Traditional Ordinances?

Traditional ordinances that got handed down over time are not always a wasted effort designed to make life difficult. Survivorship bias suggests that it is more likely than not that an ordinance that has been handed down has certain benefits conveyed that would help the society in which it was an ordinance in to proliferate long enough for it to be passed down.

That thought came to me from two interesting sources, one being a Facebook comment regarding how when trying to refute certain practices, the research that the person turned up became ever stronger pieces of evidence confirming the validity of those practices [within the context], and the other being my recent reading of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers with their very long and explicit descriptions of the various types of offerings, when each is supposed to happen, how they relate to behaviour of various people and the like. That second part was when I hit upon an epiphany while thinking about just how many lifestock and agriculture was required to fulfill all of God's offering requirements for a whole year.

I didn't work out the exact number, but a rough estimate suggested that the number was fairly large, and literally required an entire community to provide for it, which was justified through the sheer numbers of Old Testament Jews as stated in Numbers. To me, it seemed like creating such rules was God's way of ensuring that His chosen people had goals to work towards together, thus reducing the amount of in-fighting that could have occurred when too many idle people were present. By specifying so explicitly the numbers and types of animals, as well as the weight of the various grains, the end result is a very clear definition of economic goals for the Old Testament Jews to meet, with the unspoken side effect that while they were trying to meet these goals, could easily extend their efforts to provide food for themselves. The priests of the day were full-time and set apart from the rest of the Jews, and their sustenance was solely derived from the offerings that they needed to bring to God on behalf of the people---from that alone, it seems that it is possible to estimate what the average food consumption was needed per person, and from there, a rudimentary level of economic planning could be done.

Perhaps this is the reason why Jewish people are notoriously known as capable arithmeticians and mathematicians---it is hard to be completely numerately illiterate when the Scripture that one lives by (and is known by all) has such concepts hidden within them.

But going back to the point of traditional ordinances having some positive utility. I think a large part of that relies on setting up the correct context to observe the intention of the traditional ordinance---most rational people will agree with this particular sentiment. What people may disagree on is the boundaries of what constitutes a ``correct context''. There are usually two reasons on such a disagreement: following the letter of the ordinance sans its intention, or mis-interpreting the intention of the ordinance. The former can be ameliorated through techniques used in the study of literature, which can be horrifically simplified to identifying whether a body of words are meant as a literary technique, or as a blunt description/observation using only the vocabulary that exists at the time. That last point is key towards solving the second reason---language generally gets more complex over time due to having to expand the expressiveness to handle newer concepts that emerge. Ordinances are not always reactive in nature; they can be proactive as well, in which case they try to capture some kind of universal truth which may have concepts that are beyond what the language can precisely describe.

An example would be trying to describe the modern concept of a digital computer during an era where even the abacus doesn't exist. Calling it ``thinking sand'' is technically correct (i.e. accurate), but it is liable to mis-interpretation, since the particular choices of words leave out the nuance-filled details that make the description precise.

Scripture is not meant to be a set of reactive ordinances, but a proactive one. The books that make up the Scripture are penned by humans in their specific era and language, and thus may not have precise enough language that can stand the test of time. However, the information recorded is accurate enough, as long as one remembers the context in which they were recorded and interprets the intention from that and then.

Thus, to be a believer in the Word actually requires a certain amount of intellect---think of it as God's way of incorporating checks and balance into His believers so that they don't get misled by the wrong thoughts of a fallible person.

Sadly, this means that anyone who blindly follows what their leader tells them without question are the true cause of many problems, since they did not make use of every opportunity to decide for themselves based on the evidence that has been handed down through the generation. This constant inquiry of the validity of traditional ordinances is one that everyone ought to demonstrate, no matter their creed. Any system of ordinances that cannot be presented in a fixed form like words on a page is liable for situational adjustments, which is a great way to derive bribery and other inconsistent and inaccurate applications that cause social upheavals.

Okay, that's enough of a shower-thought rant. Till the next update.