SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Propitiation and the red heifer

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I am reminded of:

Ezekiel 36:25-26 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Thanks Ron, I hadn't made that connection but it certainly fits the pattern beautifully. And what a glorious promise this is. Not only the consequence but the cause of sin resolved; I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/1/27 7:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Svineklev wrote: The Red Heifer (though termed a chatta't in Numbers 19) is not really a sin offering. The ashes, mixed with water are used for purification of those ceremonially unclean from having come in contact with a dead person (stumbling over a grave, being in the house when someone dies, etc.) I don't think it can be applied in the way it was in this forum...that's not what Hebrews is saying.

About the Red Heifer—look in your BDB and you’ll see that in Numbers 19:9, chatta’t is NOT properly translated as “sin offering.” It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God). It doesn’t matter what it is usually translated as. There are numerous occasions in Scripture where a particular word must be translated differently from its normal usage because of context. This is one of them—and it is quite clear cut—there is no squabbling amongst scholars on this one.



This objection was raised in another thread but I thought it might serve better if we kept some of these thoughts together.

The authority for seeing the red heifer as a true scriptural ‘type’ comes from [b]Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:12-14 KJV)[/b] It is important to grasp the flow of thought here in Hebrews. The imagery is of cleansing and that through the ‘blood of Christ’. The writer uses illustrations from images familiar to ‘Hebrews’. ‘calves’ is just a young ‘bull’ in this context. The writer has the Day of Atonement in mind in which there was a double sacrifice for sin in a sin-offering that dealt, through the bullock, first with the priest’s sin, and secondly, through the two-goats, with the sin of the people.

The details for ordinary sin-offerings are found in Leviticus 4. There are different applications for different status people but there is a common thread. The culmination of each variant of the sacrifice is that blood of the sacrificed animal was sprinkled seven times Godwards; [b]And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary. (Lev 4:6 KJV)[/b] The remainder of the blood was poured out at the altar and the remnants of the animal was burned outside the camp. [b]Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt. (Lev 4:12 KJV)[/b] This first example was properly for the high pries, but the pattern is maintained for the ‘whole congregation of Israel’ (v13)

The Day of Atonement (Lev 16) maintained these elements but the blood of the priest’s bull was actually taken into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled, seven times, before the Propitiatory. (in the Lev 4, Sin Offering, the blood was sprinkled towards the Veil behind the Golden Incense Altar.) Thus the priest was cleansed so that he could offer sacrifice for the people. The people’s sacrifice was in the form of a double-goat which would both illustrate the need for a substitutionary death and the removal from God’s presence of the nation’s sin. The blood of the dead goat was also taken within the veil; [b]and he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat on the east; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat: and he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins: and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
(Lev 16:14-16 ASV)[/b] The priest repeats the process but with the blood of the goat; i.e. a seven times sprinkling. We need not follow the ‘scape goat’ for the purposes of this thread.

This is the thought of the writer to the Hebrews which he expresses in the terms; [b]the blood of goats and bulls[/b]. The symbols speak of cleansing secured through a sin-offering. There is no disjoint in his thinking, he moves seamlessly in this sentence from the Day of Atonement’s sin-offerings to his reference to [b]the ashes of an heifer[/b] the purpose of which he says was the [b]sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: (Heb 9:13 KJV). [/b]

Many people have trouble finding the ‘red heifer’ sacrifice because they expect to find it with all the other rituals in the book of Leviticus. The ‘red heifer’ sacrifice, however, is in the book of Numbers; this is highly significant, Numbers is Israel on the march. During the time of their marches the instruments of Levitical sacrifice were all packed away and in the care of their specific stewards. What happens then if, mid-march, the priest becomes unclean. Must he remain so until the march is over and the Tabernacle re-assembled? No, God has a provision for such an event; the sacrifice of the red heifer.

The first part of the ritual is to be accomplished during ‘normal’ circumstances with the Tabernacle standing. The ‘children of Israel’ are to bring a spot ‘red heifer’, literally ‘an Adam-Heifer’, where it is slaughtered in the presence of a priest. This has to be accomplished ‘outside the camp’; [b]And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face: (Num 19:3 ASV)[/b] Some of the blood is then taken back into the camp and sprinkled before the Tabernacle, seven times. In the normal sin-offering some of the inwards of the animal would have been burned on the Altar of Sacrifice, effecting the price paid and the sin-offering accepted. Here the pattern is different. Death is enacted, but no part of the animal is sacrificed by fire on the Altar of Sacrifice. The ‘seven times’ sprinkling of animal blood God-wards is only ever associated with sin-offerings; Lev 4:6; Lev 4:17; Lev 8:11; Lev 16:14; Lev 16:19; Lev 25:8; Lev 26:18; Lev 26:21; Lev 26:24; Lev 26:28; Num 19:4; It is the signature of sin-offerings.

The animal remains were burned outside the camp, as with all sin-offerings. The link it obvious, if we compare of the instructions for the red heifer…
[b]And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn: (Num 19:5 ASV)[/b]
with those for the sin-offering…
[b]And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, (Lev 4:11 ASV)[/b]

As the red-heifer burned other ingredients were added to the flame; [b]and the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. (Num 19:6 ASV)[/b] When the fires dies down the ashes of the heifer and the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet are collected to be preserved ‘outside the camp’; another feature that identifies this plainly as a form of sin-offering. The purpose of this could not be expressed more clearly; [b]And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: [u]it is a sin-offering[/u]. (Num 19:9 ASV)[/b] The reading ‘it is a sin-offering’ is to be found in Tyndale, Geneva, ASV, HCSB, LITV.

The objection made in the quotation;[i]”It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God).”[/i] is bizarre. It ignores the whole preparation of the ‘ashes’ with its blood sprinkled seven times God-wards outside the Tabernacle. I find it difficult to see how anyone who has read the chapter could come to this conclusion.

If the objection [i]About the Red Heifer—look in your BDB and you’ll see that in Numbers 19:9, chatta’t is NOT properly translated as “sin offering.”[/i] has reference to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions, that work says of
chaṭṭa'ah / chaṭṭa'th
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
It is a well known phenomenon of Hebrew that there is only one word for ‘sin’ and ‘sin-offering’. The context must be the deciding factor.

For ancient Israel ritual impurity could be the result of conscious transgression of God’s command or ignorant transgression. It is true that Israel used the red-heifer for the cleansing of its priest even when the Temple has been built and the emergency nature of this ritual was no longer valid, but I judge that this was due to their misapplication based on their misunderstanding of the true nature of this provision.

The objections also states;[i]”It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God).” [/i] This cavalier use of language obscures another vital link. The unclean person was not ‘doused’ but ‘sprinkled’ just as the altar and people were sprinkled at Sinai (Ex 24:6,8) Some of the blood of the red-heifer had been sprinkled ‘seven times’ before the Tabernacle, now the unclean are sprinkled with what is effectively the re-constituted blood of the sacrifice. This is a unique glimpse into God’s thinking. The sacrifice was made and the blood presented to God at a point in time. [u]This is redemption accomplished[/u]. At a later date the preserved ashes were put in a vessel and living water (that is the Hebrew idiom) was added; [b]And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering; and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave: (Num 19:17-18 ASV)[/b] It was as a result of the Living Water that the cleansing power of the sacrifice became effective to the unclean; [u]this is redemption applied.[/u]

The imagery of ‘sprinkling is too important to be categorised as ‘dousing’. [b]For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: (Heb 9:13 KJV)[/b] This passage prepares the way for vital biblical links; [b]For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, (Heb 9:19 KJV)[/b] and for precious application [b]Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Heb 10:22 KJV)[/b]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/16 5:08Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Hey, Ron--

First, let me apologize for bringing up the "slippage" remark. We don't know each other and haven't built up any level of trust. I thought about it as soon as I hit the "submit" button, but at that point it was too late. It was not in the slightest intended as an attack.

I think we owe each other a terrible loyalty. We are all like children playing near the edge of a cliff, and we need to warn each other when we even imagine that someone is close to that brink. We need to take time to care about one another's souls not just our feelings. I do not feel attacked just because not everyone agrees that annihilationism ought to be considered Evangelical. In fact, I appreciate it. (I'm trying to remember, was it RobertW?) Whoever it was, thanks so much for caring!

(BTW, I have not embraced it whole hog because I know the evidence stacked against it. But there is evidence for it that cannot be erased with a mere allusion to tradition. And not everything the Liberals do can be dismissed just because it's them. Besides, as far as I know, Fudge is a mainstream Evangelical and Pinnock, though not mainstream by any means, is still a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.)

About the Red Heifer. I promise to go in depth later. My point was that the BDB uses your definition 2e for Nu. 19:9--it emphasizes purification from ceremonial uncleanness. Yes, for the ancient Israelites there's not a whole lot of difference between uncleanness and sin. We are no longer under those purity laws, however, and few Christian women today would take well to your saying that they "sin" for several days every month prior to menopause!

You can hang onto original sin and ditch original guilt, perhaps. I am less sure you can ditch original pollution (as the the Catholics have) in favor of a loss of original righteousness. I am even less sure you can ditch "total depravity" and hang onto original sin. Be glad to explore it with you nonetheless.

I hope you'll be patient with me; I do make mistakes....

 2004/12/16 16:58Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
About the Red Heifer. I promise to go in depth later. My point was that the BDB uses your definition 2e for Nu. 19:9--it emphasizes purification from ceremonial uncleanness. Yes, for the ancient Israelites there's not a whole lot of difference between uncleanness and sin. We are no longer under those purity laws, however, and few Christian women today would take well to your saying that they "sin" for several days every month prior to menopause!


If we are going to discuss things you're going to have to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said or thought. I would prefer accuracy to contrition.

We all make mistakes but I suggest you put my own words in quotations rather than setting up these straw men.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/16 19:17Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron,

In writing about the Red Heifer you alluded to a remark I made:

"The objection made in the quotation, 'It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God).' is bizarre. It ignores the whole preparation of the ashes with its blood sprinkled seven times God-wards outside the Tabernacle. I find it difficult to see how anyone who has read the chapter could come to this conclusion."

Let me assure you I HAVE read the chapter. It was the topic of one of the chapters of my Master's thesis. Look, I'm not really saying anything much different than YOU did in your analysis:

"In the normal sin-offering some of the inwards of the animal would have been burned on the Altar of Sacrifice, effecting the price paid and the sin-offering accepted. Here the pattern is different."

It is NOT a normal sin-offering (and my "not an offering at all" is not original with me, others have read this chapter and come up with similar 'bizarre' interpretations). You actually appear to concur, for you say quite clearly that nothing was offered on the Altar of Sacrifice. Yes, there is a connection to the altar offerings (and thus the sprinkling of blood toward the Tabernacle). Normally, the space outside the camp is unclean…here a place is made clean for the deposit of ashes.

The connection between Numbers 19 and Hebrews 9 has to do with the body of Christ superceding the edifice of the Temple. It also has to do with bringing the Gentiles (who are "outside the camp") into the fold. Yes, it does have to do with the increase in the accessibility of salvation. It is now available to whosoever will believe, repent, and live in newness of life. (You cannot, however, derive from these verses its availability to the non-elect as you tried to do.)

There is also a good deal of irony in Calvary, the spotless Lamb of God sacrificed in an unclean manner in an unclean spot. Thus, the allusions to the Yom Kippur offerings and the Red Heifer. Like the Red Heifer, he was pure and was sacrificed whole. Like the Yom Kippur sacrifices, unceremoniously dumped and burned outside the camp, Christ is subjected to utter shame:

"We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.
The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore" (Hebrews 13:10-13).

Your notion that the Red Heifer ashes were there for emergency purposes while "on march" is an intriguing one, but purely speculative, nonetheless. Cleanness would have been relatively unnecessary en route to the next destination: the Presence of God traveled ahead of them in pillars of fire and cloud. It was not in the dismantled Tabernacle.

And the ritual was clearly not relegated to priests alone. Anyone who came into contact with the dead needed purification. (Granted, the current push to rebuild the Temple includes a search for a completely pure Red Heifer in order to purify priests.)

According to the rabbis, there were nine of ten heifers sacrificed in this way during the history of the two Temples. And there were reports of ashes remaining for purification rites long past the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.

Ron, where on earth do you get the idea that the Red Heifer had only an "emergency nature"? Numbers 19 says no such thing. I'm hoping you can explain to me the following quote from your post:

"For ancient Israel ritual impurity could be the result of conscious transgression of God’s command or ignorant transgression. It is true that Israel used the red-heifer for the cleansing of its priest even when the Temple has been built and the emergency nature of this ritual was no longer valid, but I judge that this was due to their misapplication based on their misunderstanding of the true nature of this provision."

BTW, sorry for the "cavalier" use of the word, "douse." From what I've seen of the plants utilized for aspergilla, they well could have absorbed a good deal of ash-water mixture and administered something more than a light sprinkling!

Happy heifering....

--Eric

 2004/12/23 11:46Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron,

Talk about BIZARRE, what were you smoking when you wrote the following:

"If we are going to discuss things you're going to have to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said or thought. I would prefer accuracy to contrition.

We all make mistakes but I suggest you put my own words in quotations rather than setting up these straw men."

You said you were referring to my quote:

"About the Red Heifer. I promise to go in depth later. My point was that the BDB uses your definition 2e for Nu. 19:9--it emphasizes purification from ceremonial uncleanness. Yes, for the ancient Israelites there's not a whole lot of difference between uncleanness and sin. We are no longer under those purity laws, however, and few Christian women today would take well to your saying that they "sin" for several days every month prior to menopause!"

Excuse me, but this is NOT a straw man. It is simply a humorous way to ask you to explain the distinctions YOU see in uncleanness vs. sin (as they would be applied to us who have a NT). Sheesh! Take some valium (or a good stiff drink) before you go online.

(Absolutely just kidding...humor again.)

Laughter is the best medicine (or so they say...)

--Eric

 2004/12/23 12:07Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Take some valium (or a good stiff drink) before you go online.

(Absolutely just kidding...humor again.)



We don't need valium over here, we watch cricket. God, knowing that the English were essentially a godless bunch, gave them cricket to give them some idea of eternity.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/23 13:36Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
It is NOT a normal sin-offering (and my "not an offering at all" is not original with me, others have read this chapter and come up with similar 'bizarre' interpretations). You actually appear to concur, for you say quite clearly that nothing was offered on the Altar of Sacrifice. Yes, there is a connection to the altar offerings (and thus the sprinkling of blood toward the Tabernacle). Normally, the space outside the camp is unclean…here a place is made clean for the deposit of ashes.



There are too many links with the sin-offering to be accidental. And I think the burden of proof lies with you if you want to prove otherwise. It is not a sin-offering as defined in Leviticus, I have already said so. What I am saying is that the normal pattern of sin-offering was not possible when Israel were on the march. The fires were either extinguished or carried safely. The fact of God's presence has special significance for the Day of Atonement and the atoning of his residence, but the Day of Atonement is another specialised instance of sin-offering. I still believe the heifer was an emergency measure in its origin.

This is John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
[i]it is a purification for sin: or "it is sin" (q), not an offering for sin, properly speaking; the heifer, whose ashes they were, not being sacrificed in the tabernacle, nor on the altar, and wanted other rites; [u]yet it answered the purposes of a sin offering[/u], and its ashes in water were typical of the blood of Christ, which purges the conscience from dead works, when this only purified to the sanctifying of the flesh, Heb_9:13; and is the fountain set open for sin and uncleanness, Zec_13:1; where both the words are used which are here, and in the preceding clause: ashes are known to be of a cleansing nature, and so a fit emblem of spiritual purification by Christ; and the duration of them of the perpetuity of it. [/i]

Thank you Dr Gill. Incidentally, I'm quoting Gill undestanding him to be one of your guys.

Burnt offerings and peace offerings pre-date Sinai but there is no evidence that the Sin and Trespass offerings predate Sinai. The concept of an offering for sin was uniquely entrusted at Sinai, and the word [i]chaṭṭâ'âh[/i] always seems to have the sense of sin or sin-offering in the Pentateuch.

I would be glad to hear the biblical evidence for your contention that it should not be translated 'sin-offering' as it so frequently is in various translations.

And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: it is a sin-offering. (Num 19:9 ASV)

And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and shall lay them up outside the camp in a clean place. And it shall be kept for the congregation of the sons of Israel for a water of impurity; it is a sin offering. (Num 19:9 LITV)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/23 16:31Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Quote:
Thank you Dr Gill. Incidentally, I'm quoting Gill undestanding him to be one of your guys.

That would generally be a correct understanding, with the caveat that some have called Gill a hyper-Calvinist. Having seen the quotes used to support that claim, I can see why it is made, but having seen the context, I don't really know.

As for the actual topic... well, I know some Hebrew, but I don't think I could do more than restate the arguments of other people. Lexical work seems tricky like that.

 2004/12/23 16:47Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

I've never heard of Dr. Gill, but why use him?

In your own quote of him, he says that the Red Heifer is "not an offering for sin, properly speaking."

Here are some common translations that emphasize the Red Heifer rite's function of purification:

"And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a PURIFICATION for sin." (Num. 19:9 KJV)

"Now a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, and the congregation of the sons of Israel shall keep it as water to remove impurity; it is PURIFICATION from sin." (Num. 19:9 NASB)

"A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for PURIFICATION from sin." (Num. 19:9 NIV)

"Then someone who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the Israelites for the water for cleansing. It is a PURIFICATION offering." (Num. 19:9 NRSV)

"Then someone who is ceremonially clean will gather up the ashes of the heifer and place them in a purified place outside the camp. They will be kept there for the people of Israel to use in the water for the PURIFICATION ceremony. This ceremony is performed for the removal of sin." (Num. 19:9 NLT)

"Then a man who is ritually clean will gather the ashes of the cow and place them in a ritually clean place outside the camp. The congregation of Israel will keep them to use in the Water-of-CLEANSING, an Absolution-Offering." (Num. 19:9 The Message)


--Eric

PS: Can anyone tell me how to use italics? I'm afraid everyone thinks I'm yelling at them because I have to use all caps to emphasize anything.

PSS: The whole "while they were on march" has got to go. You have not one shred of evidence to back you up on that one. (Nor is there any to be had.) So, quit with the fanciful exegesis already!

(Don't get me wrong, I still think it's an intriguing notion....)



 2004/12/24 22:16Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy