Does God discriminate against people with physical defects?

[ManofGod]

I have come across some pretty challenging verses in the OT, but this passage in Leviticus 21:16-24 has really left me confounded. If you read it for yourself you'll see God explicitly prohibits any sons of Aaron with any birth defect(dwarf, hunchback, cripple, crushed testicles, even a broken hand or foot, etc.) from offering sacrifices. God goes as far as saying that this was to be put in place so that the defectives would not "profane" His holy temple(v.24)
Why would a defective person profane the temple. This seems incredibly unfair to the descendants of Aaron who were not by choice born with major physical flaws. If anyone has any explanations to help clear this up, I would greatly appreciate them.

[Kurieuo]

I have come across some pretty challenging verses in the OT, but this passage in Leviticus 21:16-24 has really left me confounded. If you read it for yourself you'll see God explicitly prohibits any sons of Aaron with any birth defect(dwarf, hunchback, cripple, crushed testicles, even a broken hand or foot, etc.) from offering sacrifices. God goes as far as saying that this was to be put in place so that the defectives would not "profane" His holy temple(v.24)
Why would a defective person profane the temple. This seems incredibly unfair to the descendants of Aaron who were not by choice born with major physical flaws. If anyone has any explanations to help clear this up, I would greatly appreciate them.

Not any more unfair than Levi being the only priestly tribe.

[ManofGod]

God chose one tribe because He is a God of order and He gives certain people certain positions just like He does today in the church body. My point was that it seemed odd that God deemed the defective descendants of Aaron as the kind of people that would "profane" His temple without any regard to their moral status. I'm not trying to defame God, I'm asking for some historical or interpretational information that can explain or justify this passage so that it does not seem like blatant and unwarranted discrimination

[Kurieuo]

Perhaps I'm cold, but I really don't see an issue.

There were many other duties Levites had, besides making offerings on behalf of people.

The sacrifices themselves were to be without blemish, and the priests were likewise to be without blemish.

Keep in mind there is a lot of foreshadowing going on with the sacrificial system -- Christ who was both the perfect and final sacrifice and priest.

[Jac3510]

The sacrifices themselves were to be without blemish, and the priests were likewise to be without blemish.

Quoting this for emphasis. This is exactly correct. It wasn't merely moral defect that kept a person from being able to serve God in certain capacities. For instance, if you accidentally touched a corpse you were unclean and could not serve because it defiled you. Does that mean that you sinned or were less human? Of course not. It just means that God has a particular standard when it comes to the sacrifical system, and that standard is to be pure and unblemished. A person with physical defects was blemished and so could not participate in that work.

There's nothing immoral or wrong or evil about such "discrimination." It is a sad fact of reality. Such persons were not any less human or less loved. It just so happened that because of a defect--something that went wrong in their prenatal development--they could not meet the necessary standards of service.

[jlay]

[quote="ManofGod"](dwarf, hunchback, cripple, crushed testicles, even a broken hand or foot, etc.) quote]

Ouch!!

[ManofGod]

I understand it a little better now. So the word profane doesn't actually mean that the defective person is spiritually profaning the temple, but rather just unfortunately falling short of the physical standard that the Law required for proper sacrifice. It really helps one see verses like Romans 8:3 in a more informed light.
I actually did find an article online that talked about the foreshadowing concept, but it was kind of vague and strangely stated, so I didn't give it any credence at first, but now I see it's meaning more clearly. Thanks guys
And yes, jlay, it seems testicles have posed problems for men since long ago.

[Gman]

I have come across some pretty challenging verses in the OT, but this passage in Leviticus 21:16-24 has really left me confounded. If you read it for yourself you'll see God explicitly prohibits any sons of Aaron with any birth defect(dwarf, hunchback, cripple, crushed testicles, even a broken hand or foot, etc.) from offering sacrifices. God goes as far as saying that this was to be put in place so that the defectives would not "profane" His holy temple(v.24)
Why would a defective person profane the temple. This seems incredibly unfair to the descendants of Aaron who were not by choice born with major physical flaws. If anyone has any explanations to help clear this up, I would greatly appreciate them.

In many cases too the temple services required physical labor which the Temple was not equipped to handle. Therefore a handicapped person could actually get hurt or hurt someone else since the job required the handling of fire, the cutting of the sacrifices, and other dangerous Temple practices.. Anyways, this is what I've heard. But ultimately I would say that it is a picture of Christ who gave himself physically and spiritually without any defect. He had everything going for himself but gave it up for us.

Hope that helps..