Comments on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: 6 Quick Levitical Points against Penal Substitutio...

Dave, Good points, and I appreciate how your exeg...

2009-07-30T07:35:11.593-07:00

Dave,

Good points, and I appreciate how your exegesis has broken down and critiqued the theology I refer to.

Hi Steve, I would claim that it is merely the v...

2009-07-29T13:38:06.663-07:00
Hi Steve,
I would claim that it is merely the view of God that needs to be put in the dustbin, and not the text from which that view has been extrapolated.

It is easy to read the idea of a God that required appeasing sacrifices into the text, but is that really what the text demands? Is it possible that such things are merely the conclusions drawn out of conditioning by a certain strand of Christianity?

I would say that it is possible to read these cultic obligations in a variety of ways and draw meaningful conclusions about God that have nothing to do with the common one.

All well and good for a proper understanding of wh...

2009-07-27T07:04:35.073-07:00
All well and good for a proper understanding of what the biblical texts mean. But as far as modern religion, spirituality, and theology goes, how important is this? To me, not at all. These things reflect a very primitive view of God (i.e., demanding sacrifice for appeasement) that we need to do away with. Jesus showed us a very different God--not a wrathful God that needs to be appeased with sacrifices, but a loving father who needs no sacrifices, who reaches out to re-establish communion with humanity. That is what we need to preach, but unfortunately all too many Christians want to retain this primitive, obsolete view of God.

Hi Bev, excellent catch here. Thanks! This has no...

2009-07-23T13:41:52.548-07:00
Hi Bev, excellent catch here. Thanks!

This has nothing to do directly with your point, but I believe that the grain offering in 6:14-18 may well be the "other half" of the offering required in 5:11-13.

My reasoning is that there are two issues at hand, the "cleansing" need and the "forgiveness of guilt" need. These are generally combined in the offerings of animals, but they are separated in the offering of the turtle doves. One offering is for cleansing of sin [the "sin offering"] and the other is for appeasement/forgiveness [the "burnt offering"]

With one exception, the "soothing aroma" is never used for a "sin offering," which generally had different regulations than the "burnt offerings."

So, I'm wondering if the two types of grain offerings are in parallel with the two types of turtle doves and in general with the two types of livestock offerings [sin offering versus burnt offering].

On the other hand, the fact that the priests were allowed to eat the offering in 6:18 would suggest all the above is wrong. Burnt offerings were never eaten...the whole thing was offered up as a soothing aroma to appease God.

I noticed that is also some debate on verses 6:18 and 6:27...regarding whether the claim is that the people eating the meat must be holy or that they will be made holy. I don't have time to look more deeply into this [Hebrew verb conjugation always takes me a long time.]

Interesting stuff, and thanks!

Hi David. I've got some issues with some of th...

2009-07-23T12:25:24.901-07:00
Hi David. I've got some issues with some of this. The sin offering of grain in Leviticus 5:11 is indeed a sin offering for those who cannot afford an animal or birds. But notice it says "he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering."

However, the grain offering described in Leviticus 6 is not a sin offering. Leviticus 6:15 - "...a handful of the fine flour of the grain offering, with its oil and all the incense that is on the grain offering..."

Leviticus 6:18, which you reference in relation to animals used in sin offerings, is still part of the text describing the grain offering, which is not a sin offering.