion exerts a positive influence on health. Across the literature,

however, the consistency of findings despite the diversity of samples, design,

methodologies, religious measures, health outcomes, and population characteristics

actually serves to strengthen the inference of a positive association between religion and

health. (p. 34)

This research has been conducted over a relatively long timeframe encompassing a wide variety of populations as Levin and Chatters (1998) continue to note:

This finding has been observed in studies of old, middle-aged, and young respondents; in

men and women; in subjects from the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia; in

research conducted in the 1930’s and into the 1990’s; in case-control, prospective cohort,

cross sectional, and panel studies; in Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,

Parsis, and Zulus; in studies operationalizing religiosity as any of over a dozen variables

(religious attendance, prayer, Bible reading, church membership, subjective

religiousness, Yeshiva education, etc.); in research limited to t tests and bivariate

correlations and in research testing structural-equation models with LISREL; and in U.S.

studies among Anglo-whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and African Americans

(Levin, 1944a). The volume and consistency of findings have led to calls for more

systematic study of the “epidemiology of religion.” (p. 35; Levin & Vanderpool, 1987)

The scope of the health, wellbeing, and wholeness described and contrasted between the

Levites and the clergy of the New Testament can assist us in the identification of the factors that characterize successful ministry, thereby gleaning insights that will be helpful in future ministry.

The following flowchart enables us to track how these two models of ministry impact their

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 84 specific faith-based communities, and how they might compare to one another in reaching the common goal of effective ministry.

Public health Teachings related related to

instructions in modern clergy, Leviticus i.e. chaplains

Correlations Resulting between both Resulting outcomes for the outcomes for Levitical and children of Israel modern-day clergy modern congregations (Table II)

Common outcomes with regard to health & wellbeing

Chart III-Flowchart for Levitical priests & modern-day clergy

The public health aspects of Leviticus can be divided into three distinct categories, (i) environmental/infectious diseases, (ii) dietary, and (iii) psychosocial. An overview of the book of Leviticus will help us delineate the subject matter within the framework of the public health paradigm. This is especially timely in that the medical discipline of public health has also seen a change from an emphasis on infectious diseases to chronic diseases, especially in the developed nations. It is a goal of the public health paradigm to take lessons learned from the history of developed countries, and incorporate those lessons for the benefit of the developing nations.

This is something of great value in a world where people still suffer many inequalities and struggle to maintain basic dignity in their lives and the lives of their children.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 85

Public Health: Environmental and Historical Considerations

If public health can be understood in the terms previously stated, this fledgling nation of a confederation of tribes descendent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob provides a laboratory for the study and evaluation of many of the factors that constitute the practice of public health.

Humankind has long been concerned about the environment, health, and disease. As early as 500 CE, Hippocrates wrote, in Upon Air, Water, and Situation, concerning how environmental and lifestyle factors could influence health. He commented on seasons and weather, the sitting of cities, and the nature of the water. He further urged considerations of “the mode in which the inhabitants live, and what are their pursuits, whether they are fond of drinking and eating in excess, and given to indolence, or are they fond of exercise and labor” (Clifton,

1752).

The book of Leviticus contains numerous references to subject matter that can be characterized as having an emphasis on issues related to public health. As noted in the our rationale, instructions concerning the diagnosis and quarantine of contagious disease (Lev. 13-

14), instructions for the proper disposal of waste (Lev. 4:11-2), the proper sanitization of plates and cooking utensils (Lev. 11:34-35), as well as the dietary restrictions (Lev. 11:1-32), can all be seen as foreshadowing a more modern application of public health-related practices.

Detels and Breslow (2004) define public health and explain its evolution in their introduction to The Oxford Textbook of Public Health:

Modern Public health is defined as the process of mobilizing and engaging local, state,

national, and international resources to assure the conditions in which people can be

healthy. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, health problems reflected primarily

fecal contamination of water supplies and the widespread undernutrition, crowding, and

exhaustion associated with early industrialization.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 86

Although communicable diseases once dominated the scene, the non-

communicable diseases in recent years account for six out of seven deaths in the

developed world and about half of all the deaths in the developing world. (p. 3)

Christopher Hamlin (2004) wonders why we do not have more evidence of public health related concerns in antiquity:

If health is what we are all striving for, why is public health so invisible a part of our

past? Until recently historians have been unconscionably negligent in investigating its

history. Few general texts give it much attention and vast gaps in our empirical

knowledge remain, and there is little good empirical work. (p. 21)

One of the main goals of this present study is to examine information that can yield insights into this invisible past. The nation of Israel is a group of people whose history includes a migration from slave status in Egypt to a community of nomadic wanderers who, by biblical record, spend forty years wandering throughout a relatively small and inhospitable area of desert somewhere in the Sinai Peninsula.

Bridging the gap between ancient and modern is a very exigent task. It is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is attempting to make sense of instructions given to a seemingly insignificant collection of former slaves. This newly liberated group of refugees is being guided by a former prince-turned-deliverer who is following the instructions of a previously unheralded Canaanite deity.

Tracing the roots of modern public health back into antiquity inevitably leads us back to groups of individuals. World Health Organization directors Sein & Rafei (2004) explain:

Historically, public health efforts meant health development to be undertaken by the

government as a public sector activity. Public health action was sometimes seen as

health interventions addressing more than one individual, such as community hygiene,

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 87

sanitation, and water supply, health education, maternal and child health care,

immunization and nutrition promotions, or disease control activities. The people who

carried out such measures were known as public health workers. Commonly, public

health covered promotive, prevention, curative, and rehabilitative health measures. (p.

39)

The environmental considerations in the Levitical Code include the instructions on contamination and infectious disease. The dietary considerations speak to the nutritional aspects of health within the community of the developing nation of Israel. It is clear that these instructions (as well as the psychosocial consideration for the health and wellbeing of each

Israelite) were inexorably linked together with the instructions to, and the activities of, the

Levitical priests.

Public Health: Diet and Disease in Ancient Israel

The practice of public health has evolved from a focus upon a variety of contagious diseases, and efforts to eradicate and eliminate them in times past, to a much expanded view in modern times. This transition, while not ignoring the infectious determinants of disease, has expanded into a new paradigm, one that includes education, health promotion, and social and lifestyle determinants of health and disease. Although there has been, and will always be, an emphasis on emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, Sein & Rafei (2004, p. 58) explain,

“the final decades of the 20th century witnessed rapidly changing political situations and severe economic upheavals, especially towards the end of the Cold War.”

The understanding of health and disease in the modern world has caused epidemiologists to take a multidisciplinary approach to public health. They look at the hereditary, socioeconomic, lifestyle and other behavioral, gender-related, cultural and political dynamics as they relate to modern public health teaching and research.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 88

As the practice of public health has changed focus from the medical model of disease prevention and eradication, it has been largely replaced by the determinants of health model.

Beaglehole (2004) explains:

The preferred model of the determinants of health is dynamic and interactive and adopts a

life course approach to health status recognizing the complexity of the interplay between

prenatal, early and later life influences on the development and maintenance of health and

disease states. This model is considered far removed from the usual and more

circumscribed ‘medical model,’ that is based on a restricted biological view of disease

etiology and concentrates on the endstages of the disease production process.” (p. 84)

With regard to the ancient Israelites and the prohibitions outlined in the book of Leviticus, it is the determinants of health model that gives us insight into the dietary instructions in the Levitical

Code.

While epidemiologists often group populations into certain categories, the basic sciences of public health remain epidemiology and biostatistics. Several epidemiological strategies have emerged to engage local, state, national, and international resources. As previously noted, the goal is to insure that effective models of health education and health promotion will offer lessons learned in the developed countries to those in the developing nations.

Public health involves predicting disease trends, elucidating methods of disease transmission, testing the efficacy of intervention strategies and evaluating intervention programs, evaluating the health needs of a given community, and evaluating public health programs.

Detels (2004, p. 485) notes, “All epidemiologists, however, will agree that epidemiology concerns itself with populations rather than individuals, thereby, separating itself from the rest of medicine and constituting the basic science of public health.”

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 89

The newly emerging nation of Israel can be seen as a culturally, ethnically, and religiously distinct group of people. Dualeh and Shears (2004, p. 1737) define refugees as

“people who have crossed international borders fleeing war, or persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of particular social and political groups.” This is certainly the case for the ancient Israelites fleeing slave status in Egypt. This is in spite of the fact that they are originally described as coming out of Egypt as a “mixed multitude” made up predominantly of former Hebrew slaves (Ex. 12:38).

One such description sees the “mixed multitude” as a great mixture or rabble, slaves in the lowest grades of society, partly natives and captives obtained by foreign conquests that are bound to the Israelites by companionship in misery, or convinced by recent judgments of the supremacy of Jehovah. They are further described as all gladly availing themselves of the opportunity to escape in the crowd and flocks and herds, even very much cattle (Jamieson,

Fausset, & Brown, 1984).

The ordinance of, and the sacrifice of, the Lord’s Passover was no doubt the final defining event that separated those who would flee with the Israelites from those who would stay behind. According to the biblical account, it was this concluding act of divine judgment that broke Pharaoh’s will, and brought about his decree to release the Israelites (Ex. 12:31).

Some scholars believe the story of the Exodus was written by Moses as an eyewitness to the events (Hoffmeier, 2005; Kitchen, 2003). They base their population estimates of those fleeing Egypt on the biblical account revealed in Exodus 12:37-38 that indicated the Israelites numbered “about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children,” plus many non-Israelites and livestock. The account in Numbers 1:46 yields a more precise total of 603,550 men. Adding women and children into this estimate places the total at approximately 2 million people (Kantor, 1988).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 90

The majority of biblical scholars, however, argue that the general characteristics of the biblical account make more sense if seen as primarily a work of the late-Exilic/early post-Exilic period (late 6th/early 5th centuries CE) (McDermott, 2002). They offer a much more conservative estimate and argue that no evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe. They claim there is no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds, (Dever, 2003), nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, which is estimated to have had a population of only

50,000 to 100,000 at the time (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2002). Clearly, estimates vary among scholars with regard to the number of exiles leaving Egypt. Even the most conservative approximation, numbering these refugees in the tens of thousands, would pose enormous difficulties related to public health.

According to the biblical record, the exiles had time to plan for their move. This is in contrast to Jewish tradition that is observed during the Passover Seder portraying the departure from Egypt as happening rapidly, i.e. no time for the leavening process in baking their bread, celebrants seated in a reclining position in preparation for a hasty departure. This apparent contradiction can be explained by the fact that the delay in the departure from Egypt was going to end abruptly, right after the 10th plague. Exodus 12:11 indicates, ‘Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste--it is the LORD'S Passover.’ This is almost certainly the reason for the

Jewish tradition of observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread by eating the Passover meal while reclining on pillows. They are symbolically ready to make a hasty retreat, just as the Passover

Haggadah instructs them to do.

It should be noted that from the time Moses and Aaron made their initial plea to Pharaoh, to ostensibly to worship Yahweh in the desert (Exodus 5:1), to the actual departure included ten

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 91 plagues as well as recurring demands to “Let My people go.” It was not until after suffering the consequences of the final plague (Exodus 12) that Pharaoh relents. Even though the Egyptians gave the departing Israelites generous provisions (Ex. 12:36), a mass exodus of people traveling together would always pose a number of logistical and public health-related difficulties.

Adequate food, water, shelter, and sanitary conditions are essentials for the health and wellbeing of any group of people. Some of the instructions contained in the book of Leviticus, as well as other related biblical texts, may shed some light on how this ancient people avoided many of the pitfalls that have plagued other refugee groups throughout history. These include some major contributing and causal factors of ill health that are common to all refugee groups throughout history, i.e. inadequate or contaminated water supplies, food-born illness, malnutrition, and poor sanitation, not to mention the psychosocial needs and stress-related factors facing a recently uprooted and displaced people. As revealed in the biblical text, adequate food (Ex. 16) and water (Ex. 17:1-7) supplies were clearly of primary importance.

The instruction for the implementation of quarantine where the possibility of communicable disease is concerned is demonstrated in the Levitical Code. The book of

Deuteronomy includes instructions about the creation of a latrine ‘outside the camp’ for the

Israelite army in the battlefield (Deut. 23:12). While such instruction is predominantly linked to holiness, the actual sanitary wisdom regarding such instructions should not be completely overlooked.

There are other such Levitical instructions that seemingly imply knowledge of future medical conditions unknown at the time Leviticus was written. Certain zoonoses, diseases primarily of animals that can be transmitted to humans because of direct or indirect contact with infected animal populations, i.e. listeria, francisella, brucella, bacillus, and yersinia, are bacterial pathogens that fall into this category. There are nematodes and other parasites that are also

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 92 pathogenic. The most famous example is trichinosis, a parasitic infection related to partially cooked pork. This may be one of the reasons for the biblical prohibitions against eating this meat; however, the reason for this dietary prohibition remains a matter of speculation.

Shellfish and other prohibited foods have long been associated with certain diseases, i.e. salmonella, there are numerous other pathogens, both viral (Hepatitis A) and bacterial (Vibrio cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus), that have been implicated in seafood-born infections. Prior knowledge of these relationships cannot, and should not, be attributed to the

Levitical priests. The predominant view of the community of biblical scholars is that particular diseases, even though they later became associated with certain vectors and zoonoses as medical knowledge increased and the Germ theory became established, could not be directly linked to the

Levitical Code. While these later medical discoveries are indeed interesting, all such attempts to credit the Levitical priests with prior knowledge of future medical pathology have been ill advised.

Julius Preuss (2004) explains that he, and other scholars, included the biblical dietary laws under the heading of ‘Hygiene’ solely because they could conceive of nothing other than sanitary reasons for their inclusion in the biblical instructions. He goes on to make clear:

It must be noted that the Torah gives no reason at all for these laws, and the later sources

do so only rarely. Thus, nearly everything that one alleges to be the reason for the dietary

laws is only a hypothesis and is read into the sources. One can assume with certainty that

considerations of physical health are at least part of the reason. At the same time,

however, were it not for higher grades of other motivations, whether of a cultic or ethical

nature (such as, e.g. the prohibition of the slaughtering of a female animal and its

offspring on the same day), then these hygienic considerations would be the determining

ones to explain the dietary laws. (p. 501)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 93

By examining the history surrounding the Israelite’s exodus from Egypt, we can better understand the difficulties facing this newly liberated refugee population. This sheds light on the unique treatment that diet and disease receives in the book of Leviticus. Seeing the dietary instructions, coupled with the teaching concerning the treatment contagious disease in Leviticus from a public health perspective, instructs us concerning the central part the Levitical priests played in the health and wellbeing of this Old Testament community of faith.

Public Health and Lifestyle Diseases

Public health policy makers have had the difficult task of remaining focused on a far more inclusive definition of public health than their predecessors ever had to contend with. The emergence of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) has facilitated the re-emergence of diseases once considered well contained. The re-emergence of tuberculosis and other mycobacterium has prompted concern among health practitioners and infectious disease specialists. Compromised hosts, once the exclusive domain of certain rare autoimmune disorders such as Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disease (SCID) and cancer patients whose radical chemotherapy and radiation treatments often decimated their immune systems, are now being produced at an alarming rate due to the HIV pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

(SARS), Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as well as other antibiotic and antiviral resistant microorganisms pose a serious threat globally. This is especially important as once eradicated pathogens reemerge resistant to the old faithful cadre of antibiotics, antifungal and antiviral medications.

Students of public health have seen a number of books aimed at educating the public chronicle the scientific research effort to understand these deadly pathogens (Barrett, 1994;

Rhodes, 1997; Ryan, 1993, 1997). Barrett et al. (1998) explain some of the problems facing future public health practitioners:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 94

Recent academic conferences (Lederberg, Shope, & Oaks, 1992; Morse, 1994) have

brought together researchers in microbiology, public health, and bio-medicine to survey

the seriousness of the problem; they report an ominous resurgence of morbidity and

mortality from new and old infectious diseases. These reports warn of the eroding

efficacy of antimicrobial therapies in the face of growing multi-drug resistance (Lewis,

1994; Swartz, 1994; Vareldzis et al., 1994). They note the rise in infectious disease

deaths in affluent post-industrial nations since the Industrial Revolution: In the US, age-

adjusted mortality from infectious disease has increases by 40% from 1980-1992 (Pinner

et al., 1996). For its part, the US center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has

complied a list of 29 pathogens that have emerged since 1973 (Satcher, 1995), and has

initiated an online journal –Emerging Infectious Diseases – to address the problem. (p.

248)

The proponents of the Epidemiologic Transition Theory have sought to expand the framework to consider the recurring social, political, and ecological factors implicated in emerging disease patterns from the late Paleolithic era to the Industrial Revolution. They apply this broad framework to explain the most recent pattern of emerging disease as part of a third, qualitatively distinct, epidemiologic transition (Barrett et al., 1998).

It is within the context of this third transition that the emphasis on public health was expanded to include lifestyle diseases. The decreases in infectious disease in industrialized nations, and the subsequent reductions in infant mortality, has had unforeseen consequences that has also brought increased morbidity from chronic diseases (Riley & Alter, 1989). These so- called “diseases of civilization” include cancer, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and the chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Kaplan & Keil, 1993).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 95

International Public Health specialist, William Foege (2004), explains one of the challenges facing public health practitioners in an expanding public health paradigm beyond a focus on infectious diseases:

Until recently, public health was almost synonymous with infectious disease control.

While this is undoubtedly an overstatement, little attention was given to injuries,

violence, chronic diseases, environmental concerns, obesity, or other health-related

conditions. Failure to identify these fields as being within the legitimate concern of

public health prevented the full development of intervention strategies. (p. 404)

It is of interest that instructions given to the fledgling nation of Israel place the Levitical priesthood into the Paleolithic era between 1440 and 1290 AD. While there is much debate concerning support for both the earlier and later dates, in terms of medical anthropology the era of the Levitical priesthood is rooted in remote antiquity. In addition to the Levitical instructions concerning contagious disease, they offered the children of Israel dietary instructions as well as offering the reconciliatory benefits of the sacrificial system. This multifaceted approach to ministry represents a holistic model. In this way, the Levitical priests exhibit a truly forward- looking approach to the health and wellbeing of their community of faith. Additionally, this combination of infectious disease and dietary instructions aids in the validation of the original hypothesis presented in this dissertation, i.e. the Levitical Code can be read in part as a public health document; that the Levitical Priest can be treated as a public health official; and that such a reading can be informative for the practice of ministry in the 21st century.

A brief review of the types of illnesses noted in Leviticus reveals that most of the biblical diseases, with the exception of discharge due to sexually transmitted disease (STD) and the more generalized categories of itch and inflammation, fall under the category of infectious diseases and not necessarily lifestyle diseases. When comparing the ministry of the Levitical priests with

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 96 their modern-day counterparts, lifestyle diseases should be included as part of the general preaching and counseling ministry of modern clergy. This is an important part of an effective holistic approach to ministry given the wide variety of possible negative consequences facing our youth with regard to sexuality. The consequences of being sexually active should be explained to both parents and age-appropriate children.

All who labor among youth should be particularly aware of their obligation to advise the younger generation of the dangers that accompany a lifestyle not based upon the biblical model of premarital chastity and post-marital monogamy. Following the sexual revolution of the

1960’s and 70’s, what might have seemed quite old fashioned and prudish in the last quarter of the 20th century can be understood today as a prudent and healthy lifestyle choice.

The recent emphasis by the practitioners of public health on lifestyle diseases can be informative for clergy whose ministry includes the psychosocial wellbeing of their congregations as well as other areas of ministry. As the Levites ministered to both dietary and medical concerns, their modern-day counterparts can expand their ministry to include helping their congregants to make healthy lifestyle choices.

Public Health: Environmental & Infectious Diseases

Public health and epidemiology deal with the prevention and containment of disease.

Environmental considerations can be traced to specific references in the Torah. Leviticus is one of the books of the Bible that appears, at least in part, to be focused on the environmental aspects of public health.

The concept of contamination from reservoirs of infectious disease in the book of

Leviticus is linked to the almost ubiquitous prohibitions against touching or consuming anything unclean. While much has been written about these prohibitions from the perspective of cultural anthropology, little credence has been given to the public health features of these prohibitions.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 97

With this in mind, a brief overview of the book of Leviticus will aid us in our examination of the Levitical priesthood and its ministry. The Old seven chapters of Leviticus contain instructions concerning various offerings, e.g. burnt, grain, fellowship, and sin and guilt offerings. In the middle section of chapter seven, there is the Old mention of a prohibition against eating blood by the Levitical priests outside of the prohibitions in Genesis 9:4, i.e. the proscription outlined as part of the Noahide law and other related references in Exodus and

Deuteronomy.

Jacob Milgrom (2004) also sees the blood prohibitions in the Levitical Code as being representative of a wider biblical theme connected to the book of Genesis:

That Leviticus 11 is rooted in Genesis is of deeper theological import. It signifies that,

from a priestly point of view, God’s revelation to Israel is twofold: to Israel via Sinai and

to humankind via nature. The refrain of P’s account of creation is: “That God saw that it

was good.” In common with Israel’s contemporaries, P holds that God punishes

humankind through flood (Gen. 9:16-22), plague (Ex. 7:8-13, 8:12-15, 9:8-12), sickness

(Lev. 13), and death.

In Leviticus, to be sure, all of P is directed toward Israel. But one only need turn

to the P stratum in Genesis to realize that is has not neglected the rest of humankind. P’s

blood prohibition in Genesis appears in the bipartite Noahide law, which states that

human society is only viable if it desists from the shedding of human blood and the

ingestion of animal blood (Gen. 9:4-6). Thus it declares its fundamental premise, that

human beings can curb their violent nature through ritual means, specifically, a dietary

discipline that will necessarily drive home the point, that all life, shared also by animals,

is inviolable, except–in the case of meat –when conceded by God (see further Leviticus

11). (p. 13)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 98

It is one of the goals of this dissertation to explore other considerations for the Levitical prohibitions. One of these is the environmental aspect of these instructions. In chapter eleven of

Leviticus, we read the following:

‘Also anything on which one of them may fall when they are dead becomes unclean, including any wooden article, or clothing, or a skin, or a sack--any article of which use is made--it shall be put in the water and be unclean until evening, then it becomes clean.

‘As for any earthenware vessel into which one of them may fall, whatever is in it becomes unclean and you shall break the vessel.

‘Any of the food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall become unclean, and any liquid which may be drunk in every vessel shall become unclean.

‘Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you.

‘Nevertheless a spring or a cistern collecting water shall be clean, though the one who touches their carcass shall be unclean.

‘If a part of their carcass falls on any seed for sowing which is to be sown, it is clean.

‘Though if water is put on the seed and a part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening.

‘He too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. (Lev. 11:32-40)

These verses are preceded by an exhaustive list of unclean land and marine animals, birds and insects. It is clear that mere contact with anything that is considered impure renders that person or vessel unclean. In this case, contact with dead animals would render that person unclean as well. It is of particular interest that cross-contamination is often the basis for food poisonings and a plethora of food-borne illnesses.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 99

Environmental experts, Marriot and Gravani (2006), give details concerning the relationship between poor sanitary practices and food-borne illness:

Today there are more than 200 known diseases transmitted through foods and many

pathogens of the greatest concern were not recognized as causes of food-borne illnesses

20 years ago. Most cases of food-borne illnesses involve gastrointestinal symptoms

(nausea, vomiting and diarrhea), and are usually acute, self-limiting, and of short

duration, and can range from mild to severe. Deaths from acute food-borne illnesses are

relatively rare and typically occur in the very young, the elderly or in persons with

compromised immune systems. (p.7)

Leviticus also covers a series of topics relating to the discharge of fluids specifically concerning a woman’s purification after childbirth (Lev. 12:1-8) as well as a series of instructions concerning males with a discharge (Lev. 15: 1-15). The remainder of that chapter is devoted to females being unclean during their menstrual cycle, even if the menstrual bleeding is prolonged, and a man who has a discharge of semen unrelated to sexual intercourse.

The balance of the book of Leviticus is devoted to the Day of Atonement. Chapter sixteen is a restatement of the prohibition against eating blood with a direct connection concerning blood, its centrality as a life sustaining substance, and its importance symbolically for purposes of atonement.

‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’

“Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 100

“So when any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ (Lev. 17:10-14)

From a medical and/or dietary perspective, consuming blood is not dangerous; unless the source of the blood can be demonstrated to have been infected with microorganisms or parasites, i.e. septicemia, viremia, or parasitemia. It is from a ceremonial standpoint that the Noahide prohibition against the consumption of blood is codified in the book of Leviticus.

Chapter eighteen of Leviticus instructs the children of Israel concerning unlawful sexual relations and chapter nineteen restates some of the Decalogue as well as various laws concerning social morality. Chapter twenty continues to list prohibitions against sexual immorality, bestiality, and incest. In each of these aforementioned chapters, there is a strict prohibition against consulting spiritualists and mediums.

All such occult activities are strictly forbidden, and these prohibitions are going to be re- visited by the prophets of Israel (Is. 8:19, 47:13-15; Jer. 10:1-2; Dan. 1:20; Ez. 13:20; Zech

10:12; Mal. 3:5). Perhaps the most striking example of the serious consequences of disobeying the biblical prohibitions against spiritualism is seen in the tragic end of King Saul (I Sam. 31:1-

6). After previously ridding the land of these practices (I Sam. 28:3), King Saul fell into condemnation for his own disobedience in this area by engaging in necromancy (I Sam. 28:7-

25).

Chapter twenty-one continues with rules for the Levitical priests as well as prohibitions against prostitution, either marrying one involved in prostitution or prostituting one’s own daughter for personal gain. This chapter also includes prohibitions against priests who have physical defects. Chapter twenty-two outlines who can eat, and who cannot eat, of the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 101 designated food set aside for the Levitical priests. It also contains prohibitions concerning acceptable and unacceptable sacrifices.

The balance of the book of Leviticus is devoted to the holy days of the Israelite nation, the Sabbath and the Year of Jubilee, a section devoted to remembering the poor and protecting the homes of the Levitical priests from permanent loss, rewards for obedience and curses for disobedience. The book finishes with the rules for redemption of what belongs to the Lord and the regulations concerning the tithe.

It is the instructions in chapter thirteen of Leviticus, concerning infectious diseases that are most germane to this section of the dissertation, i.e. environmental and infectious diseases.

Although one cannot completely rule out the existence of leprosy in ancient Israel, there are no indications that this disease was the malady that the translators of the Septuagint interpreted as

“leprosy.” Hector Avalos (1995) explains the position of modern scholarship with regard to leprosy:

tzaraath), is not the) צרעת ,There is now a consensus that the word translated leprosy

modern disease denominated as leprosy and known also as Hansen’s Disease, nor is it the

צרעת ,disease(s) denominated by λέπρα (lepra) in the Greek (Zias, 1989). In fact

(tzaraath) is probably a word that refers to a wide range of conditions that result in an

abnormal disfigurement or discolorations of surfaces --- including human skin. (pp.

311-312)

Avalos (1995) explains how the apparent misidentification of the biblical malady thought to be leprosy occurred.

G. H. Armauer, a Norwegian physician, advanced another stage of confusion. In 1874,

he described an organism (Mycobacterium leprae) that he had discovered in 1864, and

that produces a mildly infectious disease that came to be known as Hansen’s disease.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 102

This disease was identical with at least some of the conditions denominated as “leprosy”

in medieval times. The name of the bacterium implies that the condition caused by the

microorganism as the same as some of the conditions described by the Greek word lepra

and Hansen himself thought that the condition that he described in modern patients was

identical with the condition(s) described in Leviticus. (p. 312-313)

In addition to Preuss, Avalos (1995, p. 313) notes, “a wide range of evidence

tzaraath) is not to) צרעת philological, historical, and paleo-osteological) indicates that biblical) be identified exclusively with Hansen’s disease (if it is to be identified with the latter at all).

Renowned pathologist E. V. Hulse (1976) noted that Hansen’s disease is “active mainly in the skin, the mucous membrane of the nose, the lymph nodes, and the peripheral nerves.”

Another eminent physician, R. G. Cochrane (1947), noted in contrast to conditions described in

Leviticus, “the lesions of modern leprosy are never white, and that modern leprosy of the scalp is quite rare.” Some scholars go so far as to doubt that leprosy even existed at the time Leviticus was written (Zias, 1985).

One of the facts concerning tzaraath effectively eliminates Hansen’s disease from the list of possible biblical aliments once identified as leprosy. Hector Avalos (1995) explains:

The fact remains that biblical tzaraath probably designates a wide range of conditions

that may have subsumed Hansen’s disease (if such a disease actually existed in Israel in

the biblical period), but was certainly not limited to this condition. The wide range of

conditions subsumed under tzaraath is quite evident in Leviticus. Not only humans, but

inanimate objects could be struck with tzaraath. This alone eliminates identification with

Hansen’s disease. (p. 314)

Finally, there has been no evidence of Hansen’s disease in the skeletons of the biblical era of the Old Testament; however, this is not true of the New Testament period where evidence

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 103 of Hansen’s disease in a burial shroud of an Old century AD tomb has been documented.

Matheson et al. (2009) report:

The Tomb of the Shroud is one of very few examples of a preserved shrouded human

burial and the only example of a plaster sealed loculus with remains genetically

confirmed to have belonged to a shrouded male individual that suffered from tuberculosis

and leprosy dating to the Old-century A.D. is the earliest case of leprosy with a

confirmed date in which M. leprae DNA was detected.

While this may be due to the relative rarity of this illness and/or the way in which sufferers were ostracized and segregated from the community, the absence of evidence from paleo-biology is striking (Moller-Christensen, 1961).

Understanding that the instructions in Leviticus can best be understood as referring to a wide range of diseases, some educated guesses can be made concerning the nature of these illnesses. With regard to the illnesses of the skin, Hansen’s disease, lupus erythematosus, certain nutritional deficiencies, and microbial pathogens that result in dermatological conditions, e.g. pellagra, psoriasis, smallpox, skin cancer and vitiligo, could all be considered appropriate.

Other possible conditions have been suggested by Preuss, who considers the possibility of fungal infections, e.g. trichophytosis, under the possible umbrella of tzaraath. Interestingly,

Preuss, an avid Talmudic scholar, notes that the eminent Jewish physician Maimonides considered tzaraath in the sense of a “collective name” (Preuss, 2004, p. 326).

Often the Bible itself indicates that what has been translated, as ‘leprosy’ is not the feared form of contagious disease history has taught us to expect. Preuss (2004) continues to explain why the leprosy described in the Old Testament would not have been Hansen’s disease:

During the entire time of his isolation, a leper is not at all restricted in cohabitation with

his wife. The leprous King Uzziah had a son Jotham during the time of his leprosy

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 104

(Talmud - Moed Katan 7b; Kerithoth 8b). One must, therefore, assume that the woman is

allowed to share the exile with her husband.

The Bible relates that King Uzziah (or Azariah) was a leper until the day of his

death, and he lived in a beth ha-chophshith (II Kings 15:5; II Chron. 26:11). It is possible

to interpret this “House of Refuge” as a leprosarium. One could equally well agree with

the commentaries (Talmud -on Horayuth 10a) that the expression is derived from

chophshi meaning free from obligation; i.e. the King lived free of his royal duties.

The Targum translates beth ha-chophshith as beth segirutha meaning the house of

leprosy. The word segirutha is the usual Targumic translation for tzaraath. The same

translation is given for the term gibath gareb (Jer. 31:38) which other translators and

commentators consider the name of the place (e.g. hill of Gareb). Even if gareb is

equivalent to garab, and even if this meant leprosy, a “hill of leprosy” is still not a

leprosarium. Either it simply refers to an “unclean place” (as in Lev. 14:40) or any other

site in the open fields where the lepers who were sent outside the city congregated. (p.

336)

Whatever the correct identity of this malady, the sociological implications of having been declared “unclean” were devastating on many levels. This would be especially true of chronic conditions rather than the short-term designation of unclean that could be corrected rather easily by ceremonial cleansing with water, e.g. micvah, in conjunction with the appropriate offering. It is within this context that the Levitical priest acted in ways consistent with a public health practitioner.

It is clear that the role of the Levitical priest was not to offer prognosis or cure. It was the priest’s job to examine the person presenting himself for inspection. He would offer consolation and directions that would aid the Israelite in coming to terms with the illness that had befallen

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 105 him. It is here that the distinction between healing and cure finds its best expression. One must remember that, according to the Torah, it is God alone who has the power to afflict and to heal.

Only Yahweh is sovereign and no man, apart from divine grace, has the power to truly cure disease.

What the Levitical priests did for the children of Israel was to offer them instruction with regard to diet, consolation in their time of need with regard to illness, and an avenue of comfort.

They accomplished this by facilitating the application of the sacrificial system for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Public Health and Dietary Considerations

There is a clear aspect in the practice of public health that has developed since the eradication of certain pandemic diseases. The period between 1880 and 1970 is sometimes referred to as “the golden age of public health.” It was during this timeframe that the germ theory replaced the miasma theory leading to extraordinary discoveries and corresponding success in combating infectious disease.

Christopher Hamlin (2004) explains the conditions that lead up to the golden age of public health:

While the emerging techniques of empirical social research gave this inquiry the aura of

quantitative precision, the surveys disclosed little that was distinctly new about the lives

or health of the mysterious poor, the usual targets of public health and social reform.

Much of it seemed new, however, it now registered as problematic.

While these newly recognized public health problems partly reflected the

changing distributions of political power, they also reflected anxiety about the nation’s

vulnerability, and even the decadence of its population. Worried about the strengths of

their armies, states like Britain discovered in the 1890’s that too few of those they would

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 106

call up would be competent to be mobilized, and they attributed the problem to a vast

range of causes: poor nutrition (coupled with the lack of sunlight in smoky cities), bad

sanitation, bad mothering and bad heredity (Soloway, 1982; Pick, 1989; Porter, 1991,

1999). Epidemics of smallpox followed the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and again in

the 1890’s disclosed the gaps in vaccination programs (Baldwin, 1999). The usual

response was to redouble the state’s efforts to take responsibility for the immune status of

the population. The persistence of syphilis registered a new level of unacceptability. (p.

30; Brandt, 1985; Baldwin, 1999)

The successes of public health on a global level has led to an expanded view of public health from a discipline fighting the emergence of communicable diseases to a broader application of promoting overall health and the prevention of all disease, communicable and lifestyle diseases alike. It is in this realm that the ancient public health applications of the

Levitical priests appear to be even more remarkable and forward-looking.

The emphasis on dietary instructions in the book of Leviticus should not be ignored, especially since these instructions would have a definite impact on the overall health and wellbeing of the children of Israel. The clean and unclean foods are outlined in Leviticus chapter eleven with the following designations. Only ruminant animals with split hooves are considered kosher for dietary purposes as well as sacrificial purposes. Pigs, camels, rock badgers (conies) and rabbits are specifically noted as unclean (Lev. 11:4-7). The Levitical priests were prohibited from physically touching these creatures (verse 8).

Marine animals are also mentioned in this chapter of Leviticus, and they must have fins and scales to be considered kosher (verses 9-12). Of the birds, the birds of prey as well as the scavengers are considered unclean. The eagle, vulture, the black vulture, all species of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, all species of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 107 owl, the white owl, the desert owl, all species of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (verses 13-19) are all considered unclean.

The insects are also designated as clean and unclean (verses 20-25). All flying insects that walk on four legs are unclean with the exception of those who have ‘jointed legs for hopping on the ground’ e.g. locust, katydid, cricket and grasshopper (verse 22).

Although the foods outlined as clean are generally of more nutritional value than those designated unclean, the association of poorly cooked foods, and especially where food-borne zoonoses are concerned, does not seem to be a target of the Levitical prohibitions.

Modern environmentalists understand the relationship that communicable disease plays in the health and wellbeing of a community. Stephen Palmer (2004) notes:

Some infections that are spread from a human source can be controlled by putting the

case or carrier in isolation, e.g. diphtheria and typhoid fever. When animals are the

source of an infection, it is sometimes possible to control an outbreak by eradication, i.e.

rodent control for leptospirosis. Rabies may be controlled by the destruction of rabid

animals and wild or stray animals, and by the muzzling of domestic dogs. Removing the

vehicle of infection usually controls outbreaks of food-borne zoonoses. Eradication of

animal reservoirs has played a major part in the long-term control of zoonoses such as

bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. (p. 315)

The numerous dietary instructions in Leviticus pertaining to clean and unclean remind us that the Levitical priests were more than just purity inspectors. Pharmacologist, physician and

Doctor of Hebrew Literature, David Macht (1953), notes a distinct measurable increase in the toxicity of unclean animals over those deemed kosher in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14. It is clear that the

Levites offered a variety of instructions that went beyond the offerings of the sacrificial system

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 108 and instructed their community concerning dietary considerations. Once again, the Levitical priests had a more holistic approach to ministry then they are usually given credit for.

Public Health: Ancient Medicine in Judaism and Early Christianity

There exists an historical connection between early Christianity and the Old Testament.

In many ways, the evolution of the gospel beyond the borders of Palestine had the effect of obscuring Christianity from its Jewish roots.

The practice of medicine has also evolved over time and it contains the contributions of several ancient cultures and belief systems. Vivian Nutton (1996) writes with regard to the rise of medicine:

The noted Basle physician and medical professor, Theodore Zwinger, traced the

ancestry of the art of medicine back to the ancient Greeks. Even if he, a good Protestant,

could not entirely believe that a pagan god like Apollo had created the healing arts to

benefit humanity, he accepted the half-god Asclepius as one of the founders of medicine,

and the mythical centaur, Chiron, half man and half horse, as the creator of

pharmacology. But long before, he (Zwinger) believed, God had placed in the world

healing substances for the benefit of sick people, waiting for the discoveries of

subsequent generations. (p. 52)

This same premise, i.e. God provides medicinal benefits within His creation, is paralleled in the ancient Jewish writings of the Talmud. The preeminent scholar on the history of biblical and Talmudic medicine, Julius Preuss, describes the efforts of the rabbinical physicians practicing medicine within the Jewish community. He devotes an entire chapter to describing the pharmacology of Jewish antiquity. While he notes the medications described in the Talmud are mostly derived from flora, he includes a section on animal remedies as well as an early reference to what could be characterized today as the precursor to modern aromatherapy. He

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 109 continues with a list of non-medical remedies, dietary remedies, geriatric remedies, and true to his holistic approach to sickness and healing, he includes visiting the sick as part of the his treatment of the practice of medicine in the ancient Jewish community (Preuss, 2004, p. 433-

445).

Nutton (1996) continues to explain the commonality that Judaism and Christianity have with regard to their view of ministry to the sick noting:

The connection between the ancient practices of the Jewish practitioners of the medical

arts would soon produce what became the Christian view of the sick. Both Christianity

and Judaism believed in the notion of a whole community bound together by religion, in

which everything, including medicine, had its place, and where religious doctrines and

religious authority might rightly intervene in what had earlier been purely secular affairs.

It was, for example, important to prepare the patient for a good death, leading to eternal

life in heaven, and hence to involve a priest at the bedside as well as a doctor. (p. 56)

As we have noted, the Levitical priesthood served the people in a variety of ways that could be considered holistic in their approach to ministry. The dietary instructions ministered to the physical needs of the people, while continuing to illustrate one of the major themes of the

Torah, i.e. holiness and separation. The sacrifices and offerings spoke to the psychosocial needs of the people with regard making restitution and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.

The works of several scholars have combined to produce an enhanced understanding of healthcare and its relationship to culture. Their work has been particularly helpful in the examination of the Levitical Priesthood and its role in public health during the early biblical period.

One of these scholars is the renowned psychiatrist and medical anthropologist, Arthur

Kleinman (1980, p. 33), who notes, “Old, it is necessary to study the relationship of a healthcare

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 110 system to its context. Cultural settings provide much of the specific content that characterize healthcare systems and, therefore, are major determinants of the peculiar profiles of given systems.”

Disease and death, illness and cure, when seen through the lens of the Levitical priesthood, indicated to the Israelites that the God of their fathers was sovereign in the affairs of men. The biblical record supports the view that Yahweh alone has the power to afflict and to heal his people. Therefore, apart from divine grace there would be no cure of disease:

Come, let us return to the LORD

For He has torn us, but He will heal us;

He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. (Hosea 6:1)

While the intercessory activities of the priesthood of the Old Testament, and even the intercessory prayers of the clergy of the New Testament, could be the agents that facilitated

God’s grace towards the sick and infirm; it was God alone who would decide if that same grace would allow the sufferer to come to grips with a chronic or incurable illness, or experience a complete cure. As noted in our literature review, healing is not synonymous with cure.

The theology of the Old Testament signifies a ‘cause and effect’ relationship exists between sinful behavior and the consequences of that behavior. The Mosaic Covenant clearly states that some of the diseases will be a result of disobedience to the commandments of God.

Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience are part of the Mosaic formula for living.

Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

“All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God: (Deut. 28:1-2)

But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: (Deut. 28:15)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 111

While the Jewish theology rejects the concept of original sin, as developed by the 3rd century Bishop of Hippo, Augustine (354-430 AD, most of Christendom does not. Augustine believed that certain passages of the New Testament (Rom. 5:12-21; I Cor. 15:22) supported the doctrine of original or ancestral sin. He further surmised that the Apostle Paul found support for this teaching from Psalms 51:5 and 58:3.

Because illness can be traced back to what Christian theology refers to as the Fall (Gen.

3; Rom. 5:12-19), Christianity does not automatically assume a causal relationship between sickness and sin. There is, however, the acknowledged possibility that you will reap what you sow (Job 4:8; Gal. 6:7). The Apostle Paul’s instructions to the body of believers at Corinth concerning their misbehavior while observing communion includes the following admonition:

For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. (I Cor. 11:29-30)

So it is clear that the concept of reaping what one sows is not limited to the Old

Testament, it is also evident that living in a sin-cursed world leaves people open to a variety of possible contagions as well as natural perils.

Whatever the mechanisms that underlie this relationship, psychosocial factors that reduce stress may help prevent or ameliorate the progression of disease. One of the areas of ministry that would have a direct impact on the conscience and emotional well-being of the penitent

Israelite is understood in the Levitical instructions concerning the burnt offering. The expressed reason for the burnt offering in Leviticus is clearly linked to substitutionary atonement. The

“hands on” instructions further support the concept of the removal of guilt from the sinner, and the imputation of guilt from the sinner to the innocent animal being sacrificed on his behalf.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 112

‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

He shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron's sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. (Lev. 1:3-5)

All of the Levitical offerings by fire, whether they consisted of meat, grain, or fat, were characterized as a soothing aroma to Yahweh (Burnt offering Lev. 1:9, 13, 17, 8:21, 28, 23:13,

18), (Meal or Grain offering 2:2, 9, 12; 6:15, 21, 23:13, 18), (Peace or Fellowship offering

3:5,16, 17:6), (Sin/Trespass or Guilt offering 4:31). This formula is used regardless of whether the offering served the purposes of the individual or the entire nation as it did on Yom Kippur.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the LORD.

“You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God. (Lev. 23:26-28)

Personal purity and remaining free from contamination are common themes in the book of Leviticus. Whether it is physical contamination, i.e. touching an unclean object, person, or thing or swearing an evil oath, both were considered serious offenses requiring Levitical intercession and sacrifice. Both required that the offender verbally confess his sin and bring the appropriate offering.

‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 113

‘Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty.

‘Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.

‘So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.

‘He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin. (Lev. 5:1-6)

The interpersonal and psychosocial features of the Levitical Code are best illustrated in the instructions concerning restitution. In addition to the financial responsibility of the guilty to provide the appropriate offering, the Levitical Code acknowledges that a financial burden may prevent the offender from providing the prescribed offering. The provision for those who might be economically limited can be seen as a demonstration of social welfare in the ancient Israelite community.

‘But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD his guilt offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. (Lev. 5:7)

Another aspect of the interpersonal nature of the Levitical Code is demonstrated in the laws concerning the making of restitution between men and the holy things of God. The concept of civil justice, combined with the reconciliatory function of the Levitical Code within the

Israelite community, is exemplified in the compensatory nature of the Levitical instructions in making restitution for swearing falsely or unintentional sins.

“He shall make restitution for that which he has sinned against the holy thing, and shall add to it a fifth part of it and give it to the priest. The priest shall then make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and it will be forgiven him.

“Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 114

“He is then to bring to the priest a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his error in which he sinned unintentionally and did not know it, and it will be forgiven him. (Lev. 5:16-18)

The function of the sacrificial system tends to be seen in terms of maintaining holiness and purity, many of the aforementioned instructions do include civil and psychosocial applications that facilitate forgiveness and reconciliation in the community on a personal basis.

This is demonstrated in the interactions between the priests and the people as they fulfill the

Levitical instructions concerning sacrifice and restitution.

The traditions of Judaism and Christianity did not develop in a spiritual vacuum. History is filled with examples of religions influencing one another or branching off and becoming independent from their roots. Because Christianity arose in a Jewish setting, views concerning disease, purity, the primacy of God’s grace with regard to healing, will reveal many commonalities. These threads of common tradition and praxis bind them one to another. As we continue to examine the vital role that clergy plays in the lives of their respective communities of faith, we will be able to glean valuable lessons that can instruct us in the how to minister effectively in the 21st century.

Applications to Ministry: Modern Clergy

The Levitical priesthood, as depicted in the Old Testament, sees its general fulfillment in the modern-day clergy of the New Testament. This parallel relationship is even more specifically demonstrated in the Pentateuch’s book of Leviticus. There are common ministries that bind together the individual clergy of the world’s religions, however, none more closely related to the Levites than the clergy of Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is on the basis of this relationship that we study the way that pastor’s minister to their parishioners. Modern-day congregants encounter similar life circumstances as they face the consequences associated with transgressing God’s commandments, making errors in judgment,

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 115 facing serious illness and/or long-term disability as well as the consequences of poor lifestyle choices. Properly trained and experienced clergy can aid people of faith today in ways very similar, if not identical, to their Levitical counterparts of the Old Testament.

Corresponding to the many directives in the Levitical Code, we have the instructions that are commonly referred to as the Pastoral Epistles (PE). While it is not my intent to critique the conclusions of the form critics with regard to the authorship of the PE; statements made concerning the matter of Pauline authorship such as Raymond Collin’s (2002, p. 4) declaration,

“By the end of the twentieth century New Testament Scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the PE were written some time after Paul’s death” would not be entirely accurate.

The questions concerning the authorship of the PE began with the nineteenth century work of F. D. E. Schleiermacher, J. G. Eichorn, and Bruno Bauer. George W. Knight III explains how repudiation of Pauline authorship of the PE became well known beyond the confines of Europe. Knight III (1992) notes, “The position became widespread in the English- speaking world with the publication in 1921 of Percy Neal Harrison’s well-known book, The

Problem with the Pastorals, which advanced its case on the basis of detailed linguistic and stylistic analyses.” Philip H. Towner (2006) explains the evolution of the majority position concerning the PE:

The influence of especially Bauer in the nineteenth century can still be felt in the most

recent studies of the letters to Timothy and Titus. Bauer endowed the NT scholarship

with a rigid dialectical paradigm whereby early, genuine Paul could be identified

primarily by the Jew/Gentile debate and later writings by its resolution (or absence) and

“early catholic” tendencies.

At the root of the rejection of Pauline authorship lie a number of notable

differences between the PE and the main letters of Paul that have evolved into a

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 116

monolithic critique. Dibelius’ listing remains characteristic, though other representatives

of the view will stress the elements in different degrees, and with increasing frequency,

the distance of the letters of Paul is simply assumed and no longer demonstrated. (p. 15)

While the majority opinion considers the PE pseudonymous, and they no longer entertain doubts concerning the matter, for them, the placement of the PE into an early second-century church setting, in which the return of the Messiah is no longer considered eminent, is clearly established. Towner (2006) continues to explain the majority opinion:

Old, the teaching of the PE represents a coherent theological and ethical argument that

may be thought to address a real church or churches somewhere in time. Second, the

differences of the “Pastor’s” theology underscore the distance and discontinuity of the PE

from authentic Paul. Accordingly, differences discovered far outweigh any points of

contrast with the early and undisputed Paulines. And these differences are typically

regarded as “findings” upon which a theory of relation of the PE to Paul can be built.

Paul was absorbed with the Jew/Gentile problem with works of the law and faith, but in

the PE, such things are no longer relevant, and their dominant issues of succession and

transmission of the gospel and ecclesiology are foreign to earlier Paul. The differences

are too great; Pauline theology has clearly spun off into a completely new orbit.

Consequently, the third common element of the consensus is the conclusion that these

letters belong to a late period when the transition from the third to fourth-generation

Christianity was occurring (Timothy and Titus being reduced to fictive figures from the

past). (p. 18)

This is not the proper forum to entertain a lengthy debate concerning Pauline authorship.

Still, I find many of the arguments against Pauline authorship can be countered. For instance,

Knight III (2006) notes:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 117

The nature of Paul’s relationship to Timothy and Titus is a crucial element in

understanding most of the differences between these letters written to apostolic assistants

and the earlier letters written to the churches. We have already noted the difference in

Paul’s method of communication. We will also note differences in content and subject

matter, theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. We will often find that

these are no disparate differences but aspects of one difference manifesting itself in

interrelated ways. Thus, if in writing to an apostolic assistant rather than to a church the

apostle uses at times a different method; his writing will most likely also show

differences in content, both of which in turn will probably be expressed in part in

different theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. Therefore, rather than

having to explain the differences under the assumption that the PE are Pauline, one

should expect that the letters to the apostolic assistants will be noticeably different in

comparison with those to churches. In fact one should think they were not genuine if

they did not have these differences, this is especially the case when we have found that

certain characteristics of these letters are also discovered in his dealings with these

apostolic assistants and other spiritual leaders elsewhere in the NT. They may well be

marks of authenticity rather than strange differences from the earlier Pauline letters. (p.

25)

Aside from the testimony of the early church, i.e. the uniform acceptance of these letters by Clement (circa 95 AD) and Ignatius (circa 115 AD), another important factor in deciding whether to discard the traditional view of Pauline authorship comes from the testimony of the text itself. Knight III (1992) explains:

Because of the self-testimony of the Epistles to Pauline authorship is so explicit and

pervasive, those who object to Pauline authorship have either adopted the view that they

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 1 18

are pseudonymous (so most of those who reject Pauline authorship, e.g. Dibelius-

Conzelmann, Gealy, Barrett, Brox, and Hanson) or have concluded that they contain

genuine Pauline fragments (so Harrison and e.g. Falconer, Easton, and Scott). (p. 21)

Towner (2006) raises another objection that I consider compelling with regard to the acceptance of the majority opinion:

Third, behind the conclusion of non-Pauline authorship and the eventual evolution of

pseudonymity is the insistence that the PE are different from the undisputed Pauline

letters. Here we encounter another illegitimate disjunction. It is far too convenient for

the majority view to elevate the areas of alleged Pauline dissimilarity as evidence of

discontinuity while dismissing the points of similarity as part of a fiction. This is a

methodological flaw. On this same basis any undisputed Pauline writing could be found

wanting. In fact, little attention is given to the dissimilarity that exists between any

individual Pauline letter when stacked up against some set or cluster of the others. This

way of treating the evidence skews the assessment in the necessary direction. But it is

hardly a fair treatment of the evidence. There are a number of significant points at which

the letters to Timothy and Titus reflect what is clearly an organic connection with Paul’s

other letters. There will always be ways to “explain” away these discrete “similarities,”

but when they are coupled with broader shared themes and tendencies that permeate the

undisputed Paul, the case is strengthened for a unified mind behind the writings

compared. At the same time, the dissimilarities that are allowed to overrule are often

assessed on the basis of a skewed compilation of data. It is typical to compare the letters

to Timothy and Titus with a restricted “mini-Pauline corpus,” minus Colossians,

Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians. If these three letters were added to the sample, the index

of dissimilarity would drop significantly. (pp. 24-25)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 119

To be sure, there is still compelling evidence for the non-Pauline authorship of the PE.

Recently, it has been suggested that there might be a “middle ground” approach to the question authorship of the PE. I. Howard Marshall is the originator of this view and has even coined the term “allonymity” to define an authorial process that might narrow the divide that exists between

Pauline authorship and the “Pastor” who may have co-opted Paul’s name (Towner, 2006).

The authors of the New Testament where unaware of the divine status that would be later conferred upon their writings by the faithful, however, in his communication to Timothy, the

Apostle Paul proclaims the Old Testament to be “God-breathed” (theopneustos):

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim. 3:16)

This view of the authority of Scripture is shared by those of the Orthodox and ultra-

Orthodox Jewish community with regard to the written Law (Torah she-bi-khtav), as well as the oral Law (Torah she-ba'al peh). The Conservative branch of modern Judaism varies with regard to their view, many of them embracing the Orthodox view of the Old Testament concerning the

Torah, with a much less exalted view of the rest of the Old Testament, i.e. the writings and the prophets. The Evangelical Christian community considers both the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired word of God. These groups continue to view their own particular compilation of the biblical canon to be divinely inspired. The formula used by the prophets of Israel, i.e. the

“word of the Lord came to me saying” or “the word of the Lord” said to me, imply communication that is of heavenly origin (I Kings 13:9; I Chron. 22:8; II Chron. 12:7; Jer. 1:4;

Ez. 3:16; Zech. 4:8). While these characterizations are highly suggestive of the divine inspiration of their messages, other verses signify the eternality of God’s word:

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 120

I have already stated my views concerning the validity of the Old and New Testament writings. I would, therefore, be in the minority along with those scholars who initially defended

Pauline authorship of the PE. They include Henry Alford (1865), Charles J. Ellicott (1869),

Johann E. Huther (1890), Alfred Plummer (1891), Joseph B. Lightfoot (1904), Fenton J. A. Hort

(1894), Frederick L. Godot (1894) and more recently George W. Knight III (1992) and Luke T.

Johnson (1987) who continue to defend Pauline authorship of the PE.

Both schools of thought present scholarly opinions with regard to the authorship of the

PE. Good cases can be made pro and con for Pauline authorship. It is clear that not all scholars are in agreement concerning the authorship of the PE, and this is not the forum for an in-depth evaluation concerning this matter. For the purposes of this study, I will accept the traditional ascription of Pauline authorship concerning the PE.

These letters represent the instructions relating to the ministry of the gospel as well as the character and behavior of those who are specifically appointed to minister in a pastoral capacity within the body of believers. Paul’s Old letter to Timothy begins with a reminder of Timothy’s call to the ministry, a call to prayer for all men, the proper attire for godly women, and the qualifications for both elders (pastors) and deacons (servants). He continues with a warning of the coming apostasy, personal instructions to Timothy and rules for admonishing the congregants, the treatment of widows, instructions concerning ministerial administration, the duty of servants, and a warning concerning the love of money. Paul ends with personal advice for Timothy.

In II Timothy, Paul reminds the young pastor of his calling, his ordination and Paul’s love for him. Instructions are given to Timothy with regard to his office, personal exhortation to remain constant and to persevere, a description of the wickedness of this present age, and a

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 121 solemn word to this young pastor concerning the coming kingdom. This letter ends, as was

Paul’s custom, with his personal remarks and his final greetings.

The last of the PE is Titus. Paul includes instructions concerning the qualifications for bishops, e.g. elders or pastors, instructions for the older congregants, their responsibility to teach the younger congregants, the proper attitude for servants and their masters, a reminder of the centrality of the gospel, and instructions concerning what, and what not, to teach.

It is important to note the differences, as well as the similarities, in the Levitical instructions as opposed to the Pauline instructions. Remember, the Old Testament instructions cast the Levitical priesthood in the role of intercessors between the God of Israel and the people of Israel. This priesthood had a series of very specific instructions, much of which was devoted to both physical and liturgical requirements. When compared to the priesthood of the New

Testament, a very clear move away from the physical and liturgical requirements of the Levitical dispensation can be demonstrated.

One of the reasons for this migration away from the liturgy and locale of the Levitical ministry, can be found in the message of the gospel and the distinguishing features of the New

Covenant. The Gospel is seen as the fulfillment of the promises of God concerning the redemption of His people. The prophet Jeremiah’s description of the New Covenant identifies two very important aspects of the New Covenant that differentiate it from the Mosaic Covenant.

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 122

the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name:

“If this fixed order departs from before Me,” declares the LORD, “Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever.”

Thus says the LORD, “If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,” declares the LORD. (Jer. 31:31-37)

There are some very clear facts being communicated by this prophet that are pertinent to our comparison of the Old and New Testament clergy. This covenant is specifically described as being “different” from the Mosaic Covenant (verse 32). This covenant is about “knowing God” and “being forgiven” (verse 34). This covenant promises its recipients that God will put his

Torah within them (verse 33), which is another difference between the New and the Mosaic

Covenants. Knowing God personally would seemingly eliminate the need for specific earthly intercessors as well as a physical temple.

The ordained meeting place in the Old Testament was the tabernacle in the wilderness and the two Temples that followed. The central location within the tabernacle and the temples was the Holy of Holies with the Mercy Seat positioned above the Ark of the Covenant.

You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you.

There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony; I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel. (Exodus 25:21-22)

The differing views of the priesthood with regard to Protestantism and Catholicism aside, this New Covenant is made, Old and foremost, with the Jewish people, Jer. 31:31. We can see

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 123 the initial fulfillment of the New Covenant in the ministry of the Messiah as recorded in the gospels. It is in this sense, i.e. the clear and irreconcilable difference between the Mosaic

Covenant and the New Covenant, that the Messiah explains his prohibition against the pouring of new wine into old wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38). This is supported by the prophetic description of the New Covenant as being distinct from the Mosaic Covenant, e.g. “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt,” (Jer. 31:32a).

Another fundamental difference between the Old Testament priesthood and the New

Testament clergy is illustrated in the concept of the priesthood of the believers. The Gospel includes this model of the priesthood being automatically bestowed upon an individual as he or she enters into the New Covenant. Much of the New Testament instruction promotes this view of the priesthood of the believers.

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (II Cor. 5:17-21)

These verses point out some of the distinctive differences in the Old and New Testament

Scriptures. Through this new birth, believers have been given the word or ministry of reconciliation (verse 18). We are called ambassadors (verse 20), e.g. personal representatives, and we can now introduce others to the God of Israel who can reconcile them to Himself through faith in His Messiah.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 124

And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture:

“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”

and, “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. (I Peter 2:4-10)

The New Testament instruction reveals this priesthood status is granted to those who have placed their faith in the risen Savior. With the Old Testament priesthood in view, the writer of the letter to the Old century Jewish Christians presents the Messiah as a Savior who is also called their eternal High Priest (Hebrews 4:14, 6:20).

Another area of common ministry can be seen in the Levitical oversight for the Holy and

Festival days (Lev. 23-25). While the tabernacle and the temples stood, Passover (Pesach) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hag HaMatzot) were combined and celebrated as one of the three mandatory Holy days that included Pentecost (Shavuot) and Tabernacles or Booths

(Sukkot). Additional specific instructions were given to the Levitical priests with regard to the observation of these three main holy days along with instructions for the Feast of Trumpets or

Ingathering (Rosh Hashanah), the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and the Year of Jubilee

(Yovel Shmita).

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 125

Since the destruction of the temple, the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover cannot be carried out. For this reason, rabbinical Judaism has combined Passover with the Feast of Unleavened

Bread. In so doing, they replaced the temple sacrifice with the family Passover Seder commemorating their deliverance from bondage in Egypt while observing the Feast of

Unleavened Bread.

Modern-day clergy are also ordained to oversee certain ceremonial activities associated with the New Covenant, just as their Levitical counterparts ministered in accordance with the

Mosaic Covenant in ancient Israel. Using an Christological interpretation of the holy days allows ministers of the New Covenant to see the fulfillment of the Old Testament holy days and festival days as being realized through the ministry of the Messiah. The Passover becomes synonymous with exemption from judgment by the blood of the lamb (Ex. 12:13). Those who place their faith in the Messiah are seen as cleansed and transformed. They are able to keep the

Feast of Unleavened (sinless) Bread, finding the fulfillment of those Old Testament holy days and sacrifices in the work, and person, of Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul’s theology clearly sees parallels and subsequent fulfillments in the holy days of Israel through a personal relationship with the Messiah of Israel. Paul’s Old letter to the body of believers at Corinth makes this abundantly clear.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Cor. 5:6-8)

We should also note that the Old seven chapters of the book of Leviticus deal almost exclusively with various sacrifices and offerings. There can be no doubt that the institution of

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 126 the sacrificial system in general, and the sin and guilt offerings in particular, have a definite purpose in maintaining a proper relationship between God and man, and between man and his fellow man.

Christian clergy see the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices and offerings in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For New Testament ministers, administering the truth of the gospel means they serve on behalf of the God of Israel and His Messiah. Rather than overseeing the sacrifices and offerings of the Levitical priesthood, these modern counterparts minister forgiveness through the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29-36).

Chapter eleven of the book of Leviticus is dedicated to what the modern public health practitioner would refer to as nutritional or lifestyle instructions. We have already noted that, historically, public health concerns have moved from a focus on infectious diseases to diseases associated with lifestyle choices, i.e. Type II diabetes, coronary heart disease, and some forms of cancer. While much of the regulations involving clean and unclean foods seem to revolve around prohibitions meant to separate the children of Israel from their Canaanite neighbors, that they might maintain purity before their God, the health-related implications in the Levitical Code should not be completely disregarded.

This emphasis on purity can also be seen in the New Testament instructions that typify the believer’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Some of these instructions in the New

Testament are found in the context of sexual purity.

Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (I Cor. 6:18-20)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 127

Other passages in the New Testament restate the Levitical injunctions warning God’s people to remain separate from the idolatrous nations and remain faithful to Him.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:

“Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.’ (Lev. 19:1-2)

‘For I am the LORD your God Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. (Lev. 11:44)

Paul makes this same point in his follow-up letter to the body of believers at Corinth.

They had come to faith in the God of Israel from pagan backgrounds (Blaiklock, 1951;

McClintock & Strong, 1883; Murphy-O’Conner, 2006, p. 734; Weaverdyck, 2007) and needed tutoring with regard to the biblical instructions concerning sanctification and holiness.

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership has righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

“Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.

“And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. (II Cor. 6:14-18)

We are making an application of the purity teachings concerning personal holiness in the lives of the Levitical priests to their New Testament counterparts. Therefore, it is important to explain the difference between the various instructions associated with the necessity of outward

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 128 purity and holiness with regard to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. The priesthood has been extended to all who have entered into the New Covenant, not just their ordained representatives. In the New Covenant, the Torah is written, not on tablets of stone or sacred scrolls, but on the hearts of those who have entered into this priesthood of believers.

Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. (II Cor. 3:5-9)

It is within this context that we can extend the application that we have seen in the

Levitical priesthood to the clergy of today. Not only are the ordained clergy of the New

Testament individually the temple of the Holy Spirit; this characterization applies collectively to all who have placed their faith in the Messiah, the Testator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:16-17).

This ministry rightfully extends to the priesthood of believers.

As we move from the intercessory service of the Levites of the Old Testament priesthood, to the far more intimate fulfillment of God’s promises to the clergy of the New

Testament, we should naturally desire to extend this ministry holistically. By enlarging our ministry to encompass the body, soul, and spirit of our parishioners, we can make applications to the wellness and health of our faith-based community. We can rightly extend the instructions concerning the teaching that our bodies are indeed the temples of Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19; II Cor.

6:16; II Tim. 1:14), thereby making the appropriate lifestyle choices that reflect our understanding of this truth.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 129

The clergy of today should be involved in going beyond the obvious prohibitions against what modern medicine tells us is unhealthy. The contemporary counterparts of the Levitical priesthood can play a unique role in shaping the lives of their congregants. Paul encourages others to follow his example, as he follows the Messiah (I Cor. 1:11), to imitate his example, putting into practice what they had seen in his life (Phil. 4:9).

In this same way, clergy are held up as role models within their local faith-based communities. Unlike the Levitical priests, whose primary ministry intercessory in nature, New

Testament clergy are often in a position to demonstrate a life in compliance with the principles of faith. In doing so, they can extend their influence to embrace lifestyle changes that will prove beneficial to others. They are under-shepherds who are uniquely positioned to model the spiritual application of ‘Christ in us’ as one of the defining aspects of the New Covenant. This can become a motivating force for the general welfare of the communities of faith everywhere.

The clergy of today can build on the foundation of ministry of the Levitical priesthood.

They can facilitate real healing, not just the ceremonial outworking of substitutionary atonement.

They become facilitators of God’s plan that is fully actualized through the experience of receiving God’s love and acceptance, forgiveness and reconciliation. Pastors can feed their flock the spiritual food of the Word of God as well as giving them nutritional instructions concerning what is healthy, and not healthy, to eat. By extending their influence holistically, beyond the spiritual into the realm of healthy living, modern clergy can progress beyond the ceremonial applications of the Old Testament priesthood.

There can be no doubt that contemporary clergy can learn valuable lessons from their

Levitical predecessors. By considering the physical as well as the spiritual wellbeing of their congregants, modern clergy they can go beyond the lessons of the Old Testament Levitical

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 130 priests and foster real change for the better in their lives of those whose spiritual care has been entrusted to them.

Applications to Ministry: Chaplains

An entire subclass of ministry has been established for chaplains. Chaplains from every religious denomination can be seen interceding on behalf of congregations and people of faith the world over. The armed forces are continually recruiting future chaplains and military chaplains have a long history of service to their country. Police departments, fire departments, and prisons all employ chaplains of various denominations and faiths. They are particularly busy in hospitals, nursing homes, hospice settings, athletic teams, and can even be found in some corporate settings. Lay chaplains are also found serving in universities; however, chaplains are becoming even more visible as they branch out into other avenues of ministry in our post 9-11 world.

The work of the chaplain dates back to Imperial Rome. There is evidence of Christian priests being assigned to Roman army units as of the mid-fifth century AD. Paget and

McCormack (2006) explain the origin of the word and ministry of the chaplain:

The word chaplain comes from the early history of the Christian church. Traditionally, a

story relates the compassion of a fourth-century holy man name Martin who shared his

cloak with a beggar. Upon the death of Bishop Martin, his cloak (capella in Latin) was

enshrined as a reminder of the sacred act of compassion. The guardian of the capella

became known as the chapelain, which transliterated into English became chaplain. (p.

2-3)

Historically, chaplaincy arose from ministry within the context of military conflict.

Those who may be interested in the history of military chaplains can find numerous biblical accounts of priests at war. Doris Bergen (2004) notes:

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 131

Knowing how to interpret such passages is more difficult. Indeed, Old Testament

militarism has been a problem for Christian exegesis from early on. Nevertheless,

national chaplaincies invoke various examples of chaplain-like functions. In an early

battle against the Amalekites, the Children of Israel triumphed only as long as Moses

held up his hands in prayer to God. When Moses grew weary, it was his brother, the high

priest Aaron, along with his associate, Hur, who stood beside him and supported his

arms, thereby securing God’s blessing and the subsequent victory. (pp. 4-5)

In the absence of traditionally trained clergy, the duties of a chaplain have expanded over time. Bergen (2002) comments regarding the evolution of the ministry of the chaplain:

From the eighth century through the Crusades, men performing the office of chaplains,

although not necessarily called by the name, heard confessions, assigned penances,

celebrated mass, and provided last rites. Certain aspects of the military chaplaincy – its

liturgical and sacramental functions as well as its morale-boosting role – have shown

remarkable continuity in to the modern world. (p. 6)

The connection between the ministry of the military chaplain, accompanying warriors into battle, offering intercession and prayer for the troops, is reminiscent of the Israelite priests who marched ahead of the people and armies of Israel with the Ark of the Covenant held overhead (Num. 10:33-36). The Levitical priests carried the Ark of the Covenant into battle during the Israelite campaign against the walled city of Jericho (Joshua 6:6-15).

The conflict between the teachings of Christianity and the harsh realities of war were evident in the centuries that followed the conversion of the Roman emperor, Constantine, and his issuance of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD legalizing Christianity. During the fourth and fifth centuries, it was widely accepted at the highest levels of the church that once a soldier confessed his sins and received penance he would have to leave the military life. Bergen (2004) explains

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 132 how Irish Missionaries changed the previously held views of confession and penance with regard to soldiers:

This system of penitential discipline had gradually changed; however, as the older idea of

once-in-a-lifetime penance gave way to repeatable penance under the influence of Irish

missionaries, who, in the seventh century, brought with them to the mainland the

innovative tariff books. These pastoral manuals were essentially schedules of sins with

corresponding penances. The underlying theory was that every sin had a specific means

of satisfaction attached to it, and that once this penance had been satisfied, the sinner

could rejoin the Christian community. It was no longer necessary for soldiers either to

wait until their final days to confess their sins or, if they chose to confess earlier, to enter

a secluded monastic life. (p. 75)

This change opened the door for the on-going presence of clerics among armies who were then given the opportunity to confess their sins before they went into battle.

American chaplains who served in the Second World War cross-trained themselves to be able to serve soldiers who were outside of the chaplain’s religious tradition. Jewish chaplains learned to give last rites to mortally wounded Catholic soldiers and Catholic priests were educated in the Jewish rites and traditions by their rabbinical counterparts. Rabbi Max Wall

(2004, p. 190) describes the chaplaincy as “the beginning of a new spirit of interrelationship between Christians and Jews in America. The ecumenical period was long before Pope John

XXIII.”

Today chaplains represent every major world religion in all of the branches of the military services and in all the developed nations of the world. They minister in a variety of settings. They provide a series of rituals and rights including the celebration of marriages, infant dedications, christenings, and baptisms. Some chaplains lead weekly worship services and offer

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 133

Christian communion during these services to requesting individuals. They may officiate at funerals, memorial services, and wakes. Depending upon the chaplain ministry setting, other more atypical rites and rituals maybe employed (Paget & McCormack, 2006).

The connection between the Levitical priesthood and their modern-day counterparts finds its best and most accurate parallel in the ministry of chaplains. More than any other ministry group, chaplains would profit from a better understanding of their ministry in the context of fulfilling their roles as men and women who serve God as under-shepherds. A chaplain is typically a priest, pastor, rabbi, ordained deacon, or other member of the clergy serving a group of people who are not organized as a mission or church, or who are unable to attend their chosen place of worship for a variety of reasons, i.e. health, confinement, military, or civil duties.

Chaplains may be seminary-trained ministers, or specially trained and certified caregivers, who comprehensively assess the spiritual needs of patients and then address those needs. Most religions have chaplains serving the public. These Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and

Muslim men and women (the exception being women in the Islamic community who are not yet permitted to serve in a religious capacity), although associated with a particular religion, are ecumenically trained and capable of serving outside of their particular religious tradition.

The ministry of the Levites was linked to temple worship, while that of modern-day clergy is usually linked to a church, synagogue, or mosque. The ministry of the chaplain is not necessarily attached to any particular house of worship, however, some are known to offer chapel services in parochial settings such as hospitals and nursing homes affiliated or unaffiliated with religious organizations. The flexibility of the ministry of the chaplain is unique in the religious community and theirs is a very specific and indispensable service.

Working as intercessors, Levitical priests offered immediate relief through a variety of sacrifices and offerings. The chaplain works on the front lines. Chaplains often serve in the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 134 trenches along side those who are the first responders in a variety of unusual and unexpected circumstances.

One of the more intriguing parallels concerning the intercessory ministry of the chaplain is the insider status a chaplain can offer. The Levites were representatives of one of the tribes of

Israel. They were ethnically, culturally and religiously related to those they served in their

Temple service. Chaplains can also become intimately involved with those they serve. Military chaplains serve next to those they minister to, often risking their lives alongside their fellow soldiers. Police chaplains can become certified police officers themselves. In fact, those who aspire to become chaplains to the law enforcement community are encouraged to go to the police academy and achieve certification as police officers. It is generally understood that chaplains who achieve certification are better able to ‘breach the blue wall’ and more effectively serve those who see the world from the unique perspective of a law enforcement officer (Paget &

McCormack, 2006, p. 73).

This insider status, enjoyed by the Levites as they ministered in the tabernacle in the wilderness and the Solomonic and Herodian Temples that replaced it, was already a reality for the Levites as they entered into the ministry. Levites did not have to work to achieve an ethnic and/or cultural identification with their community of faith. The chaplains of today are specially trained to be able to minister in a multicultural world; therefore, they can extend their ministry to a variety of ethnic and religious groups. Training in multiculturalism aids pastors, chaplains, and counselors so they can better understand those they serve, and become the advocates they need to be in a world that is already a melting pot of cultures and religions.

Applications to Ministry: Pastoral & Biblical Counselors

Another important group that would benefit from an in-depth understanding of the parallels between the Levitical priest and modern clergy would be pastoral and/or biblical

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 135 counselors. Clergy have often been cast into the role of counselor. There are long standing graduate programs that combine the typical Masters of Divinity degree with graduate counseling coursework culminating in a pastoral counseling emphasis. Often the Old experience a person might have with counseling, apart from the school guidance counselor, will be when they begin pre-marital counseling with their particular clergyman.

There are certifications for Clinical Pastoral Counselors, i.e. the Association for Clinical

Pastoral Education (ACPE, 2010), the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC,

2010), and more recently, Certified Pastoral Counselors and Biblical Counselors through the auspices of the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC, 2010). Chaplains offer their own pathway to certification through the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC,

2010) with Rabbinical, Catholic, Protestant, and other religious groups offering chaplaincy certifications for their specific communities of faith.

Clergy are well suited for this field because they already consider themselves “called” in a ministerial sense. While the Levites and the priests were appointed through a genealogical relationship to the tribe of Levi, and chosen from the descendents of Aaron, modern clergy have no such familial relationship associated with them. While a son or daughter may follow his or her parent’s example by serving in a particular ministerial setting, pastoral status is not automatically passed down from father to son, as was the Levitical priesthood.

In contrast to the Levitical priests that were bonded both culturally and ethnically to those they served, modern-day clergy have a spiritual bond with those they serve. This is particularly true of the Christian clergy who have the common bond of spiritual adoption (II Cor.

6:18; Rom. 8:15) into the body of believers:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 136

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:4-6)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph. 1:4-6)

As we have previously noted, the Levitical priests were involved in a variety of sacrifices and offerings, many of which were designed to assuage the guilty conscience of the penitent

Israelite. Modern clergy are able to go far beyond the Temple sacrificial system in their efforts to facilitate forgiveness and reconciliation in the congregations they serve. Contemporary clergy build upon the intercessory activities of their Levitical counterparts by extending the forgiveness of God through the presentation and application of the gospel. In non-Christian circles, Jewish and Islamic clergy remind the penitent among them of God’s mercy and His willingness to forgive those who are truly remorseful. Even clergy of the Eastern religions can facilitate a cleansing of one’s conscience through the giving of alms to the poor or infirm, or some other appropriate positive karmic activity, i.e. Puja ritual in Hinduism or Dharma in Buddhism and

Sikhism.

Pastoral counselors can use their expertise and corresponding personal experience in ministry to assist those who are struggling with matters of faith. They have a unique opportunity to become educated in counseling, and thereby serve their prospective counselees in a more holistic manner. This includes a proper understanding of body, soul and spirit with the ability to engage the prospective counselee’s personal faith in ways that secular counselors often fail to do.

In addition to the skills and knowledge offered through the study of modern counseling and psychology, the New Covenant offers the aid of the Holy Spirit to those seeking insight and resolution for a multitude of serious problems associated with living in a sin-cursed world.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 137

Application to Modern Ministry: Grief Counseling Post 9-11

In a wider application, all clergy would benefit from understanding the office and ministry of the Levitical priest. Each faith-based community can gain an advantage from having persons who are skilled in the activities of intercession, promoting communion with the Creator, and offering comfort in times of need. Understanding the public health implications, with regard to grief and trauma counseling, can have enormous benefits that can extend beyond local congregations to the community at large. This can be particularly helpful in bridging certain cultural and religious boundaries that are present more than ever in an age where the threat of terrorism abounds. This is especially true in a world where acts of violence are being carried out under the guise of religious commitment.

Much has changed since the terrorist attack that leveled the World Trade Center towers in

New York City, damaged the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., destroying all four hijacked passenger airliners in the process. Although there had been many terrorist attacks worldwide before and after the September 11, 2001 attack, 9-11 stands out because of the scope of the destruction and the enormous loss of life associated with it. This attack was the Pearl Harbor for the baby boomers of America. An entire generation of people who had not witnessed such a devastating attack on American soil during their lifetime was greatly impacted by this horrific act of violence.

There is no doubt that the ancient Israelites faced many stressful challenges. The Bible relates the history of the Israelite battles during their wilderness wanderings following their departure from Egypt. The biblical record includes the incomplete conquest of the Promised

Land as well as Israel’s long history of political and military strife with the Canaanites, a loose confederation of tribes descending from Noah’s son Ham (Gen. 10: 6-20), the Philistines (Gen.

10:14), the Moabites (Gen. 19:30-37), and the Ammonites (Gen. 19:38). This traumatic history

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 138 includes the Assyrian captivity, circa 740 BC (I Chron. 5:26; II Kings 15:29), followed by the

Babylonian captivity led by King Nebuchadnezzar. His initial invasion began, circa 605 AD, and continued with two more additional military conquests from, circa 597-582 BC (II Kings

24:1; Jer. 25; Dan. 9:1-2; II Kings 24:13; Jer. 24:1; II Chron. 36:10). Seen against this historical backdrop, we can understand how the ministry of the Levitical priests became a source of solace and spiritual stability for the children of Israel.

History is filled with harrowing events, both man-made and naturally occurring. The

National Institute of Mental Health defines Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal where grave physical harm occurred, or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat.

Ancient sources describe a case of what could be characterized as an example of PTSD dating back into antiquity. Reports of battle-associated stress reactions appear as early as the 6th century BC (All in the Mind, 2004). The Greek historian Herodotus in 490 BC made one of the earliest descriptions of PTSD. During the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus described an Athenian soldier who suffered no injury from war, but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier (Swartz, 2004, p. 826).

Most PTSD experts agree that Abram Kardiner's Traumatic Neuroses of War and War

Stress and Neurotic Illness are the seminal psychological works on PTSD. In these works,

Kardiner distilled considerable psychiatric thought on the traumatic syndrome resulting from

World War II with what he had termed “neurosis of war” (Beall, 1997).

This phenomenon has become one of the most well-documented and studied disorders in modern times. There can be little doubt that the inclusion of PTSD in the Diagnostic and

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 139

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) recognizes the problems associated with the experience of trauma on, and off, the battlefield.

Evidence that PTSD has risen to the level of a pandemic is easily demonstrated through the myriad of research studies compiled concerning this subject. Different factors that may affect PTSD's prevalence rates, such as gender and culture, have also been examined. The 1992

National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), the most comprehensive study to date, found that 56% of

Americans experience a lifetime trauma and 8% subsequently develop PTSD (Perkonigg,

Kessler, Storz, & Wittchen, 2000). The NCS was the Old large-scale field survey of mental health in the United States. The study has had significant implications on mental health research in the United States, as no widespread data on the prevalence of mental illness was previously available. The NCS report concluded, “PTSD is a highly prevalent lifetime disorder that often persists for years” (Kessler, 1995; Kilpatrick, Ruggiero, Acierno, Saunders, Resnick, & Best,

2003).

Modern clergy, pastoral counselors, and chaplains are among the best-equipped mental health resources we have on hand to address the growing prevalence of PTSD in our local population. Where airport lines are lengthening, and the list of prohibited articles is growing with every terrorist act, we are all going to be influenced in a variety of ways due to the perils of living in a post 9-11 world. Our modern clergy, like their Levitical counterparts before them, minister to a community that is constantly being challenged by the dangers surrounding them.

Whether it is the difficulty of transitioning from years of servitude in ancient Egypt to relative freedom and the nomadic wanderings that followed, the stressors faced by the ancient Israelite people and the Levitical clergy that served them are no less taxing then living in the unstable and terrorism-prone world of today.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 140

Implications for Future Research: Ministry to the Disabled

Of particular interest, due to my own long-term disability is Treloar’s (2002) finding that spiritual beliefs were used by the adults with disabilities and the parents of disabled children to help them find meaning in the midst of adverse circumstances. This theme is sounded repeatedly in the literature on spirituality and illness. Common factors in the experiences of the participants in the study included, the perception of a spiritual challenge as well as physical and social predicament that illness and/or long-term disability represents. In social terms, a number of the participants reported that others believed that their disability (or their child’s) was a form of divine punishment for past sins. A number of the participants saw the spiritual challenge represented by disability as an opportunity to strengthen their faith and deepen their personal relationship with God.

Perhaps the most ambitious of the studies reviewed, in terms of design, are those conducted by Makros and McCabe (2003). These researchers attempted to distinguish the variables of religion, spirituality, adjustment, and quality of life in a sample of individuals disabled by multiple sclerosis. Because of the complexity of the variables, the researchers conducted two studies. The Old focused on the relationships between religious behavior and objective spirituality and adjustment and quality of life. The second focused on religious and spiritual beliefs, and adjustment and quality of life. The findings were, perhaps not surprisingly, ambiguous. The researchers found that individuals who used higher levels of religious and spiritual coping tended to experience more depression and anxiety and perceived a lower quality of life and wellbeing. The authors suggested that these results might imply that the nature of multiple sclerosis, i.e. progressive and at present incurable, may account for these responses over time.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 141

Few studies have been conducted in the context of a particular religion or church, although Sharon King (1998) has attempted to discuss disability in just that context. Her perspective resembles that of Freeman (2002) in that she considers African Americans with disabilities as doubly stigmatized and marginalized both in the larger society and within their own cultures. As a result of these considerations, King chose to use the social model of disability as the conceptual framework for her research.

King (1998) does not assume that she has made a definitive contribution to the research literature with this phenomenological study conducted in a very small sample of women. She does argue, however, that with much more research like hers the accumulated knowledge and understanding that can result from large numbers of small phenomenological studies is a worthy aim.

Where the Levitical instructions either completely excluded the disabled from ministry, or severely restricted their opportunities to minister, modern clergy has no such prohibitions.

There is a unique opportunity that pastors have when their parishioners are facing a crisis associated with serious illness and/or long-term disability. No matter what the outcome, either cure as the result of treatment or healing by coming to terms with terminal illness or long-term disability, the place that spiritual support has in this process should be examined more thoroughly.

By taking a pro-active role in both theory and in practice, modern-day clergy can facilitate research by personally becoming more attuned to their ministry of intercession. Most congregations that are financially able provide for the hearing impaired. Often those who are homebound are offered transportation to services and other religiously oriented programs.

However, special needs populations often feel the impact of their disabilities far beyond the confines of their houses of worship. Government agencies have facilitated important changes in

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 142 building codes and other regulatory provisions that aid those with disabilities. Barbara Sorenson

(2006) of the Environmental Sciences Division of the Oakridge National Laboratory reports:

Estimates from the 2000 census indicate 48.9 million people at least 5 years old and

living in a housing unit had a disability. That represents 19.2 percent of the U.S.

population (Census, 2005, Stern, 2003). The number will likely increase as the U.S.

population continues to age with the attendant physical problems such as compromised

vision, hearing loss, and loss of driving privileges. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has instituted an aging initiative to investigate the changing needs of

elderly Americans because of their vulnerability to environmental challenges due to their

age-altered physiological processes and exposure patterns (EPA, 2006). (p. 5)

Clergy can offer special insight and support to the disabled within their church and community. They can educate their congregants who can inform the community at large about programs for individuals and families in need of assistance; they can become involved in educational programs and research into this vital area of ministry.

Implications for Future Research: Overcoming Barriers to Healing

The clergy of the 21st century are well positioned to offer both insight and practical hands-on, effectual ministry to their own local parishioners and the larger faith-based community in which they serve. Too often erroneous theology finds a voice in our modern society with its countless broadcast opportunities and limitless internet applications.

While fatalism is not limited to any particular religion or philosophy, it is a commonly held belief and often becomes a barrier to healing. Chemical dependency, confusion concerning the difference between healing and cure, seemingly unanswered prayer, failure to understand healing as a process, and any number of psychosocial factors can contribute to what are commonly referred to as barriers to healing.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 143

As we have noted, the connection between psychological stress and autoimmune disease has been studied extensively. Medical researchers Harold Koenig and Harvey Cohen (2002) explain this connection:

Because chemicals produced by immune cells signal the brain, and the brain in turn

sends chemical signals to regulate the immune system, the two systems are able to signal

each other continuously and rapidly in response to external or internal threats to

homeostasis. Just as the brain can send hormonal and nervous system signals that

suppress immune functioning in response to stress, disruption of the regulatory influence

of the brain on the immune system can lead to increased immune activity and , if directed

against the body’s own tissues and organs, greater susceptibility to inflammatory and

autoimmune disease. (p. 174; Sternberg & Gold, 1997)

Koenig & Cohen (2002) continue to comment concerning this immunological link and religious practices:

There is some evidence that religious practices may alter the course of autoimmune

conditions like psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as evidence that religious or

spiritual beliefs may help persons with these disorders cope more effectively and

experience better quality of life. (p.189)

This connection between body, mind, and spirit reinforces the need for a holistic approach to ministry. Modern clergy can play an integral part in overcoming barriers to healing, especially those that are complicated by misinterpreting or misunderstanding the stages of healing, and the nuanced differences between illness, healing, and cure.

Implications for the Future of Pastoral Care

We are examining the ministry models of the Levitical Priesthood and the clergy of the

New Testament. Both could easily be seen as models of pastoral care with the Levitical Priests

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 144 serving their particular community of faith and the Christian clergy ministering to theirs.

Tracing the ministry of pastoral care back to its roots brings us to the seminal figure Saint

Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD). He was the Roman Catholic bishop of Milan, Italy. He became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century AD. Norbert F. Hahn

(2010) explains:

Pastoral care permeated the life, works, and ministry of Ambrose in many ways, perhaps

best summarized with five modern regions of pastoral care: (1) counseling and soulcare

for the bereaved and mourning, the misguided, those seeking perfection, the virgins

dedicated to God; (2) worship and homiletics: lively and inspiring, singing-oriented

services; well-crafted Bible-based preaching; (3) outreach/social ministry: giving funds

(including his personal wealth) to the poor, special care for the helpless, patron of the

orphans; (4) pastoral care and ethics: criticizing the excesses of the upper classes,

holding the state morally accountable; insisting on separation between church and state,

submission of state to church in matters of faith; practical application of morality; stress

of four virtues; and (5) congregational ministry: a strong emphasis on a sense of

community among believers, care of the common good against trouble-makers, assistance

of the needy, affirmation of good members. (pp. 37-38)

It was not until the work of German Protestant Reformer and pastor, Martin Bucer (1491-

1551 AD), that we see the development of the Old biblically and theologically grounded theory for the care of souls. Bucer’s work has special significance with regard to this dissertation. As we have noted, with the promotion of the gospel beyond the territory of Old century Israel and the surrounding areas, the ministry of the New Testament clergy also expanded. Concerning

Bucer, Hahn (2010, p. 41) notes, “He extends his pastoral concern to include soul care for

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 145

‘healthy’ members of the community as well as for the poor and for the ‘heathens, Jews, and

Turks.’”

The pastoral care and counseling portion of the Christian ministry is very much a function of the gospel. With regard to the New Testament’s view of ministry, Liston O. Mills

(2010) notes, “Despite its diversity, the NT reflects a view of the Christian life rooted in an inner transformation resulting from faith in Christ as God and as the inaugurator of a new age.” This view is consistent with other sections of the New Testament where one of the Apostle Paul’s recurring themes has to do with a believer’s identity “in Christ” (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph.

1:3, 2:6, 10).

By the twentieth century, a pastoral care movement was well underway, especially within

Protestantism. Christian theologians drew upon the resources of Western philosophy, medicine, and psychology. As early as 1808, Protestant seminaries began to lecture in pastoral or practical theology. This formed the basis for a movement that would later blossom giving rise to professional journals in the 1940’s and 50’s, i.e. the Journal of Pastoral Care and the Journal of

Clinical Pastoral Work, and corresponding professional organizations, i.e. the formation of the

Council for Clinical Training of Theological Students later known as Clinical Pastoral Education

(CPE). The American Association of Pastoral Counselors was initially formed in 1963 to train specialists for pastoral counseling. Since that time, several professional certifications have been established to insure the quality of the pastoral counseling process.

Emmanuel Y. Yarty (2003) explains how Clebsch and Jaekle offered what would prove to be a groundbreaking definition of pastoral care:

John McNeill (1977) explored the term cura animarum (cure of souls) from the earliest

times BAD. Clebsch and Jaekle, restricting themselves to the Christian era, identified

four principle functions, which they saw as characterizing pastor care throughout

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 146

Christian history. They went on to claim that one particular function dominated

particular periods of history, although recognizing that all functions were present in all

ages. In spite of this historiographically somewhat naïve claim, Clebsch and Jaekle’s

definition of pastoral care set the tone of the discussion for the years to come. It is true

to say that the definition they offered and indeed the publication of their book, Pastoral

Care in Historical Perspective, marked the beginning of what may be described as the

recent history of pastoral care. (p. 21)

Clebsch and Jaekle (1967, p. 4) define this term as follows, “Pastoral Care consists of helping acts done by representative Christian persons, directed toward the healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling of troubled persons, whose troubles arise in the context of ultimate meaning and concerns.” Even though this definition appears quite generic, it demonstrates a focus on ministry that is hands on, personal, and targets people in need.

In many ways, the field of pastoral care confirms our hypothesis that the ministry of the

Levitical priests and the clergy of the New Testament are analogous to one another. The

Levitical priests acted in ways that confirmed their intercessory and pastoral calling. They were truly facilitators of the Levitical Code. They offered physical, emotional, and spiritual support to their particular faith-based community. As we have noted, the Levites were connected to the children of Israel by ethnic and religious ties. The clergy of the New Testament are ministers of the New Covenant who are bonded to their congregations by common spiritual experiences, i.e. circumcision of the heart (Deut. 30:6) that is symbolic of being born again (John 3:3). These commonalities, coupled with a common tradition and a call to love others, can be fulfilled on a practical basis by aiding others in need. As we shall see, the definition that Clebsch and Jaekle offer is a definition of pastoral care that emphasizes the centrality of Christ and an application of the gospel to the lives of those who will benefit from such care.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 147

The fields of pastoral care and pastoral counseling have continued to progress in the same four areas originally proposed by Clebsch and Jaekle, e.g. healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling. In addition to these four categories of pastoral care, pastoral counseling has blossomed to become an integral part of the pastoral care paradigm. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on healing and growth within the pastoral care and counseling field. Howard

Clinebell (1979) has been a leader in this field. Emmanuel Lartey (2003) explains Clinebell’s goal:

A human-potentials approach to helping process that defines the goal as that of

facilitating maximum development of a person’s potentials at each life stage, in ways that

contribute to the growth of others as well and to the development of society in which all

persons will have an opportunity to use their full potentials. (p. 66)

Many movements have emerged modeling themselves around this emphasis on personal growth and discipleship. The popularity of the small group studies, lay-counseling programs as well as Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church (1995) and Purpose Driven Life (2002) and any number of spin offs, i.e. 40 days of purpose, prayer, love, etc., have become very popular in the last decade of the 20th century and Old decade of the new millennium. While these movements and programs have their share of critics, the concept that pastoral care and counseling should be focused on meeting the needs of the human condition is an integral part of any biblical model of pastoral care.

Understanding the potential that modern clergy has, within the pastoral care paradigm to minister to the needs of others, will enable us to broaden our capacity to effectively minister beyond the confines of our local congregations. When individuals, through either the pulpit ministry of preaching and teaching or the offices of the pastoral counselor, experience healing in a supportive and nurturing environment, they can take those lessons learned beyond the confines

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 148 of their particular house of worship. This dynamic is by no means limited to the clergy of the

New Testament alone. These same lessons can be applied in synagogues, mosques, and ashrams, by rabbis, imams, monks, and pandits if they take the time to be trained in the field of counseling.

We can see the ministries of the Old and New Testament clergy have continued to progress, and in the case of modern clergy, they are in many ways still evolving. Although the

Levites did not offer the Israelites any counseling in the traditional sense, their presence, interceding before of the God of Israel on behalf of God’s people, served an important function in the lives of the Israelites. No less important is the ministry of the New Testament clergy, who today have numerous opportunities to minister on a very personal and intimate basis in the lives of the people they serve. They can be cross-trained in counseling, prepared to aid their parishioners in ways that go beyond the symbolic intercession of the Levitical Code. Today’s clergy should embrace these new and exciting roles by seeking to develop more effective and dynamic models of pastoral care. In doing so, they will become proactive in their ministries and will facilitate the health and wellbeing of their local congregations and, hopefully, the communities in which they serve.

Conclusion

The ministry of the Levitical priesthood to the children of Israel, as outlined in the

Levitical Code, included sacrifices and offerings, the oversight of Israel’s Holy days, and other intercessory activities prescribed in the Pentateuch. We do not usually see these priests as the pastors of their day; however, the connection between the priesthood of the Old Testament and the clergy of the New Testament is an historical reality that provides important lessons pertaining to effective pastoral ministry.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 149

With the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 AD, the rabbinical clergy of the local synagogue replaced the Levitical priesthood and their temple ministry. That significant event ended the centrality of Temple worship in the lives of the children of Israel as well as bringing the fundamental role the Levitical priesthood played to an abrupt end.

The promotion of the gospel beyond the borders of ancient Israel created a new group of believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob known as the Church (ecclesia), i.e. the assembly or body of Christ. Apostolic leadership was instructing these Jews and Gentiles who had placed their faith in Jesus Christ and a new set of clergy was emerging, e.g. pastors or elders, and deacons. This new clerical group would be getting most of their instruction from the gospels and apostolic writings combined with the Old Testament writings that would survive the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora that would soon follow.

We have examined the ministry of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood employing the research framework of a retrospective theological and pastoral case study. The hypothesis under consideration posited that the Levitical Code can be read in part as a public health document; that the Levitical Priest can be treated as a public health official; and that such a reading can be informative for the practice of ministry in the 21st century.

The setting for this research was the laboratory of the post-Exodus Israelite community as they are described in biblical literature. We examined the unique ministry of the Levitical priesthood. We inspected the role of the Levitical priests as intercessors who offered forgiveness and reconciliation through the sacrificial system. We also noted the parallels that exist between the pastoral roles described in the Old and New Testaments.

We have examined how the Levitical ministry foreshadowed the evolution of the science of epidemiology as well as public health’s transition from the containment and eradication of infectious diseases to the prevention of diseases related to lifestyle. The instructions in the

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 150

Levitical Code serve as a prototype for the modern public health practice of quarantine for contagious disease. The inclusion of dietary regulations in the Levitical Code foreshadowed what has come to be characterized as a more holistic approach to ministry, one that included nutritional and lifestyle considerations. Modern clergy have expanded their influence beyond the spiritual to one that encompasses the body, soul, and spirit of those they serve.

By comparing the Old and New Testament ministry models, we were able to ascertain several salient parallels. The Levitical emphasis on the containment of infectious disease, coupled with its instructions concerning diet and sanitation, the laying on of hands, the practice of micvah/baptism, and the perpetuation of the sacrificial system, all serve to solidify the connections between these two ministerial models.

The Levites perpetuated the various offerings codified in the Old seven chapters of the book of Leviticus, and the New Testament clergy viewed the sacrifice of the Messiah as the fulfillment of those same Old Testament sacrifices and offerings. Both ministry models speak to the important psychosocial aspects of forgiveness and reconciliation within their respective communities. All of these comparisons serve to provide substantial support for the hypothesis of this dissertation.

We compared the instructions given to the Levites in the book of Leviticus with the New

Testament clergy’s instructions in the PE, examining the differences between the Mosaic

Covenant that is the basis for the Levitical ministry and the New Covenant that is the basis for

New Testament ministry. We explained how the injunctions given to the children of Israel by their Levitical ministers, to remain uncontaminated by the practices of the pagan cultures surrounding them, were now being applied by New Testament clergy to believers under their care. Those entering into the New Covenant were being, and continue to be, exhorted to live

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 151 sanctified lives in the midst of an increasingly secularized, and in many ways, faith-hostile society.

We evaluated the applications to ministry for Christian clergy, noting that the ministry of the chaplain is even more comparable to a Levitical priest than other modern clerics. We included in our applications to ministry contemporary pastoral and biblical counselors, noting that the lessons learned would not be limited to the New Testament clergy exclusively, but would be of benefit to all people who are involved in ministry everywhere.

Rabbis, pastors and priests, chaplains, imams and other spiritual leaders can gain insight into their respective ministries and learn from the ministry model that is based upon the instructions codified in the book of Leviticus. Modern ministers can build upon the foundation of the intercessory ministry of the Levitical priesthood; they can go beyond those outward symbolic offerings for sin and transgression and become role models within their particular congregations. They can offer valuable life-lessons to people entrusted to their care by presenting themselves as role models to those who are members of their extended faith-based family.

While it is exciting to go forward and meet new challenges for a new generation of ministers, we should continue to look retrospectively to our roots and acknowledge the history and work of those who have preceded us. We should remember, even with our huge advances in science and technology, that we are not so far removed from our ancient predecessors, the

Israelites of antiquity. The book of Leviticus, with its instructions and Priestly Code, continues to emphasize the importance of intercessory ministry. It reminds us of the necessity of taking a holistic approach to health and wellbeing in the lives of those we serve, and the valuable lessons a faith-based model can offer those whose goal is to serve God’s people effectively well into the

21st century.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 152

Addendum: Discussion of Biblical Diseases

Any dissertation involving the public health and wellbeing of a specific group of people inhabiting a definite geographical location should include a list of diseases and ailments that would be considered indigenous to those people and their locale. For this reason, a brief discussion of biblical ailments appears below. A comparison of these diseases with their possible modern-day counterparts is included in Table IV of the addendum.

Ague: (Fever) this is one of the diseases threatened as a penalty for disobedience to the law. The commentators debate whether or not the names of the diseases, which are mentioned in the Pentateuch as warnings of punishments, altogether refer to human rather than grain illnesses:

I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up. (Lev. 26:16)

It is not possible to resolve this question since we only have the names and are dependent on etymology, the weakest help in archaeological investigations. All the names for fever are derived from a common root which means “to burn”, such as pyr and pyretos which mean fire and fever (Preuss, 2004, p. 160).

Boils & Blain: (Distemper) the word ababu’oth, which is here translated as “boils,” is not found elsewhere in the Bible. On the other hand, the term bua is encountered often in the

Talmud to designate blisters or pustules that one opens on the lungs or on the outside of the body

(Preuss, 2004, p. 343).

Pustules refer to an inflammation containing fluid around a boil or inflamed sore. This is an Old English word “bleyen,” used sometimes as a synonym for boil. The Hebrew word is from a root word meaning, that which bubbles up.

“So they took soot from a kiln, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses threw it toward the sky, and it became boils breaking out with sores on man and beast. (Ex. 9:10)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 153

Consumption (possibly tuberculosis) is one of the punishments which was to follow neglect or breach of the law. It may mean pulmonary consumption, which occurs frequently in

Palestine; but from its association with fever in the texts, e.g. Lev 26:16; Deut 28:22, it is more likely to be the much more common condition of wasting and emaciation from prolonged or often recurring attacks of malarial fever (Bromiley, 1979, p. 749).

Most biblical Hebrew scholars agree the biblical name shachepeth as used in Leviticus probably refers to “consumption”, or phthisis, in the sense of the ancients. (Shachaph is equivalent to phthio.) The Sifra states that no person afflicted with any illness maintains his flesh (corpulence); however, with this illness (phthisis), the body dries out completely (Preuss,

2004, p. 164).

Discharge: This abnormality is related to penile discharge and many scholars, including the master Jewish medical historian, Julius Preuss, agree that this condition is most likely associated with the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea. Preuss (2004) says of this condition:

It is clear forthwith that the only illness we know of that can be referred to here is

gonorrhea. Even if rare cases of spermatorrhea and of benign cararrh of the urethra

occurred in antiquity, it would still not have been necessary to make exceptional laws for

them. The hygienic value – the intent is unclear to us – of these regulations is obvious.

One can even attribute such a meaning to the offering which follows the cleansing

process, but only insofar as it was dependent on the proof of healing (i.e. seven clean

days) and the preceding bath. On the other hand, we consider it inadmissible in the

ceremony of the offering to involve the most modern theories of disinfection. (pp. 354-

355)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 154

“Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean.’ (Lev. 15:2)

‘No man of the descendants of Aaron, who is a leper or who has a discharge, may eat of the holy gifts until he is clean and if one touches anything made unclean by a corpse or if a man has a seminal emission,

or if a man touches any teeming things by which he is made unclean, or any man by whom he is made unclean, whatever his uncleanness;

a person who touches any such shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat of the holy gifts unless he has bathed his body in water. (Lev. 22:4-6)

Emerods: (Tumors or swellings) is a term that is used in a generalized fashion, like ague

(fever), to denote an outbreak of disease. The swellings were symptoms of a plague, and the history is precisely that of the outbreak of an epidemic of bubonic plague. The older writers supposed by comparison of the account in I Sam with Ps. 78:66 that they were hemorrhoids (or piles), and the older English term in the King James Version is a 16th-century form of that Greek word, which occurs in several medical treatises of the 16th and 17th centuries. There is, however, no evidence that this identification is correct.

Alexander Macalister (1939), Professor of Anatomy at the University of Cambridge, offers further insight into the definition of this biblical term:

In the light of the modern research that has proved that the rat-flea (Pulex cheopis) is the

most active agent in conveying the virus of plague to the human subject, it is worthy of

note that the plague of tumors was accompanied by an invasion of mice (`akhbor) or rats.

The rat is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, although it was as common in Canaan

and Israelite times as it is today. This is demonstrated by the frequency with which their

bones occur in all strata of the old Palestinian cities, so it is probable that the term used

was a generic one for both rodents.

The coincidence of destructive epidemics and invasions of mice is also recorded

by Herodotus (ii. 141), who preserves a legend that the army of Sennacherib that entered

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 155

Egypt was destroyed by the agency of mice. He states that a statue of Ptah,

commemorating the event, was extant in his day. The god held a mouse in his hand, and

bore the inscription: “Whosoever sees me, let him reverence the gods.” This may have

been a reminiscence of the story in Is. 37:36. (p. 1543)

“The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. (Deut. 28:27; I Sam. 5:6-11)

Inflammation: In Deut. 28:22, this was considered by Jewish writers as “burning fever,” by Septuagint as a form of ague. Both this and typhoid fever are now, and probably were, among the most common of the diseases of Palestine.

This generalized term is not necessarily always associated with an infectious disease per se. In Deuteronomy, it is listed along with consumption, fever, and with blight and mildew.

While many infectious diseases, especially bacterial infections, can cause increased temperatures other conditions may not (Bromiley, 1979. p. 525).

“The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. (Deut. 28:2)

Itch: There are a number of dermatological and pathological conditions that can cause itching, i.e. hives, shingles, allergic purpura, etc. They can be benign in origin, the result of an allergic reaction, or the result of scabies or some other parasitic pathogen, i.e. dermatophytosis.

Only in Deut. 28:27, where it probably refers to the parasitic skin disease of that name, this term is used in conjunction with boils, emerods, and scabs from which there would be no cure and all of which were very common in Palestine. It (itch) can be caused by a small mite,

Sarcoptes scabiei, which makes burrows in the skin and sometimes causes extensive crusts or scabs, attended with a severe itching. It is very easily communicated from person to person by

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 156 contact and can be cured only by destruction of the parasite. This disease disqualified its victims for the priesthood (Lev 21:20) (Macalister, 1939).

“The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. (Deut. 28:27)

Plagues and Pestilence: These are general terms that can be traced back into antiquity.

Often outbreaks of cholera, bubonic plague, smallpox, etc. were commonly referred to as

‘plague’ and may be correctly understood by the public health term ‘epidemic.’ According to the definition of Galen, which remained unchanged by physicians until the sixteenth century, plague is an illness which ills many people in a short period of time (Preuss, 2004, p.151).

While the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD struck the people with a very severe plague. (Num. 11:33; II Sam. 24:15-25)

Scab: There are patches of hard crusts on the surface for this generic term. The commonest of these are the forms now named eczema, herpes and, perhaps, psoriasis, all of which are common in Bible lands (Macalister, 1939).

This term is coupled with boils, tumors, and disease states that cause itching. It also appears in the passage that prohibits priests with deformities from serving in intercessory positions in the tabernacle and later in the temples in Jerusalem.

The Hebrew word garab is the term used to describe the condition that rendered a priest unfit to serve as well as rendering an animal unfit for sacrifice in Leviticus 22:15-25. Preuss

(2004) offers the following insights into this particular condition from the Jewish literature:

In the Mishnah, chazazith is also mentioned in this connection and all these individual

forms of illnesses are included in the grouping schechin. Yalepheth is said to be identical

to the “Egyptian chazazith.” In addition, there is a benign form called chazazith vulgaris,

just as there are two types of garab, one that renders a priest unfit to serve in the

Temple and the other which has a benign nature. The former, the biblical garab, is both

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 157

dry inside and outside; the garab of the Mishnah is moist both inside and outside.

Finally, the schechin of Egypt is dry inside but “moist on the outside” since it gives rise

to boils. The moist garab is curable, the dry one and the Egyptian one are not. (p.345;

Bechoroth 41a)

This particular condition is described in the book of Leviticus with regard to conditions that would exclude the descendants of Aaron from priestly office:

‘For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. (Lev. 21:18-20)

“The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. (Deut. 28:27)

Skin disease(s): The term schechin is generally understood as a collective name that comprises many individual types of skin diseases. According to definition of the Mishnah, the term schechin includes every inflammatory skin lesion, whether it occurs secondary to an injury by wood or by a stone or from a burn from olive peat or from the hot spring water of the Tiberias or, as Maimonides adds , from any internal cause. This is perhaps what the “experienced Sage” from Jerusalem had in mind when he said to Rabbi Jose that there exist twenty-four types of schechin, although we today do not recognize all these varieties any more (Preuss, 2004, p.346).

“When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling or a scab or a bright spot, and it becomes an infection of leprosy on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. (Lev. 13:2; II Kings 5:1)

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 158

Ancient Illness Possible Modern Counterpart(s)

Ague (fever) ------A generalized term today seen as symptomatic rather than a disease. Boils & Blain------Blisters or pustules. Possibly various forms of skin cancer. Some considered incurable. Consumption------Any illness causing a wasting away of flesh, e.g. a severe loss of weight., e.g. dysentery and/or massive parasitic infection. May also relate to male infertility. Discharge------An emission of semen, pus or blood from the genitalia which is considered ritually impure. Possible causes include gonorrhea in males and parasitism, malnutrition and anemia in females. Emerods------A generalized term for swelling, more specifically associated with bubonic plague. Inflammation------Closely related to ague (fever) may also include malaria and typhus and possibly conjunctivitis. Itch------One possibility of differential diagnosis where any contagious skin disease is suspected. Possibly alopecia areata which produces restricted patches of baldness; tinea tonsuarans or tinea sycosis. Plagues & Pestilence------Generalized term in the Torah that can also be related to famine. Skin Diseases------Generalized term often mistranslated as leprosy. Can be contagious, e.g. ringworm or benign, e.g. eczema, psoriasis. Scab------A general term for wounds or diseases that produce sores, e.g. smallpox. Sometimes associated with the loss of hair in women.

Table IV- Comparison table of ancient illnesses & possible modern-day counterparts

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 159

Bibliography

AACC (2010). The American Association of Christian Counselors. The AACC’s Board of

Professional Christian and Pastoral Counselors offering certification in a variety of

counseling specialties. Retrieved from http://ibc.aac.net/index.php.

AAPC (2010). The American Association of Pastoral Counselors. The AAPC establishes

standards and provides certification for the practice and training of pastoral counselors.

Retrieved from http://www.pathways2promise.org/resources/pastoral.Htm#cmss.

Ackerknecht, E. H. (1971). Medicine and Ethnology: Selected Essays. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins Press.

ACPE (2010). Association for Clinical Pastoral Education. The ACPE is a multicultural, multi-

faith organization devoted to providing education and improving the quality of ministry

and pastoral care. Retrieved from http://www.acpe.edu/.

Akers, K. (2000). The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Non-violence in Early

Christianity. New York, NY: Lantern Books.

Alford, H. (1865). Greek Testament in Four Volumes: Vol. III (4th ed.). London: Gilbert &

Rivington, Printers (as cited in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A

Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

All in the Mind (2004). When trauma tips you over: PTSD Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.

ab.\net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2004/1214098.htm.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders IV (4th Ed). Washington, DC: Office of Publishing A.P.A.

Amundsen, D. W. (1982). Medicine and Faith in Early Christianity. Bulletin of the Hist. of

Med. 56, 326-350. There is fairly extensive literature on medicine in the early church

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 160

particularly in studies of the extent and literary use of medical knowledge by individual

church Fathers. See A. Harnack, Medicinische aus der altesten Kirchengeschinchte,

Teste Untersuchungen Gesch. Altchristlichen Literatur 8 (4) (1982), 37-152; Stephen

d’Irsay, Patristic Medicine, Annuls of Medical History 9 (1927), 364-378; Christian

Medicine and Science in the Third Century, Journal of Religion 10 (1930), 515-544; H.

J. Frings, Medizin und Arzt bei den griechischen Kirchernvatern bis Chyrsostomos

(Bonn, 1959); H. Schedewaldt, Die Apologie der Heilkunst bei den Kirchenvatern,

Veroffentlichugen Internat. Gesellschaft Gesch. Pharmazie 26 (1965), 115-130.

Amundsen, D. W., & Ferngren, G. B. (1986). Early Christian Tradition (as cited in R. Detels, J.

McEwen, R. Beaglehole & H. Tanaka (Eds.), 2004), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.).

New York, NY: University Press.

Anderson, G. A. (1992). Sacrifices and Sacrificial Offerings. In D. N. Freedman, G. A. Herion,

D. F. Graf, & J. D. Pleins, (Eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5) (pp. 870-886).

New York, NY: Doubleday.

APC (2010). Association of Professional Chaplains. The APC serves chaplains in all types of

health and human service settings. Certification is achieved through a mentoring

program of the Board of Chaplaincy Certification, Inc., (BCCI). Retrieved from

http://www. professionalchaplains.org/.

Asquith, G. H., Jr. (Ed.). (2010). The Concise Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling.

Nashville, TN: Abington Press.

Attridge, H. W. (2004). Pollution, Sin, Atonement, Salvation. In S. I. Johnston (Ed.), Religion

of the Ancient World: A Guide (pp. 71-83). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 161

Avalos, H. (1995). Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in

Greece, Mesopotamia and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Avalos, H. (1995). See also J. Zais, Lust and Leprosy: Confusion or Correlation? BASOR

275 1989, 27-31; E.V. Hulse, The Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’ and the Use of

Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible, PEQ 107 1975, 87-105;

J. Wilkinson, Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification,

Scottish Journal of Theology 30 1977, 153-169; idem, Leprosy and Leviticus: A Problem

of Semantics and Translation, Scottish Journal of Theology 30 1978, 153-166.

Avalos, H. (1999). Health Care and the Rise of Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers.

Bachrach, D. S. (2004). The Medieval Military Chaplain and His Duties. In D. L. Bergen (Ed.),

The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the Old to the Twenty-Old Century (pp.

69-88). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Baldwin, P. (1999). Contagion and the state in Europe, 1830-1930. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press. The history and development of public health in developed

countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen, Beaglehole, & Tanaka (Eds.) 2004), Oxford

Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY: University Press.

Balentine, S. (2002). A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching: Leviticus. Louisville,

KY: John Knox Press.

Barrett, L. (1994). The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World out of Balance.

New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Barrett, R., Kuzuwa, C. A. W., McDade, T., & Armelagos, G. J. (1998). Emerging and re-

emerging infectious diseases: The third epidemiologic transition. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

27, 247-271.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 162

Bassett, W. H. (Ed.). (2004). Clay’s Handbook of Environmental Health (19th ed.). New York,

NY: Spon Press.

Beaglehole, R. (2004). Overview and framework. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R. Beaglehole,

& H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.) (pp. 83-87). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Beall, L. S. (1994). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Bibliographic Essay. Choice, 1997,

34 (6), 917-930.

Bergen, D. L. (Ed.). (2004). The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the Old to the

Twenty-Old Century. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Blaiklock, E. M. (1951). The Christian in Pagan Society. Retrieved from http://www.Biblical

studies.org.uk/article_pagan_blaiklock.html#17.

Blanton, M. (1965). The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Boatwright, M. T., Gargola, D. J., & Talbert, R. J. A. (2004). The Romans: From Village to

Empire. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brandt, A. (1985). No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States

Since 1880. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. The history and development of

public health in developed countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen, Beaglehole, & Tanaka

(Eds.), 2004), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY: University Press.

Bromiley, G. W. (Ed.). (1979). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Bucke, E. S. (1962). The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Caplan, A. L., Engelhardt, Jr., T. H., & McCartney, J. J., (Eds.). (1981). Concepts of Health and

Disease: Interdisciplinary Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 163

Company. The definition of health (as cited in Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in

the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Carter, J. D., & Narramore, B. (1979). The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An

Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cassell, E. J. (1976). Illness and Disease. Hastings Center Report 6, 27-37. The definition of

health (as cited in Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture.

Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Caudill, W. (1953). Applied Anthropology to Medicine. In A. L. Kroeber, (Ed.), Anthropology

Today (pp. 771-807). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. The use of descriptive

language that may engender bias (as cited in G. M. Foster, 1976), Disease Etiologies in

Non-Western Medical Systems. American Anthropologist, New Series, Dec. 1976. Vol.

78, (4), 773-782.

Charles, S. A. (2001). Religion and Health [review Handbook of Religion and Health, by

Koenig et al]. Journal of the American Medical Association 286 (4), 465-466.

Chatters, L. M. (2000). Religion and health: Public health research and practice. Annual

Review of Public Health. Vol. 21, 335-367. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.

org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.335.

Chatters, L. M., & Levin, J. (1998). Research on Religion and Mental Health: An Overview of

Empirical Findings and Theoretical Issues. In H. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of Religion

and Mental Health (pp. 33-50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Clebsch, W. A., & Jaekle, C. R. (2003). Introduction to Pastoral Care. In Emmanuel Y. Lartey,

In Living Color: An intercultural Approach to Pastoral Care and Counseling (pp.

21-41). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 164

Clebsch, W. A., & Jaekle, C. R. (1967). Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective. New York,

NY: Harper.

Clifton, F. (Trans.). (1752). Upon air, water, and situation; upon epidemical diseases; and

upon prognosticks, in acute cases especially (2nd ed.). London: Lockyer Davis. Orig. by

Hippocrates circa late 5th century BC.

Clinebell, H. (1979). Growth Counseling: Hope-Centered Methods of Actualizing Human

Wholeness. Nashville, TN: Abington (as cited in Emmanuel Y. Lartey, 2003). In Living

Color: An intercultural Approach to Pastoral Care and Counseling. London: Jessica

Kingsley Publishers.

Clinebell, H. (2003). Pastoral Care: Functions and Resources. In E. Y. Lartey, In Living Color:

An intercultural Approach to Pastoral Care and Counseling (pp. 60-78). London:

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Cochrane, R. G. (1947). Practical Textbook on Leprosy. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Cody, A. (1993). Historical Evolution of the Priesthood. In B. M. Metzger & M. D. Cody

(Eds.), The Oxford Companion to the Bible (pp. 608-611). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Cohen, A. B. (2002). The importance of spirituality in well-being for Jews and Christians.

Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (3), 287-310 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental

Health: Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton

Foundation Press.

Collins, B. J. (2004). Illnesses and other Crises. In S. I. Johnston (Ed.), Religion of the Ancient

World: A Guide (pp. 452-469). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 165

Collins, G. R. (1981). Psychology and Theology: Prospects for Integration. Nashville, TN:

Abingdon.

Collins, R. F. (2002). I & II Timothy and Titus, the New Testament Library. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press.

Conrad, L. I., Neve, M., Nutton, V., Porter, R., & Wear, A. (2000). The Western Medical

Tradition 800 B.C. to A.D. 1800. London: Cambridge University Press.

Crabb, L. J. (1981). Biblical authority and Christian psychology. Journal of Psychology &

Theology, 9, 305-311.

Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.

Retrieved from http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_

OntheOriginofSpecies.html.

Dawe, G. V. (1955). The Attitude of the Ancient Church toward Sickness and Healing.

(Doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Theology, 1955). p. 153 ff.

DeSilva, D. A. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, & Ministry

Formation. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Detels, R. (2004). Epidemiology: the foundation of public health. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R.

Beaglehole, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.) (pp. 485-491). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Detels, R., & Breslow, L. (2004). The development of the discipline of public health. In R.

Detels, J. McEwen, R. Beaglehole, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Public

Health (4th ed.) (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dever, W. D. (2003). Who Were The Early Israelites And Where Did They Come From? Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 166

Diener, E., & Clifton, D. (2002). Life satisfaction and religiosity in board probability samples.

Psychological Inquiry 13 (3), 206-209 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental

Health: Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton

Foundation Press.

Dorff, E. (1986). Early Christian Tradition. In R. L. Numbers & D. W. Amundsen, (Eds.),

Caring and Curing: Health and Medicine in the Western Religious Tradition (pp. 5-40).

London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Douglas, M. (1999). Leviticus as Literature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo.

New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Douglas, M. (2004). The history and development of public health in developed countries.

In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R. Beaglehole, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health

(4th ed.) (pp. 21-37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dualeh, M., & Shears, P. (2004). Refugees and other displaced persons. In R. Detels, J.

McEwen, R. Beaglehole & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.) (pp.

1737-1753). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dull, V., & Skokan, L. (1995). A cognative model on religion’s influence on health. Journal

of Social Issues Vol. 51, (2), 49–64. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/

10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01323.x/abstract.

Dunn, J. D. G. (Ed.). (1992). Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Edersheim, A. (1994). The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. (Orig. 1874). Peabody,

Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 167

Eisenberg, L. (1976). Delineation of Clinical Conditions: Conceptual Models of Physical and

‘Mental Disorders. In G. Wolstenholme & M. O'Connor (Eds.), Research and Medical

Practice (Ciba Foundation Symposium #44) (pp. 3-23). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Eisenberg, L. (1977). Disease and Illness: Distinctions between Professional and Popular Ideas

of Sickness. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 1, 9-23. The definition of health (as

cited in Kleinman, 1980). Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA:

University of California Press.

Eliot, C. W. (Ed.). (1910). Harvard Classics (Vol. 38). Boston, MA: P. F. Collier and Son.

Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/31440998/Oath-of-Hippo-Crates.

Ellicott, C. J. (1869). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul (4th ed.). London: Longman, Readers

& Dire (as cited in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the

Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Religious

involvement, stress, and mental health: Findings from 1995 Detroit area study. Social

Forces 80 (I), 215-249 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious

Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1998). Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 25 (6), 700-720.

Retrieved from http://www.religionomics.com/old/erel2006s/readings/Ellison-

Levin%20--%20Religion-Health%20Connection.pdf.

Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1981). The Concepts of Health and Disease. In A. L. Caplan, H. T.

Engelhardt Jr., & J. J. McCartney (Eds.), Concepts of Health and Disease (pp. 31-45).

Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 168

Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1981). Some Basic Terms and Definitions (as cited in J. J. Pilch, 2000).

Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1981). The definition of health (as cited in A. Kleinman, 1980). Patients

and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1986). The Social Meaning of Illness. Second Opinion 1, 26-39. The

definition of health (as cited in Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in the Context of

Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Populations with Special Needs (as cited in

Sorenson, 2006). Oakridge National Laboratory report ORNL/TM-2006/559 for the

United States Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://em.ornl.gov/EMCWeb/

EMC/PDF/Population_Special_Needs.pdf.

Etkin, N. (1988). Cultural Constructions of Efficacy. In S. van der Geest & S. R .Whyte (Eds.),

The Context of Medicines in Developing Countries (pp. 299-327). The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers Group (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New

Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Social Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Fabrega, H. (1974). Disease and Social Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Ferris, A. L. (2002). Religion and the quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (3), 199-

215 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for

Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 169

Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. A. (2002). The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of

Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Fitzpatrick, R. (1984). Lay Concepts of Illness. In R. Fitzpatrick, J. Hinton, S. Newman, G.

Scambler, & J. Thompson (Eds.), The Experience of Illness (pp. 11-31). London:

Tavistock. The definition of health (as cited in Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in

the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Foege, W. H. (2004). Challenges to public health leadership. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R.

Beaglehole & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.) (pp. 401-414). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Foster, G. M. (1976). Disease Etiologies in Non-Western Medical Systems. American

Anthropologist, New Series, Dec. 1976, Vol. 78, (4), 773-782. Retrieved from

http://www. jstor.org/pss/675143.

Francis, L. J., & Kaldor, P. (2002). The relationship between psychological well-being and

Christian faith and practice in an Australian population sample. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion 41 (I), 179-184 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health:

Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation

Press.

Francis, L. J., Robbins, M., & White, A. (2003). Correlation between religion and happiness: A

replication. Psychological Reports 92 (I), 51-52 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and

Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton

Foundation Press.

Freedman, D. N., Herion, G. A., Graf, D. F., & Pleins, J. D. (Eds.). (1992). Canon. In The

Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 1) (pp. 837-851). New York, NY: Doubleday.

Freeman, D. (2002). A feminist theology of disability. Feminist Theology, 29, 71-85.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 170

Friedenwald, H. (1944). Julius Preuss. In F. Rosner (Trans. & Ed.), Biblical and Talmudic

Medicine (pp. 376-388). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Godot, F. L. (1894). Studies in Paul’ Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications (as cited

in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Grmek, M. D. (1989). Diseases in the Ancient Greek World (Muellner & L. Muellner, Trans.).

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. In the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch,

2000), Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean

Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Hahn, N. F. (2010). History and Biography. In G. H. Asquith Jr., (Ed.), The Concise

Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (pp. 37-87). Nashville, TN: Abington Press.

Hall, C. A. (Ed.). (2009). Homily 27: Numbers 33:1-49. In T. P. Scheck (Trans.), Ancient

Christian Texts: Homily on Numbers Origen (pp. 168-183). Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press.

Hamlin, C. A. (2004). The history and development of public health in developed countries. In

R. Detels, J. McEwen, R. Beaglehole, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Health

(4th ed.) (pp. 21-37). New York, NY: University Press.

Hammermeister, J., Flint, M., Havens, J., & Peterson, M. (2001). Psychosocial and health-

related characteristics of religious well-being. Psychological Reports 89 (3), 589-584 (as

cited in H. Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing.

West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Hasel, G. (1983). Health and healing in the Old Testament. Andrews University Seminary

Studies 21, 191-202. Theological approaches (as cited in Avalos, 1995), Illness and

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 171

Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia

and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Hayes, J. (2008). The History of Biblical Interpretation. In K. D. Sakenfeld (Ed.), The New

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, A-C Vol I (pp. 453-461). Nashville, TN: Abingdon

Press.

Hoffmeier, J. (2005). Ancient Israel in Sinai: The evidence for the authenticity of the

wilderness tradition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Hort, F. J. A. (1894). Judaistic Christianity. New York, NY: Macmillan & Company (as cited

in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Humbert, P. (1964). Maldadie et médecine dans l’Ancien Testament, Revue d’histoire et de

philosophie reliegieuses 44, 1-29. Theological approaches (as cited in Avalos, 1995),

Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece,

Mesopotamia and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Hulse, E. V. (1976). The nature of biblical “leprosy” and the use of alternate medical terms in

modern translations of the Bible. Medical History April; 20 (2), 203.

Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. (2001). Religious versus non-religious socialization:

Does religious background have implications for adjustment? International Journal of

Psychology of Religion 11 (2), 105-128 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental

Health: Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton

Foundation Press.

Hurley, J. B., & Berry, J. T. (1997). The relation of Scripture and psychology in counseling

from a pro-integration position. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 16, 323-345.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 172

Huther, J. E. (1890). Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls (as cited in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral

Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company.

Idler, E., & Kasl, S. (1997). Religion among disabled and nondisabled elderly persons: Cross-

sectional patterns in health practices, social activities, and well-being. Journal of

Gerontology 52B, 300-305 (as cited in Koenig & Cohen (Eds.) 2002). The Link between

Religion and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY:

The Oxford University Press.

Ishida, T. (Ed.). (1982). Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays. Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1984). A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and

Practical (Vol. 1-3). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Company. With regard to

Gen. 43:32; The Hebrews used for food male kine, which the Egyptians universally

sacrificed, and even female kine, which in Egypt were sacred to Isis. ‘That is the reason’

says Herodotus, ‘why no native in Egypt, whether man or woman, will use the knife of a

Greek, or his spit, or his caldron, or taste the flesh of an ox, known to be pure, if it has

been cut with a Greek knife.’ The Hebrews at an earlier period, for the same reason,

were in this respect equally obnoxious as the Greeks; ‘and the same prejudice,’ remarks

Wilkinson, ‘is continued by the Hindus, and by many of the Moslems, to the present day.

But the last have gradations, like the ancient Egyptians, who looked with greater horror

on those who did not cut the throat from ear to ear of all animals used for food.’ With

regard to Gen. 46:33-34; this reason is assigned by Joseph for desiring to obtain a

settlement for his father’s house in a separate locality, in order that they might be kept

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 173

away from much intercourse with the Egyptians, whose manners and pursuits, above all,

whose religion was very different from theirs. The hatred and contempt cherished by the

old Egyptians for all classes of herdsmen was manifested by their ranking these in the

lowest class of society, refusing to intermarry with them, forbidding them to enter the

temples, and depicting them on the monuments as lean, sordid, wretched-looking

creatures (Rawlinson’s Herod., b.ii.,ch. Xlvii., 128, 164).

Jarvis, G. K., & Northcutt, H. C. (1987). Religion and differences in morbidity and mortality.

Social Science and Medicine, 25, 813-824. In H. Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of

Religion and Mental Health (pp. 33-50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Jeffers, A. (1996). Magic & Divination in Ancient Palestine & Syria. The Netherlands: E. J.

Brill.

Johnson, E. L. (1992). Place for the Bible within psychological science. Journal of Psychology

& Theology, 20, 346-55.

Johnson, L. T. (1987). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Atlanta, GA; John Knox (as cited in G. W.

Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Johnston, S. I. (Ed.). (2004). Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Boston, MA: The

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kantor, M. (1992). The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia: A Year-by-Year History from Creation

to the Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kaplan, G., & Keil, J. (1993). Socioeconomic factors and cardiovascular disease: a review of

the literature. Circulation 88, 1973-1998.

Kaplan, M. (1983). A women’s view of DSM-III. American Psychologist July, 786-803. In the

definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament: Insights

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 174

from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Kessler, R. C. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder: The burden to the individual and to

society. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61 (suppl. 5), 4-12.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Ruggiero, K. J., Acierno, R., Saunders, B. E., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. A.

(2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and

comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychiatry, 71 (4), 692-700.

Kim, Y., Seidlitz, L., Ro, Y., Evinger, J. S., & Duberstein, P. R. (2004). Spirituality and affect:

A function of changes in religious affiliation. Personality and Individual Differences 37

(4), 861-870 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources

for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

King, S. V. (1998). The beam in thine own eye: Disability and the black church. The Western

Journal of Black Studies, 22 (1), 37-48.

Kinnier Wilson, J. V. (1982). Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament. In T.

Ishida (Ed.), 1982), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays (pp.

337-365). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Kitchen, K. A. (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Kleinman, A. (1974). Cognitive Structures of Traditional Medical Systems: Ordering,

Explaining, and Interpreting the Human Experience of Illness. Ethnomedizin III, 27-49.

In the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament:

Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 175

Kleinman, A. (1980). Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: Univ. of

California Press. In the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New

Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Kleinman, A. (1988). The Illness Narratives. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Kleinman, A., Eisenberg, L., & Good, B. (1978). Culture, illness, and care: Clinical lessons

from anthropological and cross research. Annuls of Internal Medicine 88, 251-258 (as

cited in A. Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkley,

CA: University of California Press.

Kleinman, A., Kunstadter, P., Alexander, E., & Gate, J. (Eds.), (1978). Culture and Healing in

Asian Societies: Anthropological, Psychiatric, and Public Health Studies. Cambridge,

MA: Schenkman. The definition of health (as cited in A. Kleinman, 1980), Patients and

Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Knight, G. W. III (1992). The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Knohl, I. (2004). Sin, Pollution, and Purity. In S. I. Johnston (Ed.), Religion of the Ancient

World: A Guide (pp. 496-513). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.

Koenig, H. (2005). Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing. West

Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Koenig, H. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of Religion and Mental Health. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Koenig, H. (2002). Psychological Stress and Autoimmune Disease. In H. Koenig & H. Cohen

(Eds.). The Link between Religion and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 176

Factor (pp. 11-29). New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.

Koenig, H. (1999). The Healing Power of Faith. New York, NY: Touchstone

Koenig, H., Cohen, H., Blazer, D., Pieper, C. A., Meador, K., Shelp, F.,… DiPasquale, R.

(1992). Religious coping and depression in elderly hospitalized mentally ill men.

American Journal of Psychiatry 149, 1693-1700 (as cited in Koenig & Cohen (Eds.)

2002). The Link between Religion and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith

Factor. New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.

Koenig, H., George, L., & Siegler, I. (1998). The use of religion and other emotion-regulating

coping strategies among older adults. Gerontologist 28, 303-310.

Krause, N., & Ellison, C. G. (2003). Forgiveness by God, forgiveness by others, and

psychological well-being in late life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42

(I), 77-93 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for

Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Kuldau, J. M., (Ed.). (1982). Treatment for Psychosomatic Problems. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey- Bass Inc., Publishers.

Landy, D. (Ed.). (1977). Culture, Disease, and Healing. New York, NY: Macmillan. The

definition of health (as cited in Kleinman 1980), Patients and Healers in the Context

of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Lederberg, J., Shope, R. E., Oaks, S. C. Jr., (Eds.). (1992). Emerging Infection: Microbial

Threats to Health in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National

Academy Press. The re-emergence of deadly pathogens (as cited in R. Barrett et al.,

1998), Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: The third epidemiologic transition.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol., (27), 247-271.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 177

Levin, J. S. (1944a). Religion and health: Is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal?

Social Science and Medicine, 38, 1475-1482. In H. Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of

Religion and Mental Health (pp. 33-50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Levin, J. S., & Chatters, L. M. (1998). Research on Religion and Mental Health: An Overview

of Empirical Findings and Theoretical Issues. In H. Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of

Religion and Mental Health (pp. 33-50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Levin, J. S., & Schiller, P. L. (1987). Is there a religious factor in health? Journal of Religion

and Health, 26, 9-36. In H. Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of Religion and Mental Health

(pp. 33-50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Levin, J. S., & Vanderpool, S. Y. (1989). Is frequent religious attendance really conducive to

better health?: Toward an epidemiology of religion. Social Science and Medicine, 24,

589-600. In H. Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of Religion and Mental Health (pp. 33-50).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lewis, G. (1981). Cultural Influences on Illness Behavior: A Medical Anthropological. In the

definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament: Insights

from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Lewis, K. (1994). Multi-drug resistance pumps in bacteria: variations on a theme. Trends in

Science. 19(3), 119-123 (as cited in Barrett et al., 1998), Emerging and re-emerging

infectious diseases: The third epidemiologic transition. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., (27), 247-

271.

Lightfoot, J. B. (1904). Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan & Company (as cited in G. W.

Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 178

Lipowski, Z. (1969). Psychological Aspects of Disease. Annals of Internal Medicine 71, 1197-

1206. In the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament:

Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press.

Lods, A. (1925). Les idée des Israélite sur la maladie, ses causes et ses rémedes. BZAW 41,

181-193. Theological approaches (as cited in Avalos, 1995), Illness and Healthcare in

the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia and Israel.

Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Macalister, A. (1939). Emerods. In J. Orr, J. Nuelsen, E. Mullins, M. Evans, & M. G. Kyle

(Eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.

internationalstandardbible.com/E/emerods.html.

Macalister, A. (1939). Scab. Ibid.

Macalister, A. (1939). Itch. Ibid.

Macht, D. (1953). An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and

Deuteronomy XIV. Bulletin of the Hist. of Med. Vol. 27 No. 5, 444-450.

Macht, D. (1914). Julius Preuss. In Fred Rosner (Trans. & Ed.), Biblical and Talmudic

Medicine (pp. 376-388). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Makros, J., & McCabe, M. (2003). The relationship between religion, spirituality, psychosocial

adjustment, and quality of life among people with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Religion

& Health, 42 (2), 143-159.

Marriot, N. G., & Gravani, R. B. (2006). Principles of Food Sanitation (5th ed.). New York,

NY: Springer Science & Business Media, Inc.

Matheson, C. D., Vernon, K. K., Lahti, A., Fratpietro, R., Spigelman, M., Gibson, S., Greenblatt,

C. L., & Donoghue, H. D. (2009). Molecular Exploration of the Old-Century Tomb of

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 179

the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:

doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008319.

McClintock, J., & Strong, J. (1883). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theology, and Ecclesiastical

Literature Vol. VII. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., Thoresen, C. A. (2000).

Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2000

May; 19 (3), 211-22. Retrieved from http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/p

papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf.

McCullough, M., & Larson, D .B. (2001). Future Directions in Research. In H.G. Koenig,

(Ed.), Handbook of Religion and Health: A Century of Research Reviewed (pp. 96-104).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McDermott, J. J. (2002). Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:

Paulist Press

McGrath, A. E. (2006). Christianity: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

McMinn, M. R. (1996). Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality in Christian Counseling. Carol

Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Metzger, B. M., & Cody, M. D. (Eds.). (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Milgrom, J. (1998). Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Milgrom, J. (2000). Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Milgrom, J. (2000). Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Doubleday

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 180

Milgrom, J. (2004). Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Moberg, D. O. (2001). Religion/spirituality: From tolerant disdain to enlightened respect. The

Gerontologist 41 (5), 69.

Moller-Christensen, V. (1961). Bone Changes in Leprosy. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hug., 11 (3),

1962, 425-426. Retrieved from http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/3/425-a.

Morse, S. S. (1994). Prediction and biological evolution concept paper. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.,

740, 436-438. The re-emergence of deadly pathogens (as cited in Barrett et al., 1998),

Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third epidemiologic transition.

Annual Review of Anthropology. 1998. 27, 247-269.

Murphy-O’Conner, J. (2006). Corinth. In K. D. Sakenfeld, (Ed,), The New Interpreter’s

Dictionary of the Bible, A-C Vol I (pp. 732-735). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Norman, G., & Gravani, R. B. (2006). Principles of Food Sanitation (5th ed.). New York, NY:

Springer Science and Business Media, Inc.

Nutton, V. (1996). The Rise of Medicine. In Robert Porter (Ed.), The Cambridge Illustrated

History of Medicine (pp. 52-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1981). Illness and Healing among the Sakhalin Ainu: Symbolic

Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In the definition of health (as

cited in A. Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture, Berkley,

CA: University of California Press.

Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1981). Illness and Culture in Contemporary Japan: An Anthropological

View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In the definition of illness (as cited in J.

L. Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and

Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 181

Ortner, S. B. (2004). Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Paget, N. K., & McCormack, J. R. (2006). The Work of the Chaplain. Valley Forge, PA:

Judson Press.

Palmer, S. R. (2004). Communicable disease control. In W. H. Bassett (Ed.), Clay’s Handbook

of Environmental Health (19th ed.) (pp. 304-330). New York, NY: Spon Press.

Pargament, K. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice.

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Pargament,K., Smith, B., Koenig, H., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative

religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Vol. 37, (4), 710-724. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1388152.

Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., Ellison, C. G., & Wulff, K. M. (2001). Religious coping

among the religious: The relationships between religious coping and well-being in a

national sample of Presbyterian clergy, elders, and members. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion 40, (3), 497-513 (as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health:

Religious Resources for Healing. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation

Press.

Park, C. A. (2005). Religion as a Meaning-Making Framework in Coping with Life Stress.

Journal of Social Issues, 61, 4, 707-729 Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/ j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x/abstract.

Perkonigg, A., Kessler, R. C., Storz, S., Wittchen, H. U. (2000). Traumatic events and Post-

Traumatic Stress Disorder in the community: Prevalence, risk factors and comorbidity.

Acta. Psychiatr. Scand., 101, 46-59.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 182

Pick, D. (1989). Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, ca. 1848-1918. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. The history and development of public health in developed

countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen, Beaglehole & Tanaka (Eds.) 2004), Oxford

Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY: University Press.

Pilch, J. L. (2000). Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean

Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Pinner, R., Teutsch, S. M., Simonsen, L., Klug, L. A., Graber, J. M., Clarke, M. J., & Berkelman,

R. L. (1996). Trends in infectious diseases mortality in the United States. J. Am. Med.

Assoc. 275 (3), 189-193.

Plante, T. G. (2001). Untitled [review of Handbook of Religion and Health, by Harold G.

Koenig, Michael E. McCullough, David B. Larson]. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion 40 (4), 790–791.

Plummer, A. (1891). The Pastoral Epistles. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. London: Hodder

& Stoughton (as cited in G. W. Knight III, 1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary

on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Porter, D. (1991). Enemies of the race: Biologism, environmentalism and the public health

in Edwardian England. Victorian Studies, 34, (2), 159-178. The history and

development of public health in developed countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen,

Beaglehole & Tanaka (Eds.) 2004), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY:

University Press.

Porter, D. (1999). Health, Civilization, and the State. London: Routledge. The history and

development of public health in developed countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen,

Beaglehole & Tanaka (Eds.) 2004), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY:

University Press. Poulson

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 183

Poulson, R., Eppler, M., Satterwhite, T., Wuensch, K., & Bass, L. (1998). Alcohol

consumption, strength of religious beliefs, and risky sexual behavior in college students.

Journal of American College Health, Vol. 5, 227-232. Retrieved from http://www.

informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920303445~frm=abslink.

Powell, P. (2002). The puzzle was a maddening one. The Handle Fall 2002, 4-5.

Preuss, J. (2004). Biblical and Talmudic Medicine. Fred Rosner (Trans. & Ed). Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Radner, E. (2008). Leviticus. Grand Rapids: MI: Brazos Press.

Rhodes, R. (1997). Deadly Feasts: Tracking the Secrets of a Terrifying New Plague. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster. The re-emergence of deadly pathogens (as cited in Barrett

et al., 1998). Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third epidemiologic

transition. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., (27), 247-271.

Riley, J. C., & Alter, G. (1989). The epidemiologic transition and morbidity. Ann. Demogrq.

Histor. 1989, 199-213.

Rosner, F. (1977). Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud. Hoboken, NJ: KATV Publishing

House.

Ryan, F. (1993). The Forgotten Plague: How the Battle against Tuberculosis Was Won and

Lost. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company. The re-emergence of deadly pathogens

(as cited in Barrett et al., 1998), Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third

epidemiologic transition. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., (27), 247-271.

Ryan, F. (1997). Virus X: Tracking the New Killer Plagues: Out of the Present into the Future.

Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company. The re-emergence of deadly pathogens (as

cited in Barrett et al., 1998), Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third

epidemiologic transition. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., (27), 247-271.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 184

Sakenfeld, K. D. (Ed). (2006). The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, A-C Vol I.

Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Satcher, D. (1995). Emerging infections: Getting ahead of the curve. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1 (1),

1-6.

Sein, T., & Rafei, U. M. (2004). The history and development of public health in developing

countries. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R. Beaglehole & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford Textbook

of Health (4th ed.) (pp. 39-61). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. (1993). Optimism and fundamentalism. Psychological Science 4,

256-259 (as cited in Koenig & Cohen (Eds.) 2002). The Link between Religion and

Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY: The Oxford

University Press.

Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. (1994). The hope of fundamentalists. Psychological Science 5, 58

(as cited in Koenig & Cohen (Eds.) 2002). The Link between Religion and Health:

Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY: The Oxford University

Press.

Seybold, K. (1962). Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zur

Bestimmung und Zuordunugh der Krankheits- und Heilungspsalem. BWANT XCIX, 98-

106 (as cited in T. Ishida (Ed.), 1982), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and

other Essays. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Seybold, K., & Mueller, U. B. (1978). Sickness and Healing. (D. W. Scott Trans.). Nashville,

TN: Abingdon.

Siegel, K., Anderman, S., & Schrimshaw, E. (2001). Religion and coping with health-related

stress. Psychology & Health, Vol 16, 6:631-653. Retrieved from http://www.

informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788703559.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 185

Siegel, K., & Schrimshaw, E. (2002). The perceived benefits of religious and spiritual coping

among older adults living with HIV/AIDS. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Vol. 41, (1), 91-102. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468

5906.00103/abstract?systemMessage=Due+to+scheduled+maintenance+access+to+the+

Wiley+Online+Library+may+be+disrupted+as+follows%3A+Saturday%2C+2+October+

+New+York+0500+EDT+to+0700+EDT%3B+London+1000+BST+to+1200+BST%3B

+Singapore+1700+SGT+to+1900+SGT.

Solomon, G. F. (1981). Emotional personality factors in the onset and course of autoimmune

disease, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. In H. G. Koenig & H. J. Cohen (Eds.), The

Link between Religion and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New

York, NY: The Oxford University Press.

Solomon, G. F., & Moos, R. (1964). Emotions, immunity and disease. A speculative

theoretical integration. In H. G. Koenig & H. J. Cohen (Eds.), The Link between Religion

and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY: The

Oxford University Press.

Solomon, G. F., & Moos, R. (1965). The relationship of personality to the presence of

rheumatoid factor in asymptomatic relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In

H. G. Koenig & H. J. Cohen (Eds.), The Link between Religion and Health: Psycho-

neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.

Soloway, R. A. (1982). Birth control and the population question in England, 1887-1930.

Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. The history and development of

public health in developed countries (as cited in Detels, McEwen, Beaglehole & Tanaka

(Eds.), 2004). Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New York, NY: University Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 186

Sorenson, B. (2006). Populations with Special Needs. Oakridge National Laboratory report

ORNL/TM-2006/559 for the United States Department of Energy. Retrieved from

http://em.ornl.gov/EMCWeb/EMC/PDF/Population_Special_Needs.pdf.

Stern, S. M. (2003). Populations with Special Needs (as cited in Sorenson, 2006), Oakridge

National Laboratory report ORNL/TM-2006/559 for the United States Department of

Energy. Retrieved from http://em.ornl.gov/EMCWeb/ EMC/PDF/ Population_

Special_Needs.pdf.

Sternberg, E. M., & Gold, P. W. (1997). The mind-body interaction in disease. Scientific

American. (Special Issue), 8-15. The connection between psychological stress and

autoimmune disease (as cited in Koenig & Cohen, (Eds.). 2002), The Link between

Religion and Health: Psycho-neuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY:

The Oxford University Press.

Swartz, M. (1994). Hospital-acquired infections: diseases with increasingly limited therapies.

Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 91 (7), 2420-2427. The ominous resurgence of morbidity

and mortality from new and old infectious diseases (as cited in Barrett et al., 1998),

Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third epidemiologic transition.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 247-269.

Swartz, M. (Ed.). (2004). Textbook of Physical Diagnosis: History and Examination (4th ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company. The ominous resurgence of morbidity and

mortality from new and old infectious diseases (as cited in Barrett et al., 1998), Emerging

and re-emerging infectious diseases: the third epidemiologic transition. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 27, 247-269.

Taylor, J. (1993). Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 187

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Levin, J. (2004). Religion in the Lives of African Americans.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tiffany, S. W. (1978). Models and the Social Anthropology of Women: A Preliminary

Assessment. Man Vol. 13, (1), 34-51. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/

2801063.

Towner, P. H. (2006). The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Treloar, L. L. (2002). Disability, spiritual beliefs, and the church: The experiences of adults

with disabilities and family members. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40 (5), 594-603.

Troyer, H. (1988). Review of cancer among 4 religious sects: Evidence that life-styles are

distinctive sets of risk factors. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 1007-1017. In H.

Koenig, (Ed.), The Handbook of Religion and Mental Health (pp. 33-50). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Trusen, J. (1843). Darstellung der biblischen Krankheiten (Representation of the biblical

diseases and medicine related to the passages of Scripture) (as cited in Avalos, 1995),

Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece,

Mesopotamia and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Trusen, J. (1853). Die Sitten, Gebräuche und Krankheiten der alten Hebräer (The Habits,

Habits and Diseases of the Ancient Hebrews) (as cited in Avalos, 1995), Illness and

Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia

and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Tsuang, M. T., Williams, W. M., Simpson, J. C., & Lyons, M. J. (2002). Pilot study of

spirituality and mental health in twins. American Journal of Psychiatry 159 (3), 486-488

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 188

(as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing.

West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Twaddle, A. C. (1981). Sickness and the Sickness Career: Some Implications. In A. Kleinman

& L. Eisenberg (Eds.), The Relevance of Social Science for Medicine (Culture, Illness

and Healing) (pp. 111-133). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Twersky, I. (1972). A Maimonides Reader. Springfield, NJ: Behrman House Inc. Sacrifices and

Sacrificial offerings (as cited in Anderson, 1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5)

New York, NY: Doubleday.

U.S. Census. (2005). Populations with Special Needs (as cited in Sorenson, 2006), Oakridge

National Laboratory report ORNL/TM-2006/559 for the United States Department of

Energy. Retrieved from http://em.ornl.gov/EMCWeb/ EMC/PDF/ Population_

Special_Needs.pdf.

Vareldzis, B. P., Grosset, J., de Kantor, I., Crofton, J., Laszlo, A., Felten, M., Raviglione, M. C.,

& Kochi, A. (1994). Drug-resistant tuberculosis: laboratory issues. World Health

Organization recommendations. Tuber. Lung Dis., 75 (1), 1-7. van Son, J. A. M., Konstantinov, I. E., Zimmermann, V. (2001). Wilhelm Ebstein and Ebstein's

malformation. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., 20, 1082-1085. Retrieved from http://www.

ejcts.ch/cgi/content/full/20/5/1082.

Wall, M. H. (2004). We Will Be, Experiences of an American Jewish Chaplain in the Second

World War. In D. L. Bergen (Ed.), The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the

Old to the Twenty-Old Century (pp. 187-213). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Weaverdyck, E. J. (2007). From Pagan to Christian: an archaeological study of the

transformation of Corinth in Late Antiquity. Honors Projects. Paper 8. Retrieved from

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 189

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/classics_honors/8.

Weidman, H. H. (1988). A Transcultural Perspective on Health Behavior. In D.S. Gochman,

(Ed.), Health Behavior: Emerging Research Perspectives (pp. 261-280). New York, NY:

Plenum. In the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New

Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Wenham, G. J. (1979). The Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Westermann, C. A. (1975). Heilung und Heil in de Gemeinde aus der Sicht des Alten

Testament. WzM 27, 1-12. Theological approaches (as cited in Avalos, 1995), Illness

and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece,

Mesopotamia and Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Whitehead, H. (1865). The Broad Street Pump: An episode in the cholera epidemic of 1854.

MacMillan's Magazine, Dec., 113-122.

Wilson, C. P., & Mintz, I. L. (Eds.). (1989). Psychosomatic Symptoms: Psychodynamic

Treatment of the Underlying Personality Disorder. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Wink, P., & Dillon, M. (2003). Religiousness, spirituality, and psychological functioning in late

adulthood: Findings from a longitudinal study. Psychology and Aging 18 (4), 916-924

(as cited in Koenig, 2005) Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing.

West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Winslow, C. E. A. (1920). The Untilled Fields of Public Health. Science 51 (1306), 23-33.

Winslow, C. E. A. (1980). The Conquest of Epidemic Disease: A Chapter in the History of

Ideas (Orig. 1943). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press (as cited in Detels,

McEwen, Beaglehole, & Tanaka (Eds.), 2004), Oxford Textbook of Health (4th ed.). New

York, NY: University Press.

The Lev. Priest as a Pub. Health Practitioner 190

Worsley, P. (1982). Non-western Medical Systems. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 11, 315- 348. In

the definition of illness (as cited in Pilch, 2000), Healing in the New Testament: Insights

from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Wylen, S. M. (1995). The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist

Press.

Young, A. (1982). The Anthropology of Illness and Sickness. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 11, 257-

285. The definition of health (as cited in Kleinman, 1980), Patients and Healers in the

Context of Culture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Yeung, W. J., & Chan, Y. (2007). The positive effects of religiousness on mental health in

physically vulnerable populations: A review on recent empirical studies and related

theories. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 11 (2), 37-52. Retreived

from http://www.psychosocial.com/IJPR_11/Positive_Effects_of_Religiousness_

Yeung_Jerf.html.

Zias, J. (1985). Leprosy in the Byzantine monasteries of the Judean desert. Koroth 9, 242-248.

Zias, J. (1989). Some of the representations of this consensus include. J. Zias, Lust and

Leprosy: Confusion or Correlation? BASOR 275 1989, 27-31; E. V. Hulse, The nature

of Biblical Leprosy and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations

of the Bible, PEQ 107 1975, 87-105; J. Wilkinson, Leprosy and Leviticus: The

Problem of Description and Identification, Scottish Journal of Theology 30 1977, 153-69;

idem, Leprosy and Leviticus: A Problem of Semantics and Translation, Scottish Journal

of Theology 31 1978, 153-166.