Sacrificial Contradictions
Douglas R. Larson berean@brookings.net
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:50:15 -0600 (00879403815, 199711130047.SAA20562@serv.brookings.net)
> On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 01:14:59AM -0600, Douglas R. Larson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was so very much captivated by this post addressed to Lenny,
> > that Farrell challenged me on something that I had never
> > even addressed in my walk with the "Holy Kid." The subject
> > of atonement, to say the least, is a very fascinating one.
> > Anyway, as I read some of Farrell's scriptural references, I kept
> > reading into the 10th chapter of Hebrews and by shear accident,
> > I read this passage:
> >
> > Heb 10:3-4
> > 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
> > 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and
> > goats to take away sins.
JEFF
> Of course, a chapter earlier in Hebrews 9, the author tries to explain
> the necessity of Christ's death by saying that
>
> Hebrews 9:22-23 (English-NIV)
> ________________________________________________________
>
> 22
> In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be
> cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of
> blood there is no forgiveness.
> 23
> It was necessary, then, for the copies of the
> heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices,
> but the heavenly things themselves with better
> sacrifices than these.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> It sounds to me that 22 says that under the law, the shedding of blood
> causes forgiveness. If so, Hebrews 9 and 10 are contradictory. If
> not, then the analogy fails. (Well, it fails anyway---see below)
LARSON
> > Hebrews was one of my favorite books, in fact, as a
> > typical Christian, I severely lacked a hard working knowledge
> > of Levitical and Mosaic law propagation. But when I read that
> > passage in Hebrews again, I knew that for a fact that animal
> > sacrifices were practiced as "blood atonement" on behalf
> > of the nation of Israel. Well, I did some searching and found
> > this item in 2 Chronicles:
> >
> > 2 Chr 29:24
> > 24 The priests then slaughtered the goats and presented their
> > blood on the altar for a sin offering to atone for all Israel, because
> > the king had ordered the burnt offering and the sin offering for all
> > Israel.
> >
> > Was anybody else aware or unaware of this contradiction?
JEFF
> Not this particular one, but there are plenty of claims about the OT
> in the NT that are just plain wrong. Hebrews 9 is another one when
> reviewed in light of Leviticus 5:11-13. "He is to bring as an offering
> for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour [...] AND HE WILL BE
> FORGIVEN." Hebrews 9 contradicts Leviticus 5, Hebrews 10 contradicts 2
> Chronicles 29, and Hebrews 9 and 10 contradict each other.
Hi Jeff,
LARSON
Very good example! Every defined sin, from flour to oil to doves to bulls
had an established value in atoning for a transgression. That why that
passage in Hebrews struck me as an "Israeli Brain Fart" when it stated
"because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins." For as many times as I've read Hebrews, I can't believe I missed
that statement.
JEFF
> The Hebrews 9/Leviticus 5 contradiction has been discussed and is in
> the archive under "Flour Power". I don't recall the Hebrews 10/2
> Chronicles 29 contradiction has been discussed, or the Hebrews 9/10
> one.
LARSON
I'll check the archive, thanks for pointing that out to me!
JEFF
> Not much was said by inerrantists about Hebrews 9/Leviticus 5, except
> one claim that the verse in Hebrews really meant
>
> 22
> In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be
> cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of
> blood there is ALMOST no forgiveness.
>
> which would resolve the contradiction, but leave ways to heaven besides
> through Jesus' death. I can't imagine that this is a pleasant position
> for a Christian whose interest is to sell Christianity to a new convert
> at all costs.
LARSON
Almost? Almost no forgiveness?! From Strongs it looks absolute
with no room for "almost." Where did these folks come up with the
word "almost?" Strongs 3756 "ou" simply means "NO."
3756 ou (oo);
also (before a vowel) ouk (ook); and (before an aspirate) ouch (ookh);
a primary word; the absolute negative [compare 3361] adverb; no or not:
KJV-- + long, nay, neither, never, no (X man), none, [can-] not, + nothing,
+ special, un ([-worthy]), when, + without, + yet but. See also 3364, 3372.
Thanks Jeff,
Doug Larson