That's the merry-go-round that COG members are condemned to by lackluster ministers who refuse to follow Christ and preach about grace, justification, and spiritual rest, but instead spend their every breathing moment finding something wrong that members are doing or wrong in society. It is the eternal condemnation that no Passover service will ever cleanse away.
From Exit and Support Network (links in the letter lead to articles on the E&S site and not the Flurry cult):
From Exit and Support Network (links in the letter lead to articles on the E&S site and not the Flurry cult):
March 6, 2021
[The following were notes were sent to us by a PCG source and L. S. has added comments.]
SF in a recent sermon “Focus on the Lamb of God” (which did not focus on the Lamb of God but on sin and the Law), was filled with what I call lies. He also quoted from HWA many times.
SF says, “Jesus had to be crucified because God won’t compromise with his Law.” Lie. Christ willingly shed his blood on Calvary and rose again in order to pay for the sins of the entire world. He was foreordained (chosen) to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8.
SF says, “The view [in the world] is that He [Jesus] did it all for us and that is a cop-out.” Lie. The truth is that He did do it all for us. Ephesians 1:7; II Corinthians 5:21, and many more Scriptures. This is the gospel of grace.
Any Christian who understands grace understands this concept. It is finished. All of it!
SF says, “What Christ went through is proof that God’s Law is active and valid and in force.” He added that Luke 24 says it. Lie. The Bible says no such thing. Jesus is telling His disciples in Luke 24 that Moses and all the prophets spoke of the things concerning Him—not the law. (See Luke 24:25-27) Read our articles: The Law of Moses and the Grace of God and Must We Keep the Law for Salvation? (many Q&A).
SF says, “Jesus had to die because God won’t compromise with His Law.” Lie. Quoted HWA as saying it is false what “people in the world are saying that Jesus did these things for us because we can’t keep the law perfectly.” Quoted HWA as saying, “We have to keep the Law in order to be saved” and “God won’t receive you just as you are.” Lie. The Scriptures say “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (II Corinthians 5:21) There are no works of the Law involved in salvation. It is a free gift. John 3:16. Read some of our articles in our section Law & Grace and especially many of Bob George‘s “A Closer Look” booklets.
SF continually quoted words by HWA from his sermons and articles, which will always sound good and right until you exam them in the light of God’s Word. Read our article: Why Herbert Armstrong Could Not Have Been God’s True Apostle.
SF says, “Young people have left PCG recently; they weren’t making the necessary changes they should have. In the end Satan overcame them.” Lie. Maybe these young people wanted out from under the burdens in PCG and to be able to make their own decisions.
SF says, “If you don’t commit to a life of overcoming you will become calloused and drift away from God.” Lie. Victory comes by resting in Christ, not struggling. Go to our article: Must We Keep the Law for Salvation? and search for the word “overcome.”
SF’s voice, the same as all top level PCG ministers I’ve heard gets very loud in the middle of this sermon.
SF says,”We are living it first now and then will teach the whole world how to do it.” Lie. Members are not able to keep the Law perfectly so how can they teach the “whole world” in the future how to do it?
When we focus on the Law it arouses sin, and causes sin to have more power. See Must We Keep the Law for Salvation? and click on the question “Can you explain more about the works of the Law and salvation?”
This sermon will keep members in bondage to the Law not cause them to focus on “The Lamb of God” who took away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) –PCG source (additional comments by L. S.)
The law has become the god of the Church of God. The law trumps everything, even Jesus Christ. Nothing is more important or more necessary than keeping the law and following proper church government. Jesus be damned! Obey your pastor general or chief overseer, bow at the feet of Moses and keep all 613 laws, follow church government, and read Mystery of the Ages, and you too can be saved.
uh, God's law is to "love God and your neighbor - Jesus"
ReplyDeleteSo, for everyone poo-pooing the law instead of the law-breaker, go read some more Jesus.
That's what I love about this blog. Every point of view is expressed, and readers feel free to chose their own beliefs. In the ACOGs, members are forced to use double-think, ie, believe one thing, but speak the church line, or things get very ugly. So much for not lording it over members faith.
ReplyDeleteThe Role of the Law
ReplyDeleteLev 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:18b thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
"Man is expected to respond to God's grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. The NT insists that the law is not a means to salvation, but a response to salvation. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. His righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
Dt 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
Dt 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
Dt 4:7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
Dt 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
"The order of the central events of the book of Exodus is theologically important. First comes the redemptive work of God on behalf of the people. This serves to ground their precarious existence in the deliverance from both historical and cosmic enemies that God accomplishes on their behalf. The elect people is now a redeemed people. Only then is the law given at Sinai. The law is a gift to an already redeemed community. The law is not the means by which the relationship with God is established; God redeems quite apart from human obedience. But then the concern for the law suddenly fills the scene, not only in Exodus, but in the remainder of the Pentateuch. Central to the law is the issue of faithfulness to God alone, particularly in proper worship... Such faithfulness and other forms of obedience are certainly in Israel's interest for the best life possible (see Deut 4:40). But Israel is called beyond itself to a vocational covenant within the Abrahamic covenant... Israel's obedience is ultimately for the sake of being a kingdom of priests among the other peoples of the world (19:4-6)..." (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, IBCTP, p.22).
Holy Spirit and the law
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Paul and the law
Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Ro 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Ro 7:14b For we know that the law is spiritual:...
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Psalms and the Law
Ps 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Ps 37:31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
Ps 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
Cont
Ps 94:12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;
ReplyDeletePs 119:1 Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
Ps 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Ps 119:29 Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously.
Ps 119:34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
Ps 119:44 So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.
Ps 119:55 I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law.
Ps 119:61 The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law.
Ps 119:70 Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.
Ps 119:72 The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.
Ps 119:77 Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight.
Ps 119:92 Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction.
Ps 119:97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
Ps 119:109 My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law.
Ps 119:113 I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.
Ps 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
Ps 119:153 Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law.
Ps 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
Ps 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
Ps 119:174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.
ReplyDeleteThe COGs don't keep the law of the Old Covenant and don't know what the law is under the New Covenant.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
We all agree that animal sacrifice is law that is no longer required - yet the COGs are unable to connect this very huge jot of the law that was fulfilled by Jesus with the rest of the law that Jesus also fulfilled.
Circumcision of the penis was to be an everlasting sign of who God's people are - now it's a matter of the heart = that change in the law is lost on the COGs.
John 19:28-30
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
GOGs deny the finished work of Jesus and demand an odd combination of keeping some law, rejecting other laws, but all the while insisting the law has not changed one jot or tittle.
Matthew 23:13
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
The COGs deny the saving, free gift of the Savior and insist that they will earn their way into the Kingdom.
Romans 5:21
so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Follow Jesus, not the blind COG teachers of the law, accept his righteousness and enter eternal life.
Stephen is no theologian of course with none of the training that would go would a genuine Christian Church perspective. I can't imagine SF having any other perspective having grown up in WCG and with his father's kind of thinking. He didn't have a chance from the start in getting it any different than he has. Perhaps someday he will bolt and recognize what he missed in the NT.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Anon 12:24-25's list of scriptures, the English word Law is often used from the Septuagint use of the word nomos as a translation of the original Hebrew word Torah.
ReplyDeleteTorah can mean Law, but it is understood to mean instruction. One commentator remarked about David how I love your Law should be he loved instruction or guidance: "The only people who love the law are those who use it to condemn others..." here come de judge, here come de judge!
Yes, for believers, keeping the Law is a given; above that, it's building the relationship that is important.
In response to "The Role of the Law"
ReplyDeleteThis lengthy citation of scripture is marked by a single flaw: conflation. The writer has conflated the OT and the NT. And this is most readily seen by noticing that "Law" means something different in different Biblical contexts but he has cited it as if it had one meaning throughout - the OT Law or Torah. And, of course, in this argument the writer has hung himself because he falls short of keeping the whole Law like Paul says.
Essentially, the writer is invoking orthodox Christianity when he states that there is such a thing as grace and the keeping the law does not save. This is within the Christian pale but then the list of OT texts does not comport with this orthodoxy. This indicates a conflation of covenants. This has been extensively treated by Christian scholars and an excellent source is Michael Morrison's book titled "Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing" so I will not try to rebuild those arguments in this limited space.
I will invoke one salient point that I believe conduces to a need to resolve the uneasy mix of ideas in what the writer has asserted. If it was as simple as keeping The Law (Torah) as a code of behavior in response to grace, why did Paul have so much heartburn over The Circumcision Party as recounted in the book of Galatians?
The writer clearly advocates Galatianism. I stand in opposition to that. But to clarify matters, I believe his idea of a "response to grace" is transactional. If you are a Christian you have Christ living within you. Its not "I do this so I can get that." And the code of ethics Christians follow is an instantiation of the Eternal Divine Law as spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. It is not the Old Testament instantiation.
As for S. Flurry's statements, not enough material is given in the post to really discern much. I will take the word of the Exit and Support Network people. I have been down a similar path before.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anon 331 wrote "We all agree that animal sacrifice is law that is no longer required"
ReplyDeleteWe? Non! COGs don't get it, and neither do other churches. There is no temple, tabernacle or altar (except possibly one the Temple Institute built). Temple offerings had specific mandated purposes, and would still be required if a temple was in use now (and you wanted to enter).
And speaking of we, the use of the word "circumcision" in the NT is misunderstood -- Paul (Acts 21) denies that he taught against the physical act of 8th day circumcision.
Neither the COGs nor Jews teach salvation by works although COGs mess up the requirement of "works" (as James wrote, 'Faith without works is dead') as being 'law keeping', possibly because they don't want us wasting time and money on "real" works (giving to the poor, and other acts of brotherly love).
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteI will hasten to add that I do not believe that following OT Laws as a personal code of ethics is wrong. If a Christian said "I am going to follow NT practice but I am also going to roll forward some OT laws and include those in my Christian code of ethics," I would not have an issue with that. It seems odd and could be confusing but it is not my business.
But if a purported Christian says, "I am going to roll forward some OT Laws and make them a requirement for salvation," that is an issue for me theologically. Because it says this mistaken formulation applies not just to the proponents but to everyone including me.
I still do not eat foods that are unclean as described in Leviticus. I never will proactively. But I do not see my practice as prescriptive for anyone else. And I see health consequences from eating bacon whether it comes from a pig or from a turkey.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
On just about any doctrinal point of view the answer is "yes" the Bible does support that. The Bible can be for or against slavery, pork-eating, Saturday Sabbath observance, women's leadership in the church, law-keeping, nature of god, etc. etc. etc. And it's not just OT vs NT - the contrary viewpoints within the books and letters of the NT, and especially the different positions between Jesus and Paul allows for widely varying belief systems within Bible-based christianity.
ReplyDelete"Scholars" on all sides lean to their own bias and see, in the scriptures, exactly what they want to see, and the inconvenient truths that challenge their view are explained away. Armstrongism vs Tkach/Feazellism, who is correct? Both, and neither.
Anonymous (7:34)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Paul (Acts 21) denies that he taught against the physical act of 8th day circumcision."
Yes, he did. He taught against it not as a Jewish cultural distinction but as a requirement for salvation and in the process referenced the OT in general. (Galatians)
You wrote: "Neither the COGs nor Jews teach salvation by works although COGs mess up the requirement of "works". . ."
I don't know what you mean by your reference to Jews but the COGs most certainly believe that salvation comes through observing old testament practices. This is actually what sharply separates Splinterdom from denominations in the Christian movement. As an experiment go to an Splinterist minister and tell him you are not going to un-leaven your house because you don't feel like it. This will result in your being disfellowshipped and there is, for Splinterists, no salvation outside of a Splinterist denomination.
It is these OT practices that Paul refers to as "ergon" that he rails against. He is preaching a gospel of reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles and these ergon as religious requirements are what historically separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Paul was quite fine with these ergon as Jewish cultural practices. The ergon just had no place in the train of events leading to salvation.
Splinterdom likes to accuse Christian denominations of not believing in any kind of morality. I have yet to encounter a Christian church that does not have strong moral leanings. And it is clear in anybody's reading of Romans that Paul was against immorality of any sort. It is just the Christian stance that being a moral person cannot result in salvation. This is misconstrued by Splinterists, sometimes I think disingenuously, as anti-nomianism.
And the issue of James and justification by works? I have a viewpoint but I think I will pass for now.
******* Click on Icon for Disclaimer
8.34 AM
ReplyDeleteHow can bacon come from a turkey? I've never heard of that.
NEO, I'd agree with Anon 734 regarding Paul and circumcision. Some years ago I wrote a few pieces in Painful Truth regarding the "circumcision" in Galatians. Briefly, it was about what might be called "ritual conversion to Judaism", which culminated in physical circumcision. Paul was writing to adults, and wrote nothing about circumcision on the eighth day. And, Paul physically circumcised Timothy, although one may say he had his own reason for doing this.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may have been coincidental, a few weeks later, Bob Thiel altered his phrasing of statement on circumcision to show it was referring to adults. He still maintained that it was "optional" for boys, but done for "health reasons". His remark that circumcision was replaced by baptism had no scriptural or historical support and made no sense at several levels.
Hoss:
ReplyDeleteI had a look at what Anonymous (7:34) wrote a second time and I agree with him if I interpret what he said correctly. He/she wrote the following:
"Paul (Acts 21) denies that he taught against the physical act of 8th day circumcision."
This is my interpretation. I had a look at that scripture and it recounts that Paul was accused of teaching Jews not the circumcise. This was something that Paul had not done. But if this were circumcision that had a "spiritual" purpose, I think Paul would have spoken against not the act but the attribution of a spiritual content. After all, this is what the book of Galatians features prominently. But he would not teach Jews to reject "physical" circumcision as Anonymous (7:34) cites correctly in his statement. Physical circumcision would be circumcision without the attribution of spiritual content.
(Sidebar: The Jews circumcised as a sign of the covenant that would result in the inheritance of the promises made to Abraham. These promises ultimately included salvation. Christ, the mediator of salvation, magnified this by making it not physical circumcision at all but circumcision of the heart. Actual foreskin removal then became a Jewish cultural distinctive from the Christian perspective. No doubt it retains its spiritual content in Judaism.)
In other words Paul might have said to Jews who were interested in the Christian message: "You can circumcise your children but the removal of the foreskin does not accomplish anything now towards salvation." This is not the same as teaching the Jews not to circumcise as stated in Acts 24.
******* Click on Icon to view Disclaimer:
Ro 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
ReplyDeleteRo 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Ro 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Ro 3:24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Ro 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Ro 3:26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Ro 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
Ro 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Ro 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
NEO writes:
“in this argument the writer has hung himself because he falls short of keeping the whole Law like Paul says.”
As John would say, Time will tell if this is so.
Eze 20:40 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I REQUIRE your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things.
Someone wrote:
"We all agree that animal sacrifice is law that is NO LONGER REQUIRED".
Ezekiel would disagree and so do I. The sacrificial system will be reinstituted in the Millennium for without there can be no New Covenant with the House of Israel.
Ezekiel 40:39 In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin [purification] offerings and guilt [reparation] offerings were slaughtered (NIV).
"It is evident from these lists that in Ezekiel's new order sin [and ritual impurity] will continue to be a problem for the nation. As he had done through Moses, however, through this prophet Yahweh reveals his magnanimous provision for forgiveness and fellowship with him" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., General Editor, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT), (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), pp.659-60).
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
Jesus Christ will have a dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple just as He did in Moses’ Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple.
Eze 42:20 ... it had a wall round about ... to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.
The temple complex will have a wall around it to separate the holy from the common.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger [ben nekar], uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
No one, stranger and by implication Israelite, who is uncircumcised in the flesh will be allowed into the Temple Complex:
“... Yahweh takes the first step to safeguard the holiness of the temple and its cult: he bars all who are outside the covenant community from the sacred precinct (v.9). Obviously answering to the offenses described in vv.7-8, Ezekiel reaffirms the Mosaic restrictions (Exod 12:43-51) on access to the sanctuary. Resident foreigners who had not identified with Israel physically and spiritually were prohibited entry” (Daniel I. Block, ibid., p.626).
BTW, in my 3d model of Ezekiel’s Temple the Levitical priests and the Davidic Melchizedek king-priest all have blue eyes.
NEO - Yes, and I feel the big issue in the First Century among Jews (Christian and non-Christian) seemed to be "What do you do with Gentiles?" Some only allowed Gentiles "in" if they went through additional hoops to "make them Jews as well". "Circumcision" was certainly the major hoop.
ReplyDeleteAn analogy may be HWA and his adherence to BI - dealing with "non-Israelites" and minorities coming into the WCG and AC. His answer was also to make additional "rules" to allow the others in.
Anon 12:49 says "The sacrificial system will be reinstituted in the Millennium"
ReplyDeleteHa! I remember how Bob Thiel dealt with this one! After he quoted a few verses in Hebrews to show sacrifices didn't do anything he came across this one. His answer: In the Millennium, sacrifices will be reinstituted for those who haven't converted yet. Once again Bob parades his ignorance of scripture!
not defending Thiel, but has anybody read Ezekiel 40 and onwards? it's just describing the New Temple, the roles of the priests there, the sacrificial places and stuff that will be used. and this is the Millennium. better think again, or read it again, if you think the sacrificial system isn't going to be reinstituted.
ReplyDeleteSome points on why sacrifice
ReplyDeleteEze 45:18 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day you [the "prince"] are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary.
Eze 45:19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on ...
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month ... so you are to make atonement for the temple.
"... inadvertent sin and major impurity both require sacrifice for atonement. Since both inadvertent sin and major impurity ENDANGER (requiring ransom) and POLLUTE (requiring purgation), sacrificial atonement must both ransom and cleanse. The verb used to describe this dual event is the verb kipper and the power of the kipper-rite to accomplish both is due to the lifeblood of the animal" (Jay Sklar, Sin Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement - The Priestly Conceptions, p.187).
Under the OC, atonement took place in the seventh month. In the NC it takes place in the first month.
Two theories on how the Sanctuary is defiled:
Lev 20:3b for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled [tame'] my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. (NIV).
Num 19:13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles [tame'] the LORD'S tabernacle.
The sanctuary is defiled by sin and ritual impurity. Two leading theories on how the defilement takes place are noted. 'Theory 1' posits a combination of 'aerial,' and 'direct contact' defilement through blood manipulation; while 'Theory 2 has only 'aerial' defilement.
Lev 5:9a And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar;...
Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Roy Gane, Cult and Character, Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (PhD thesis to book) argues for 'Theory 1' and Gung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus" (PhD thesis) argues for 'Theory 2'. The difference between the two theories may be summed up on a ritual activity premise:
"F. Staal explains the variability of relationship between actions and meanings: the activity itself has no inherent meaning, but it can carry meaning that is assigned to it from a source such as culture of religious authority...
"Recognizing that ritual actions have no inherent meaning aid ritual analysis ... by keeping us from unjustifiably importing meaning from one context to another because we incorrectly assume that the functions of identical actions must be the same. For example, we should not import the meaning of one sevenfold sprinkling of blood (Lev 16:14-16) or another (v.19) from the special Day of Atonement context to Lev 4, assuming that in the latter passage the same kind of activity must also purge or reconsecrate part of the sanctuary. In fact, we will find that it serves another function in Lev 4" (Roy Gane, Cult and Character," pp.5-6).
"... the idea must be refused that the 'sprinkling' of blood is performed to remove the offerer's sin by transferring it to the sanctuary in Leviticus 4, whereas the same activity is to purge the sancta of sin in Leviticus 16.
"... a ritual activity cannot have a directly opposite function in the same ritual system... If the function of the hattat blood is to purge the sancta in Leviticus 8 and 16, it must be so in Leviticus 4-5..." (Gyung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus," pp.284, 322).
'Theory 1' argues that blood manipulation transfers atoned sin and ritual impurity from human-beings to the sanctuary throughout the year. 'Theory 2' argues that blood manipulation purges the sanctuary from aerial defilement of sins and ritual impurity that are atoned for during the year.
Some points on why sacrifice
ReplyDeleteEze 45:18 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day you [the "prince"] are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary.
Eze 45:19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on ...
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.
"... inadvertent sin and major impurity both require sacrifice for atonement. Since both inadvertent sin and major impurity ENDANGER (requiring ransom) and POLLUTE (requiring purgation), sacrificial atonement must both ransom and cleanse. The verb used to describe this dual event is the verb kipper and the power of the kipper-rite to accomplish both is due to the lifeblood of the animal" (Jay Sklar, Sin Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement - The Priestly Conceptions, p.187).
Under the OC, atonement took place in the seventh month. In the NC it takes place in the first month.
Two theories on how the Sanctuary is defiled:
Lev 20:3b for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled [tame'] my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. (NIV).
Num 19:13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles [tame'] the LORD'S tabernacle.
The sanctuary is defiled by sin and ritual impurity. Two leading theories on how the defilement takes place are noted. 'Theory 1' posits a combination of 'aerial,' and 'direct contact' defilement through blood manipulation; while 'Theory 2 has only 'aerial' defilement.
Lev 5:9a And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar;...
Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Roy Gane, Cult and Character, Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (PhD thesis to book) argues for 'Theory 1' and Gung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus" (PhD thesis) argues for 'Theory 2'. The difference between the two theories may be summed up on a ritual activity premise:
"F. Staal explains the variability of relationship between actions and meanings: the activity itself has no inherent meaning, but it can carry meaning that is assigned to it from a source such as culture of religious authority...
"Recognizing that ritual actions have no inherent meaning aid ritual analysis ... by keeping us from unjustifiably importing meaning from one context to another because we incorrectly assume that the functions of identical actions must be the same. For example, we should not import the meaning of one sevenfold sprinkling of blood (Lev 16:14-16) or another (v.19) from the special Day of Atonement context to Lev 4, assuming that in the latter passage the same kind of activity must also purge or reconsecrate part of the sanctuary. In fact, we will find that it serves another function in Lev 4" (Roy Gane, Cult and Character," pp.5-6).
"... the idea must be refused that the 'sprinkling' of blood is performed to remove the offerer's sin by transferring it to the sanctuary in Leviticus 4, whereas the same activity is to purge the sancta of sin in Leviticus 16.
"... a ritual activity cannot have a directly opposite function in the same ritual system... If the function of the hattat blood is to purge the sancta in Leviticus 8 and 16, it must be so in Leviticus 4-5..." (Gyung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus," pp.284, 322).
'Theory 1' argues that blood manipulation transfers atoned sin and ritual impurity from human-beings to the sanctuary throughout the year. 'Theory 2' argues that blood manipulation purges the sanctuary from aerial defilement of sins and ritual impurity that are atoned for during the year.
"Sacrifice" is not a good translation for the Hebrew word Korban, which means "to draw near". Using the term "sacrifice" seems 1) equate the practice to pagan sacrifice, as in "giving his children to Molech" or 2) the way HWA used the word "Sacrifice" meaning give him money beyond your means. And, not all korbanot were animals; there were grain and wine offerings as well.
ReplyDeleteKorban is used to draw one near to God; "sacrifice" doesn't convey that action.
a lot of big long words on sacrifice to simply say it's a means to address moral and ritual impurity. see Rico Cortes in his Wisdom in Torah and 119 Ministries' 'Animal Sacrifices in Light of Yeshua's Sacrifice.' both are also on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:23 wrote:
ReplyDelete“a lot of big long words on sacrifice to simply say it's a means to address moral and ritual impurity”.
If you would like me to listen to Rico Cortes starting with the above sentence is not the way to go about it. But I was saying more than this, at least I think I was.
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
What I was addressing in my post was mainly the dynamic nature of sin and ritual impurity. As you know Christ’s sacrifice does not eliminate the defiling power of sin and ritual impurity - both the person and the tabernacle/temple are defiled, hence the need for ransom and purgation. In regard to sin do you see that purgation as foremost, not ransom?
Lev 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the [most] holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Lev 16:19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.
Please explain how the altar, the holy place and most holy place are defiled during the year so that the sancta needs to be cleansed annually? Especially the most holy place since only the high priest enters it once a year. Some form of pars pro toto and/or aerial defilement?
Looking forward to your reply, using quotes if you like - but not being redirected to someone else.
BTW I find viewing youtube presentations time wasting; I prefer transcripts.
Anonymous (11:51) said:
ReplyDelete"Sacrifice" is not a good translation for the Hebrew word Korban, which means "to draw near". Using the term "sacrifice" seems 1) equate the practice to pagan sacrifice, as in "giving his children to Molech" or 2) the way HWA used the word "Sacrifice" meaning give him money beyond your means. And, not all korbanot were animals; there were grain and wine offerings as well.
Korban is used to draw one near to God; "sacrifice" doesn't convey that action.
My response:
Ac 7:41a And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice [thusia] unto the idol,
Ro 12:1 ... present your bodies a living sacrifice [thusia], holy, acceptable unto God...
1Co 10:20a ... the things which the Gentiles sacrifice [thuo], they sacrifice [thuo] to devils, and not to God:
Ex 3:18b we beseech thee ... that we may sacrifice [thuo, LXX] to the LORD our God.
1 Cor 5:7b For even Christ our passover is sacrificed [thuo] for us:
Thusia, noun, from thuo, verb; sacrifice (the act or the victim, literally or figuratively) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance).
"Sacrifice" is a word that evokes multiple meanings and connotations in modern contexts. When dealing with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), early Judaism, and early Christianity, and their wider cultural worlds, "sacrifice" is best defined as the ritualized slaughter of animals and the processing of their bodies in relation to supernatural forces (especially gods). In some cases, human beings were the objects of ritualized slaughter and processing. Ritualized processing was also applied to nonmeat foods and drink, such as grain, olive oil, and wine. The English word "sacrifice" derives etymologically from a Latin term that means "make sacred." This etymological meaning is quite appropriate for the rituals in the Hebrew Bible that are typically designated as "sacrifices," since they involve the transfer of offerings from human beings to God, from the common to the sacred. In the Hebrew Bible, the primary Hebrew term is qorban (something brought forward, offering), which indicates the basic ancient Israelite understanding of this activity. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel's God, Yahweh, is always the designated or assumed recipient of legitimate Israelite sacrifice...." (William K. Gilders, Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Judaism in Antiquity) from Brown University, Sacrifice, oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0109.xml).
Qorban - "offering" - noun
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring [qarab] an offering [qorban] unto the LORD, ye shall bring [qarab] your offering [qorban] of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Lev 1:2 If any man of you shall bring gifts [doron] to the Lord, ye shall bring your gifts [doron] of the cattle and of the oxen and of the sheep. (Brenton, LXX).
"The response that is invited is to "bring" (yaqrib) an "offering" (qorban). The verb, which specifies the performance act, has the sense of "drawing near" and in a cultic setting means to approach God for the purpose of making presentation or offering. The noun, which derives from the verb, specifies the object that is presented to God. The term qorban, which is unique to the Priestly tradition, is inclusive of a variety of offerings and sacrifices. Common to all is the basic sense of "gift," that is, a presentation intended to please, satisfy, delight the recipient" (Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus, IBCTP, p.21).
"offering. qorban, the nominal derivative of qrb, lit., "that which is brought near, presented, offered." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.145).
"... an "offering" to the deity ... in the sense of that which is to be "sacrificed" (as it is used of all the cultic sacrifices and offerings)..." (Leonard J. Coppes, "qorban," TWOT, Vol.2, p.813).
"This term ... is not limited to offerings for the altar but applies to any sanctuary gift, such as draft animals and carts (Num 7:3) or spoils of war (Num 31:50).
ReplyDeleteMk 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift [doron]...
Lev 1:2a If any man of you shall bring gifts [doron] to the Lord (LXX).
"The LXX renders correctly doron ‘gift'..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.145).
"This word occurs eighty times and only in Lev, Num, and Eze (20:28; 40:43)...
Nu 18:6 And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift [mattanah] for the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
1Ki 4:21 And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents [minhah], and served Solomon all the days of his life.
Ps 40:6a Sacrifice [zebah] and offering [minhah] thou didst not desire;
"For synonyms compare mattana (a gift, broader than our word), minha, and zabah..." (Leonard J. Coppes, "qorban," TWOT, Vol.2, p.813.)
Qarab - "come near" - verb
Lev 1:2 When any person among you presents [yaqrib] an offering [qorban]... he shall choose [taqribu, lit., "you shall present"] his offering [qorban... (Jacob Milgrom).
"presents. yaqrib: the verb higrib (qrb, hiph‘al) is capable of a wide range of meanings but has the specific sense of "offer, present" in a cultic setting..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.145).
Ge 12:11 And it came to pass, when he was come near [hiqrib] to enter into Egypt...
Ex 14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh [yaqrib], the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them...
In other texts it either means "to come close, approach" (e.g., Gen 12:11; Exod 14:10)
Jdg 3:18 And when he had made an end to offer [haqrib] the present [minhah]...
Ps 72:10b the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer [yaqribu] gifts ['eskar].
or "to present" tribute (minha) gifts ('eskar) to a ruler (e.g., Judg 3:18; ... Ps 72:10).It is this latter meaning, originating in the language of diplomacy, that may have been borrowed by the priests and applied to the divine rule, the king of kings (Paran, 1983:208-10)" (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.145).
Ex 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh [tiqrabi] hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Dt 5:23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near tiqrabiun unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
Dt 5:27 Go near [qarab] and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey. (NIV).
"A final technical use off our verb is cultic and connotes every step man performs in presenting his offering to God. This idea begins to develop with Moses drawing near to God (Ex 3:5). Later at Sinai the people exercised the same care in approaching his holy mountain (... Deut 5:23 H 20]). Having gather as near as they were instructed, they commissioned Moses to meet with (draw near to) God and receive his instructions (Deut 5:27 [H 24]). Henceforth, they met God as his designated place. They brought the materials for the tabernacle and presented them as an offering (qorban) before God.
Nu 16:9 ... the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?
ReplyDeleteNu 18:3 And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle: only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that neither they, nor ye also, die.
Nu 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Lev 10:3 Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the Lord meant when he said,
‘I must be sanctified among those who are near to me, and
I must be honored in the presence of the whole people' (Gordon Wenham).
"The Levites were presented as an offering (drawn near) to serve God as custodians of the tabernacle (Num 16:9; 18:4; cf. Josh 3:4) while Aaron and his descendants were presented as sole officiants (cf. Lev 10:3; Num 18:3, 22) of the sacred sacrifices" (Leonard J. Coppes, "qarab," TWOT, Vol.2, p.812).
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them [i.e., the priests] that come nigh [qarob] me, and before all the people I will be glorified...
" "Those who are near [qarob] me" are the priests, who approach (Qal of grb) the Lord in order to present (hiphil of grb) sacrifice (qorban) to him. In this kind of context the adjective qarob designates "an official who can have access to (qarab) to his sovereign directly, without resorting to an intermediary..." (Roy Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, p.188).
Lev 9:7 And Moses said unto Aaron, Go [qarab, qal] unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering [qorban] of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.
Lev 9:8 Aaron therefore went [qarab, qal] unto the altar...
Lev 9:9 And the sons of Aaron brought [qarab, hiphil] the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar:
"The whole nation was called to be holy, but how much more responsibility rested on the priests whose duty was to perform the sanctifying rituals and to teach the people the way of holiness. They preeminently were near (qarob) to God, for they drew near to him themselves (qareb) (e.g., 9:7-8) and brought near the sacrifices (hiqrib) (e.g., 7:9, 33; 9:9, etc.)" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, pp.155-56).
Lev 1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering [qorban] to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring [hiqrib, hiphil] his offering [qorban] of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
Lev 1:5 ... and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring [hiqrib, hiphil] the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring [hiqrib, hiphil] it all, and burn it upon the altar:
"Interestingly, the Hiphil stem becomes most frequently used to connote the sacrificial presentation of offerings by the people (Lev 1:14), through the priests (lev 1:5) unto the Lord (lev 1:13)..." (Leonard J. Coppes, "qarab," TWOT, Vol.2, p.812).
Synonyms
Eze 44:13 And they [the Levites] shall not come near [nagash] unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near [nagash] to any of my holy things, in the most holy place:
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin ... then let him bring [qarab] for his sin ... a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
Lev 4:4 And he shall bring [bo'] the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD;
Dt 12:5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose ... thither thou shalt come [bo']
ReplyDeleteDt 12:6 And thither ye shall bring [bo'] your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices:...
"Among its synonyms, note nagash (very close to qarab in use, bo' (somewhat wider in meaning and emphasizing movement towards)" (Leonard J. Coppes, "qarab," TWOT, Vol.2, p.811).
"bo', the fourth most frequently occurring verb in the OT, is used 2,570 times, for the most part with everyday meanings... Theologically the verb bo' appears in varied but significant contexts..." (Elmer A. Martens, bo', TWOT, Vol.1, pp.93-94).
Note
Ge 31:1 And he heard [shama] the words of Laban's sons...
1Ki 15:22 Then king Asa made a proclamation [hisma‘] throughout all Judah...
"Qal: the basic stem of the verb, from which the other six stems are derived... It is classified as the simple active stem...
"Hif‘ll: the sixth verb stem, normally functioning as the causative counterpart to Qal verb forms.
Qal perfect 3 ms shama , "he heard"
Hif‘ll perfect 3 ms hisma‘, "he caused (another) to hear".
(Page H. Kelley, Biblical Hebrew - An Introductory Grammar, pp.441 & 433).