--------------612E29F4280D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A response generated at the apologetics list at MCU to Yoels point about
flower being a sufficient offering for the remission of sin.
The reply line has been set to errancy and aplogetics, so if you wish to
respond and hit your reply button, the post should be addressed to both
errancy and apologetics.
Ciao.
--------------612E29F4280D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <mcu@www4.clever.net>
Received: from mh2.cts.com by king.cts.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #20) id m0wg4QG-0019wMC; Mon, 23 Jun 97 01:24 PDT
Received: from www4.clever.net (www4.clever.net [209.25.18.1]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07792 for <mwfisher@cts.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mcu@localhost) by www4.clever.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id EAA15918 ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: pasc8891 owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Flour Power (Sacrifice repost)]
In-Reply-To: <33AC82D7.10FC@cts.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970622141056.448T-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: pasc8891@uidaho.edu (pascoe)
X-Sender: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
Reply-To: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
X-UIDL: 480f226f1c866c1bc6d5bd7f7f73e61f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
> An Epah A Day keeps the Devil Away
>
> Flour saves! Praise the wheat!
>
> Behold the honeybuns of God, which taketh away the sins of the earth.
>
> And I beheld a sack of Pillsbury's All Purpose Flour with ten horns
> trampling on the intestines of the Heathen!
>
> Flour Saves!
>
> Hail the white grain!
I think this argument would best be described as a strawman since the
Christian does not say that the blood of animals is required for
salvation. The blood of animals symbolizes and foreshadows the blood of
Christ which is essential for salvation. It cannot be denied that ancient
Judaism put great stock in the blood sacrifice even to the point of
performing it in a ritual way even when their heart had long since left
the intent of the practice. God says that He was not pleased with their
blood sacrifices because they were just going thru the motions at that
point. Judaism valued the blood sacrifices for reasons other than for
what it symbolized to God. In this regard, the Judaizers put more value
on the animal sacrifice than what the Christian does. We could make a
similar argument with the issue of circumcision and baptism. The
Pharisees confronted Jesus because His disciples ate without washing their
hands according to the custom. Jesus pointed out the upsidedown
priorities of the Pharisees because they had confused the ritual for what
the ritual signified. You see, it is not the gold which sanctifies the
temple, it is the temple that sanctifies the gold. It is the blood of
Christ that makes animal sacrifice worth mentioning as a ritual, not the
other way around. Remember that the Law was given by God as a tutor, not
the final form of things to come. The Jews valued circumcision because
they exchanged its significance. They came to believe that circumcision
testified of their status as Jews, but Jesus pointed out the error of this
thinking since the outward sign had nothing to do with the inward
condition. Circumcision testifies of Christ, and to carry the sign without
hypocricy one needed to ensure the inward condition of the heart. So
someone may argue the same type of strawman in regard to circumcision if
they don't understand the principles at work. A superficial search will
turn up verses commanding circumcision and others wishing that those who
demand circumcision of gentiles would castrate themselves. A superficial
understanding will see a contradiction where none exists. The distinction
relates to the intent of the first covenant and the intent of the
superceding covenant. Because Christ's work fulfilled much of the old
covenant our values as Christians will necessarily look different than
that of Judaism, but Christians can argue that a consistent purpose runs
thruout Scripture.
To summarize, the debator was trying to show that Christians place more
emphasis on blood than what Judaism does. But this fails to distinguish
between the blood of animals and the blood of Christ. It is a superficial
understanding that leads to a strawman. Christianity does not argue that
Christ's blood is founded on the value of the blood of animals in Judaism,
rather the value of the blood of animals in Judaism is founded on the
value of Christ's blood.
There was another post about the symbolism of consuming Christ's blood in
communion. It totally failed to point out that Christ never had anyone
consume His literal blood. Certainly His language was offensive to the
Jews because they were looking at the issue superficially instead of
understanding the message.
To understand why Christ's symbolism concerning the consumption of His
blood was justified, we have to understand the connection between blood
and life. The first record of God prohibiting blood consumption is in
Genesis just after the flood:
GENESIS 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, {that is,} its
blood. -NASB
GENESIS 9:5 "And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I
will require it. And from {every} man, from every man's brother I
will require the life of man. -NASB
God required blood which symbolized the life. Blood and life are almost
understood interchangeably. But why are we allowed to consume the blood
of Christ symbolically and not the blood of animals literally? Because
the animals did not give us their life. Our sin was placed on the animal
and it died as a payment. We did not recieve life from the animal in the
exchange. So eating the flesh of the sacrifice was understood in Judaism,
but consuming the lifeblood was not part of the symbolism until Christ
came bringing life by His blood, which no animal sacrifice had done.
Because He is a unique sacrifice which offers us His life in exchange, we
are justified in symbolically consuming His blood to receive life. In
addition to the removal of sin by His blood, we also receive life from Him
by His blood. This picture is consistent with the old covenant but it
supercedes it based on greater promises. It is the natural extension of
the old covenant.
JOHN 6:53 Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have
no life in yourselves. -NASB
The Christian does not argue that Christ's blood is essential because the
animal sacrifice was essential, rather that the animal sacrifice was
useful as a tutor to foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ. The animal
sacrifice is dependent on Christ, not the other way around.
jasho
__________________________________________________________________
For usage, send e-mail with "HELP" in the body to: list-request@mcu.edu
Comments and questions are welcome, use: apologetics@mcu.edu
To send mail to apologetics-list, use the address: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
To unsubscribe from apologetics-list, send UNSUBSCRIBE apologetics-list to: list-request@mcu.edu
"All commercial and publishing rights are retained by the contributors.
Copyright 1997 by the individual authors and contributors."
===========================================================
--------------612E29F4280D--