Propitiation and the red heifer

In my conversations on another forum I was talking to a gentle Calvinist who genuinely wanted to know what I thought. His question was 'if God has been propitiated, and that propitition was for the 'whole world', in its fullest sense, how can God remain angry with the sinner whose sins have already received atonement? Good question, I thought.I have prayed a little and thought a little, and this was my reply. There will be some nuances you will miss because you haven't seen the rest of the conversation, but I think this will stand on its own feet so here we go...I fell to sleep last night talking to the Lord about propititiation and woke up this morning thinking about the red heifer. So let me take one last try at making my thinking clearer.The red heifer [Num 19 & Heb 9:13] was a unique application of the Sin Offering found in Lev 4 & 6. In the sin offering, the sinner identified himself with an animal by laying his hands on its head, after which the sinner slaughtered the animal. The slaughtered animal was entrusted to the priest who divided it up into parts. The blood was sprinkled on the alter, the inwards were set apart for sacrifice, the remainder was burned outside the camp. Hebrews sees Christ's death as a permanent fulfilling of this sacrifice. The sacrifice was immediate, the atonement was immediate, the forgiveness was immediate. [Lev 4:26, 31, 35]But God made special provision in the sacrifice for those times when there was need but the apparatus of the sacrifice was not available. I presume this is why we have this sacrifice in Numbers, rather than in Leviticus. The scenario is everything packed up and ready to go and a sudden need for a sin offering. What do you do? You can't erect the tabernacle and rekindle the altar fire. The answer was a pre-fabricated sacrifice known as the red heifer. I am not being frivolous when I say it was an instant-coffee kind of a sacrifice.This is how it worked. At an earlier time a sin-offering had been sacrificed. Its blood sprinkled before the tabernalce. [Num 19:4] As the heifer was being burned, some extra ingredients were added to the flame. Finally someone would gather up the ashes of the red heifer and preserve them safe, outside the camp. This sacrifice was then 'on hold' until it was needed. When someone (seems most likely that priests were in mind) sinned the second part of the process kicked in.The ashes of the heifer were placed in a recepticle and running water was added. [the Hebrew idiom for this in Nu 19:17 is 'living water'.] The addition of the living water reconstituted the sacrifice. It was ready for instant use. The liquid of this reconstituted sacrifice, being the equivalent of the blood that was originally sprinked outside the tabernacle, was then sprinkled on the 'sinner'. The offering is now effectual.My understanding is that this is the pattern of Christ's sacrifice. The sacrifice is made, God is propitiated, but the blood must be sprinkled on the individual for the atonement (sin-covering) to become effectual. In the case of the red heifer we might have a time interval of several months in between the sacrifice made, God propititiated and the sinner receiving his cleansing. We can also envisage the scenario in which a sinner chose not to avail himself of the provision that was available for him. So with Christ, the sacrifice is made, God is propitiated but the sinner cannot come into the presence of God until he has been blood-sprinkled. Redemption was accomplished (I believe) for all, but is only applied to those who avail themselves of the provision.It may be significant that the Hebrews reference is linked with that phrase 'through the eternal Spirit' that I mentioned in my previous post. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? [Heb 9:13,14] The effect of Christ's sacrifice was 'captured' 'in the Spirit'. It is not the letter or the objective facts that save, but the addition of the 'Living Water' (which John says is the Spirit). So the Spirit comes to 'reconstitute' (just a metaphor) what Christ accomplished and to apply it to me personally. As a result of the sprinkling I am joined to the place of the original sacrifice and what He did becomes mine.One last comment. The word propitiation in the KJV translates two connected words. The word hilasmos is used in John's first letter1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The second word, hilasterion, is more correctly the 'place of' propitiation. Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;Hebrews 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat ; of which we cannot now speak particularly.God has provided the hilasmos, protitiatory sacrifice, that is done and can never be repeated or added to. But to avail ourselves of His great provision we must come to the hilasterion, place of propitiation (the cross), where faith in his blood will make all the benefits of that propitiation mine. Redemption is thus accomplished and applied, 'though the application may be hundreds of years after the accomplishing. And there is that remaining possibility that if we do not have 'faith in his blood' the redemption will never be applied.What do you think folks?

Ron, I think this is a wonderful exegesis. how can God remain angry with the sinner whose sins have already received atonement?Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! But to avail ourselves of His great provision we must come to the hilasterion, place of propitiation (the cross), where faith in his blood will make all the benefits of that propitiation mine.

This is enlightening, I never saw this before.To use your theological math model then;ashes + living water = purification orChrist's work on Calvary + power and grace of Holy Spirit = application of redemptionWe decieve ourselves if we believe we are saved by the work of Christ when we don't submit to the power of the Spirit!I do have one question though, it seems the purification by the ashes/water mixture was to be applied twice over the course of a week with hyssop for the specific purpose of cleansing of defilement as a result of close contact with a corpse(Num 19:14-19). My question is, why is contact with the corpse a defilement?Ok, I just thought of another question, what is the significance of the hyssop?In Christ,Ron

here's another little extract from my other conversation.my friendYou see it as "potential" in a sense, in that it is not actually applied until the sinner "lays his hands on it", so to speak. My view is actually similar, only different. When John says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, he is speaking in the context of verse 1 in which he said that He is also our Advocate. Thus, our Advocate rightly applies the propitiation to us. John finishes his thought with "not for ours only". To me, John is saying, "If there is any propitiation in the world for anyone ever, it is only Christ. He is the sole propitiation available for the world." This statement would not require that propitiation be actually applied, but that it would actually be available. What is the ‘it’ in this context? Propitiation can’t be potential in my understanding in this sense. It is the God-facing word. God has been propitiated by the Son that He set forth as that Propitiation. It is the sin-facing words that we are struggling with; atone, atonement. It’s a little crude but bear with me if I say propitiation affects God, atonement affects man. These are the two sides of one coin. The result was that the man was reconciled, cleansed. Although this took place in the same compass of time I think it is helpful to consider the thought order. Surely this would be God propitiated and man atoned for, and then the benefits received by the man. This is why I thought the red-heifer was a helpful theme in that in this case propitiation and atonement was clearly made ahead of the benefit being received, and it is clear that a substantial gap might exist between the salvation accomplished and salvation applied. You say that our Advocate applies the propitiation to us. I think we are mixing pictures here; advocates did not apply propitiation. An advocate is the man representing me, who pleads my case. In this case the Advocate who represents me has the perfect evidence for sins forgiven in that He Himself is the Propitiation. In this divine courtroom He Himself is ‘exhibit one’ your honour; “the price paid to remove the offence”. The sinner here will need to receive fresh forgiveness and cleansing, but there will need to be no fresh propitiation. He does not supply or apply the Propitiation; He is the Propitiation; the price that has been paid. my friend Thus, our Advocate rightly applies the propitiation to us. John finishes his thought with "not for ours only". To me, John is saying, "If there is any propitiation in the world for anyone ever, it is only Christ. He is the sole propitiation available for the world."I am struggling to understand this. not for ours only, but also for the sins of the world seems to be to be making a very clear contrast between us and our sins, and them and their sins. Who is they? (excuse the grammar!) ‘They’ is the world, as distinct from us. It seems to me that John is saying that there is Propitiation-accomplished and its benefits are available for two groups of people; us and the those who are not us. Your statement , "If there is any propitiation in the world for anyone ever, it is only Christ. He is the sole propitiation available for the world. is absolutely true but I don’t think it is what John is saying. The first chapter has clearly defined the people who John has in mind when he says ‘ye’. He identifies himself with them when he says ‘our’ but he casts the net much wider when he says not only but also, and this time he has ‘the whole world’ in view. John himself is one group, but not the othermy friendThe parallel I have in mind would be from a town in the Old West, where a school marm would be there to teach the kids. She would be "the town teacher". Now, that wouldn't mean that she taught everyone in the town. That merely meant that she was the sole teacher in that town. By the same token, Jesus is the "propitiation for the sins of the world". That doesn't mean that He actually applied that propitiation. It simply means that He is the sole propitiation for the world. To me, if I read it this way I avoid all the logical difficulties I find in reading it any other way. If He actually applied the propitiatory properties to the world, then either the entire world would be saved, or at least God's wrath against the entire world would be abated. In either case, I can find no righteous way for judgment to occur if the price was already paid in full for the world. So in that sense the phrase “Saviour of the World” would also mean not the Saviour of the whole world, but the only Saviour in the World. Do you really want to say this? Is that what John means in John 4:22 and 1John 4:14? You see, personally I don’t have any ‘logical difficulties’ with this passage, but that is because I am not bringing the idea of a pre-specified selection of people to the verse. I don’t believe He has actually applied the propitiatory properties to anyone. He has made atonement for sins and God is propitiated in that Christ’s death, as God’s propitiatory Lamb, ‘took away’ the sins of the world. There is no longer any obstruction; man can now approach God, if he will, BUT ONLY THROUGH THAT TORN VEIL.

Hi Rons,USA Ron said:"This is enlightening, I never saw this before."DITTO.Also he said:"We decieve ourselves if we believe we are saved by the work of Christ when we don't submit to the power of the Spirit"The blood of the sacrafice, preserved in ashes, ressurected in power by the washing of the Spirit!I'm continuously amazed . Where do you guys get this great stuff? :-o Clutch :-)

I'm continuously amazed . Where do you guys get this great stuff?I just keep reading this big black book. I do have an advantage in that the author is a personal friend. :-P

I knew that.Clutch

I know that many scholars would say that the NT propitiation is a translation of OT atonement and that we should not think in terms of God being placated. However, although the Septuagint gave a ready made vocabulary of Greek words in a Hebrew context, I prefer to retain some feeling of 'appeasment' but not in any crude pagan fashion. Let's take a wider view. Propititian is price paid to remove the offence; it is God-facing as many sacrifices were. "When I see the blood I will pass over you". The shed passover blood was daubed on the doorposts and lintel for God's benefit. He needed to see the blood. I know we are talking in anthropomorphisms, but so does Exodus as this stage. All sacrifices have this element, they are God-facing. It is God who needs to be satisfied of their appropriateness. The Day of Atonement sacrifice was actually so that God could remain among His people. In this sense that was God-facing too. But when we think in terms of the people we are not counting sins in the Day of Atonement; this was for all their sins. It was a sacrifice which covered all eventualities, whether an individuals sins were many or few; it was for the sins of the whole of Israel. We do not have an individual mapping of single sins to the Day of Atonement sacrifice. In a similar way we do not have a simple mapping of individual sins to the red heifer. Whatever sins the sinner committed he discovered that a sacrifice had already been made which covered them. BUT for him to benefit personally that all-including sacrifice had to be applied to his unique personal condition for him to benefit personally. AND if we think this through, that one sacrifice was effective for individual sins of many individuals. I am presuming that not all the ashes were used for one application. If the ashes, reconstituted with living water, are not applied he will die, even though God has been propitiated and his sins atoned for. Because the cleansing of his sin must be joined to the sacrifice and this is effected by the sprinkling of the living water. If he remains unsprinkled, for him, the sacrifice is in vain. In Christ too, there is no individual mapping of single sins to His sacrifice, but as we come we find they were all covered; He is the Propitiation. For the next sin, and this next, there is still only the once for all Propitiation.

The benefits of God having been propitiated are not applied until appropriated. Christ's sacrifice will be 'in vain' for many. I am linked to His propitiating work through the Living Water of the Spirit. From the moment of the link I receive all the benefits of God having been propitiated. The Propitiation for the whole world is in place, the blood is shed, the sacrifice accepted, all that is necessary now is that the individual receives the personal sprinking that will link him to all that God has already accomplished.

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.In Christ,Ron

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.

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 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) 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; 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) The remainder of the blood was poured out at the altar and the remnants of the animal was burned outside the camp. 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) 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; 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) 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; the blood of goats and bulls. 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 the ashes of an heifer the purpose of which he says was the sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: (Heb 9:13 KJV). 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’; 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) 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…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) with those for the sin-offering…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)As the red-heifer burned other ingredients were added to the flame; 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) 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; 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) The reading ‘it is a sin-offering’ is to be found in Tyndale, Geneva, ASV, HCSB, LITV.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.If the objection 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.” has reference to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions, that work says of chaṭṭa'ah / chaṭṭa'th1) sin, sinful2) sin, sin offering2a) sin2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin2c) punishment for sin2d) sin-offering2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleannessIt 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;”It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God).” 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. This is redemption accomplished. At a later date the preserved ashes were put in a vessel and living water (that is the Hebrew idiom) was added; 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) It was as a result of the Living Water that the cleansing power of the sacrifice became effective to the unclean; this is redemption applied.The imagery of ‘sprinkling is too important to be categorised as ‘dousing’. 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) This passage prepares the way for vital biblical links; 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) and for precious application 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)

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....

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, 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

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

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.

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 Bibleit 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; yet it answered the purposes of a sin offering, 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. 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 chaṭṭâ'âh 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)

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.

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)--EricPS: 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....)

Italics is achieved either by using the little interface above the posting box, or by putting an "i" in straight brackets before the text to be italicized and an "/i" in straight brackets after it.like this:[x]text to be italicized[/x]But with i instead of x (if I put i there, it would italicize the text and you wouldn't see the tags), or a b for bold, or a u for underline.edit:And yes, italics vs. caps would help lessen the sensation of being yelled at :-)

EricI suspect you know as well as I do that the word 'purification' has been inserted by the translators. The text just says 'sin' or 'sin offering'. As 'sin' would make no sense unless you add 'purification' so determining the given word by the added one; which is an odd way of interpreting scripture to say the least.The whole context of Numbers is Israel on the march. The transitory nature of this stage of Israel's experience may be guaged by the fact that this journey ought to have taken eleven days; (There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea.) (Deu 1:2 KJV) as it was, it took the best part of 40 years.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....)I have to say again, Eric, that I am not finding the tone of your posts very conducive to real discussion. I want to resist the temptation to get into street fighting and if I have to 'flee' the temptation by moving onto another thread I am ready to do so. Perhaps if we knew one another or had developed some sense of fellowship this street corner rhetoric would be part of the fun, but as we don't and we haven't, I am struggling here.

Ron--I imagine when you mention my tone that you are sensing my impatience. I don't wish a street fight...or any verbal violence whatsoever. But I am having trouble with your stubbornness. The text does not say "sin" or "sin offering." The text says "chatta't." This word may be translated many different ways, and in this context (Num. 19:9) the scholars of the B-D-B say "purification offering for sin" and the translators of the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV all concur. Nothing has been added in. (Yes, "sin" and "sin offering" are very common renderings of the word "chatta't," but they don't fit this context.) It doesn't matter how long the Israelites were on the march: we have no record of them offering sacrifices (or of using stored ashes) while en route. They had to stop and set up the Tabernacle in order to offer sacrifices. All I have said is that you are using an argument from silence (i.e., you are speculating). I am sorry if calling such reasoning "fanciful" was offensive to you. I just don't see how we can get anywhere based on your speculations. I want you to use the text.I look forward to talking this through,--Eric

Eric,I imagine when you mention my tone that you are sensing my impatience. I don't wish a street fight...or any verbal violence whatsoever. But I am having trouble with your stubbornness. The text does not say "sin" or "sin offering." The text says "chatta't." This word may be translated many different ways, and in this context (Num. 19:9) the scholars of the B-D-B say "purification offering for sin" and the translators of the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV all concur. Nothing has been added in. (Yes, "sin" and "sin offering" are very common renderings of the word "chatta't," but they don't fit this context.)Stubbornness is an irregular verb which is usually conjugated thus:I am not easily movedThou art stubbornHe is just plain pig-headed.We are steadfastYou are intransigentThey are plain obstinate ;-)and as 'stubbornness' is sin it is an accusation that should not be made lightly. (1Sa 15:23) However, I am not easily intimidated either.My BDB says chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'thBDB Definition:1) sin, sinful2) sin, sin offering2a) sin2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin2c) punishment for sin2d) sin-offering2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleannessAs far as I understand this the ‘common’ expectation decreases as we move down the list. This puts 2e at the least likely translation for chattaah in any situation. We then have to add the context, and the context of the sacrifice of the Red Heifer has so many similarities with the Sin Offering that Gill says that it is serving the same function.The ‘scholars’ of the Tyndale, Geneva, ASV, ESV, HCSB, LITV, all concur and show their understanding by having translated the word as ‘sin offering’. In fact I find the KJV translators swing from the Tyndale/Geneva 'sin offering' to 'purifying of sin' slightly ominous in the light of the KJV accommodation to a more Roman Catholic theology.From 296 instances the KJV translates ‘chattaah’ assin 182, sin offering 116, punishment 3, purification for sin 2, purifying 1, sinful 1, sinner 1; In fact the only time that KJV ever translates chattaah as ‘purification for sin is in the Numbers 19 passages. YOu say that 'sin offering' is a common rendering for 'chattaah'; what I am saying is that 'purification for sin' is a unique rendering of chattaah, only to be found in the KJV in Numbers 19:Uses of 'chattaah' in KJV translation of Numbers.Num 5:6; Num 5:7; Num 6:11; Num 6:14; Num 6:16; Num 7:16; Num 7:22; Num 7:28; Num 7:34; Num 7:40; Num 7:46; Num 7:52; Num 7:58; Num 7:64; Num 7:70; Num 7:76; Num 7:82; Num 7:87; Num 8:7; Num 8:8; Num 8:12; Num 12:11; Num 15:24; Num 15:25; Num 15:27; Num 16:26; Num 18:9; Num 19:9; Num 19:17; Num 28:15; Num 28:22; Num 29:5; Num 29:11; Num 29:16; Num 29:19; Num 29:22; Num 29:25; Num 29:28; Num 29:31; Num 29:34; Num 29:38; Num 32:23;All the bold face references have'sin offering'. The underlined face have 'purification for sin', and the italics face has 'purifying'. Out of 37 possible translations of 'chattaah' in Numbers the KJV has 'sin offering' for 34 . (the remaining 5 instances have 'sin')In fact the only time that KJV ever translates chattaah as ‘purification for sin’ is in the Numbers 19 passages. (It is also translated ‘purifying’ in Numbers 8:7.) The fact is that 'purification for sin' is a highly unusual rendering in the light of the rest of the KJV's testimony to chattaah. I think the burden of proof rests with you, and if for ‘stubbornness’ you substitute the word ‘unconvinced’ you would be more accurate (and more generous).BTW I just found this comment in Adam Clarke. Num 8:7 - Sprinkle water of purifying - מי חטאת mey chattath, water of sin, or water of the sin-offering. As this purifying water was made by the ashes of the red heifer, cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet; and the heifer herself was sacrificed, and her blood sprinkled seven times before the tabernacle, Num_19:3-6; she may be considered as a proper sacrifice for sin, and consequently the water thus prepared be termed the water of the sin-offering. As the ashes were kept ready at hand for purifying from all legal pollutions, the preparation might be considered as a concentration of the essential properties of the sin-offering, and might be resorted to at all times with comparatively little expense or trouble, and no loss of time. As there were so many things by which legal pollution might be contracted, it was necessary to have always at hand, in all their dwellings, a mode of purifying at once convenient and inexpensive.I find encouragement in Gill and Clark inasmuch as the original my original postings here were just my 'own' meditations and had not derived from others. To find that others of such note have come to similar conlcusions is a comfort. Even folk like me get a little lonely being out on a limb 'all the time'.

Ron--For the life of me, I can't understand why you are so defensive. Yes, you are stubborn only from my point of view. But wasn't I giving my point of view? By "stubborn" I simply meant two things: 1.) You are steadfast and not easily swayed. 2.) Your argument--at least in my mind--is not particularly strong. (You use commentaries from the 18th and 19th Centuries from men who are not specifically OT scholars, let alone experts on the Pentateuch. You use obscure Bible translations. You don't appear to fully understand the B-D-B....)The B-D-B does not just give a range of meanings and say, here, you decide. It gives its definition of Num. 19:9 as "purification offering for sin." The reason the translation is more or less limited to this passage is that this passage's context is unique.It is irresponsible exegesis to come to the text with a set meaning in mind as you did. One can always "find encouragement" for one's own personal interpretations if one combs through countless commentaries looking for corroboration.Besides all that, this text can be translated as "sin offering" and still be interpreted as being for purification. There is not a clear delineation in the OT between uncleanness and (what we would call) sin. This is probably why translations such as the RSV and the ESV opt for "sin offering." The context of the passage cannot possibly construed as a garden-variety sin offering. Purification is so clearly in mind here that some translators might see it as redundant to explicitly state the case.I've looked through a ton of literature on this topic, and I know of no modern-day OT scholar who would agree with you. (Also, all the rabbinic writings see it as purification.) And that's why I think you're being "stubborn."I have no agenda here, Ron. If I found validity in your viewpoint, it would please me no end to say so. It wouldn't be the undoing of any cherished tenet of mine. I simply see no evidence at all to back you up and wonder in amazement that you're still pushing it.I love you anyway, brother!--Eric

And just so you know:I had no intention of accusing you of sin. The word that the KJV translates as "stubbornness" is translated by the NIV as "arrogance," by the NASB as "insubordination," and by the ESV as "presumption." And the context is Saul's unlistening disrespect and disobedience before God...not before man. No, I don't see stubbornness as a positive character trait (and I inherited a goodly portion of it from my father), but I hardly see it as a sin of any great consequence.--Eric

I simply see no evidence at all to back you up and wonder in amazement that you're still pushing it.I'm not pushing it, just giving you the reasons why I am still unconvinced. It is of little interest or consequence to me, but if you keep on asking questions I will keep on trying to answer them.

Well, I still think the ashes of the Red Heifer teaching is a good one and biblically sound.God Bless,-Robert

Well, I still think the ashes of the Red Heifer teaching is a good one and biblically sound.Me too, perhaps we should start a new abomina..., sorry, denomination?

Ron and Robert,If it's any consolation to you, I attend a non-denominational church. But until you come up with something better, I'll continue to support the concept of denominations as a necessary evil. (Most non-denoms are in actuality just one-church denominations. Unfortunately, to be Protestant is to be denominational. And to be Catholic or Orthodox is just as sectarian.)I'm glad for your mutual admiration society. It does my heart good when brothers live together in harmony.Would it do anyone irreparable harm to come up with the first semblance of a Scripture passage that corroborated Ron's "biblical soundness"? Somehow I always felt that biblical soundness and biblical evidence went together. My bad.--Eric

Hi Bro. Eric,Actually I attend a PCG church.I'm glad for your mutual admiration society. It does my heart good when brothers live together in harmony.Certainly Bro. Ron and I don't agree on everything. ;-) We can disagree on the nonessentials. I see the Heifer issue pretty clearly myself. It will not fit into certain non-essential theological constructs though. But since I don't hold a particular view in conflict with the teaching- it fits the tapestry just fine. Would it do anyone irreparable harm to come up with the first semblance of a Scripture passage that corroborated Ron's "biblical soundness"? Somehow I always felt that biblical soundness and biblical evidence went together. My badHe has a paper on it somewhere in this thread. I think the argumets are pretty sound. God Bless,-Robert

Robert--As far as I know, I have read everything Ron has written on this thread. I certainly don't recall any biblical evidence that the Israelites offered sacrifices (or used ashes) while "on the march." Isn't that what is under contention?--Eric (Also, I know of no OT, intertestamental, or rabbinic evidence that the ashes were ever used for anything other than purification [from uncleanness derived through contact with the dead]. If Ron has some, I would actually love to see it and "eat my words." [It would help my research!] I know that present-day Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, set on rebuilding the Temple, are seeking a purely red heifer to use in the reconsecration of priests. But it is not for sin as such. It is with the presumption that they all would have at one point or another have come into direct or indirect contact with the dead.)

Isn't that what is under contention?Not really. That was just my way of explaining why it appears in Numbers rather than in Leviticus. The whole context of Numbers, of course, is the march; its preparation and its record. Numbers begins when the Tabernacle and its furniture had been completed, when they had been camped at Sinai for a whole year. The clans of Israel were then organised for their march. The hourney begins in Numbers 10:33. They were actually already en route when the instructions were given for the red heifer.

Ron--There is a difference between "en route" and "on march." They set up the Tabernacle whenever they stopped. No need for a "ready-made" sacrifice at any of those points.You need to show that such a practice ever existed for while they were walking.And you need to address the absence of evidence for the ashes ever having been used for sin in general.--Eric

EricI did a little digging and found this. Another comfort to me out here on my limb.'The offerer, as it were, puts away his sins from himself, and transfers them upon the living animal'; and that, 'as often as any one sins with his soul, whether from hate or malice, he puts away his sin from himself, and places it upon the head of his sacrifice, and it is an atonement for him.' Hence, also, the principal laid down by Abarbanel, that, 'after the prayer of confession (connected with the imposition of hands) the sins of the children of Israel lay on the sacrifice (of the Day of Atonement).' This, according to Maimonides, explains why every one who had anything to do with the sacrifice of the red heifer or the goat onthe Day of Atonement, or similar offerings, was rendered unclean; since these animals were regarded as actually sin-bearing. In fact, according to Rabbinical expression, thesin-bearing animal is on that ground expressly designated as something to be rejected and abominable. The Christian reader will here be reminded of the Scriptural statement: 'For He has made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'Edersheim: The Temple. Chapter 5. Sacrifices: their order and meaning.There is a whole chapter of Edersheim on Purifications which might be interesting reading to you. I know you have a preference for more modern scholarship but to my mind Edersheim has never been equalled and I doubt that he ever will be.The The Jewish Encyclopaedia also links the Red Heifer to the Scape Goat and the Day of Atonement.And here's a comment from the office of the chief rabbi which includes the statement "Thus far Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Moses Maimonides, however, held that even the chukkim had a rational explanation. His proof is the verse in which Moses says, “Observe [these commands] diligently, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations who when they hear all these statutes will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!’” If the statutes were irrational, how could they inspire the nations with their wisdom? 3 Accordingly,Maimonides argues that the chukkim all have rational explanations, but they not obvious at first sight. Usually, historical investigation will show that they had their origin in an attempt to wean the Israelites away from idolatrous practices, such as seething a kid in its mother’s milk. The red heifer was, he suggests, simply a sin offering that atoned for ritual impurity, much as the scapegoat on Yom Kippur atoned for the sins of Israel. Chukkim, then, are laws designed to combat idolatry.

There is a difference between "en route" and "on march." They set up the Tabernacle whenever they stopped. No need for a "ready-made" sacrifice at any of those points.The priest, of course, had to be clean in order to minister the Tabernacle sacrifices. The red-heifer provided a particular provision for the liklihood of defilement through contact with death. Not unlikely as up to 2.5 million may have died 'on the march'. The administering of the red heifer living waters then served to purify the priest thus freeing him from any disqualifying defilement.I don't want the ashes used for 'sin in general'. The Day of Atonement and the Sin and Trespass Offering were the normal provision; the Red Heifer was of the nature of a emergency measure.

I know that present-day Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, set on rebuilding the Temple, are seeking a purely red heifer to use in the reconsecration of priests.I knew this but I think they have something of a Catch 22 situation on their hands. The Red Heifer had to be sacrificed by a priest, a clean man had to gather the ashes, a clean person had to reconstitute the sacrifice by adding living water, and a clean person had to do the sprinkling.How shall we provide a purification when there is no purified priest able to do administer the purifying. Once the system had broken down and priests become defiled through contact with the dead there was no way to restart the cycle.In fact, from the beginning of Israel's priesthood the system had to keep operating in order to be valid. It began with Moses as the mediator of that Covenant, and was self-sustaining as long as it didn't stop. When it stopped the only way to have restarted it would have had to be with pure priests, but as there are no pure priests to prepare the red heifer...as I said, Catch 22.

as I said, Catch 22.I have read where someone thought they had an inside on an ancient vial of red heifer ashes. I forget where I read it, but I think they are looking for something like that also. Personally I think coming up with the Ark of the Covenant will be the most challenging thing. I have been itching to call some of my Messianic contacts to ask about this, but I'm sure it will cause a stink so I'll leave it alone. They field so many calls like that that it leaves them thinking people who call with those questions think that's all their good for. Sort of like the old saying, "they only call when they want something." I don't want to sound elementary here, but if the purification was for the priests- are we not kings and priests unto our God? Does not our contact with those 'dead' in trespasses and sins leave us needing our conscience purged from the dead works that are brought on by our contact with the world? Speaking in metaphors of course, I heard an evangelist say that we are in the world and the world has a tendency to 'rub off' on us that we need to be cleansed before we can come boldlybefore the throne of grace again. That affected personality must be cleansed (as it were) and a freshness reobtained. The Nazarites were also to not touch a dead body. Samson, Samuel, and John Baptist were Nazarites for life. Samson touched the dead in violation of the law of the Nazarite. Samuel mingled among the people but also wore the ephod. John The Baptist lived in a desert place. Nazarites were to live utterly holy unto the Lord. Samson touched the unclean thing and eventually the Lord departed from him. Samuel was cleansed of the unclean thing and kept himself. John Baptist abstained from the vice of the city living in a desert place. The multitudes came out to him and on his terms (and 'turf)'.Which category if any do we fit into? Shall we be like Samson? Shall we be like Samuel? Shall we be like John Baptist? Personally I believe we are called to reach the world. This means we must have some contact with 'the dead.' We can "keep ourselves" by yielding to the Holy Spirit and the cleansing away of all that defiles by the blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit must appropriate the blood to my conscience in order for me to walk before God with a pure conscience. The ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkling the unclean did for the bodies of the Levitical priests what the Holy Spirit does with the blood of Christ upon the conscience's of the priesthood of all believers. God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertI don't want to sound elementary here, but if the purification was for the priests- are we not kings and priests unto our God? Does not our contact with those 'dead' in trespasses and sins leave us needing our conscience purged from the dead works that are brought on by our contact with the world? Speaking in metaphors of course, I heard an evangelist say that we are in the world and the world has a tendency to 'rub off' on us that we need to be cleansed before we can come boldlybefore the throne of grace again. That affected personality must be cleansed (as it were) and a freshness reobtained. There’s a passage of Watchman Nee that came to mind…In John's Gospel there is recorded an event which only he has preserved for us. It is an event full of divine meaning and one which greatly helps to illumine for us this problem of living in the world. I refer to the incident in Chapter 13 in which our Lord Jesus girds himself with a towel, and taking a basin, washes his disciples' feet. This action of Jesus has lessons to teach us which I do not propose to go into fully here. Instead I want us to look in particular at his command which follows it. "Ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should also do as I have done to you.... If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them" (verses 14-17). What is this mutual feet washing? What does it mean that I should wash my brother's feet and that my feet should be washed by my brother?The aspect of truth specially emphasized here is refreshment. As we shall shortly see, it is something very dear to the Lord that we as his children should learn to minister refreshment to our brethren, and that they in turn should be a means of refreshment to our spirits.Let me say at once that this passage does not concern sins. Whether I go barefoot or wearing sandals, or even shoes, the dust that gathers on my feet is something inevitable. I cannot avoid it. But for me to have a fall, and having fallen to roll in the dust so that it collects on my body and on my clothes-that is not inevitable; it is altogether wrong! I have to walk from one place to another, but it is quite unnecessary for me to roll along the street in order to get there. I can do so without floundering in the mud!Equally in the Christian life, to stumble and fall and then to flounder in the dust is sin, certainly. It calls for repentance and it needs God's forgiveness. For it is not necessary for me to walk with the Lord like that, hiding behind the excuse that "I must fall once in a while; it is inevitable!" That, we all agree, is wrong.But the point about the dust on our feet is this, that in walking through the world, no matter who we are or how careful we may be, it is inevitable table that our feet will collect something. Of course if we do not touch the earth at all, we certainly pick up nothing, but to achieve this we should have to be carried around. If we do touch the ground-and who seriously expects not to?-we are certain to pick up what is there. Even our Lord Jesus rebuked his host with the words: "Thou gayest me no water for my feet" (Luke 7:44). So please remember that the mutual washing in John 13 is not concerned with sins committed, for which there is always forgiveness through the Blood, but from which anyway God intends that we should be delivered. No, it is concerned rather with our daily walk through the world, during which it is unavoidable that we shall contract something. "Ye are clean," Jesus says. The precious Blood sees to that. "He that is bathed needeth not ..." and as far as sin is concerned the sentence might end there. But move about in Satan's kingdom and something certainly clings to us. Like a film upon us it comes between us and our Lord. This is inescapable, simply because we are touching the world's things all the time, its business and its pleasures, its corrupt scale of values and its whole ungodly outlook. Hence the words with which Jesus concludes: "... save to wash his feet."‘Love not the world’ Chapter 8: Mutual Refreshing .I like the way he distinguishes between inevitable dust and non-inevitable sin.

I like the way he distinguishes between inevitable dust and non-inevitable sin.Hi Bro. Ron,Yes, that is a very good point. I also like the way he emphasizes our need to refresh each other. I think of the passade... even the much more as you see that day approaching.God Bless,-Robert

Ron--Now you're talking about "purification from defilement." Why have you been fighting me all along?My point was that they were not used for sin in general but for uncleanness. I'm not sure there would have been any need for any "emergency measures" while on march: there were no Tabernacle precincts to keep holy and those who were unclean could have been easily kept away from the priests and Levites. If a priest did become unclean, he had no duties as such until they reached their next destination anyway. But even so, were I to grant the necessity of "emergency measures," it would only be for the self-same "purification from defilement" and not as an offering for sin.--Eric

But even so, were I to grant the necessity of "emergency measures," it would only be for the self-same "purification from defilement" and not as an offering for sin.Have you looked at all the references I gave where the red-heifer is specifically stated to be a form of 'sin offering'?My point is has always been that it was a particular form of 'sin offering'. There was no distinction between 'sin' and 'ceremonial sin'. The transgression was contact with death which was forbidden to priests. The consequence was 'uncleanness' which can only be dealt with through a sin offering.The chief rabbi says The red heifer was, he suggests, simply a sin offering that atoned for ritual impurity, much as the scapegoat on Yom Kippur atoned for the sins of Israel. It's not often I get to agree with a chief rabbi; I intend to cherish the moment. 8-)

Ron--You wrote:"My point is has always been that it was a particular form of 'sin offering'. There was no distinction between 'sin' and 'ceremonial sin'. The transgression was contact with death which was forbidden to priests. The consequence was 'uncleanness' which can only be dealt with through a sin offering."Well, Ron, my point has always been that it was not a sin offering like other sin offerings. (You now appear to be agreeing.)Though they made no distinction between sin and ceremonial uncleanness, we do. Christ did not die for my ritual impurity.As for the "Catch 22." I have heard that some groups are indeed seeking a vial of red heifer ashes. I'm not so sure there would be any need. At the dedications of the Tabernacle (Exodus 29), Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 8), and Zerubbabel's Temple (Ezra 6), no mention is made of the sacrifice of a single heifer. The latter two may have had leftover ash to use, but Aaron would have had no such recourse. Bull's blood applied to his ear lobes, thumbs, and big toes was sufficient...despite his undoubted previous contact with the dead.--Eric

"My point is has always been that it was a particular form of 'sin offering'. There was no distinction between 'sin' and 'ceremonial sin'. The transgression was contact with death which was forbidden to priests. The consequence was 'uncleanness' which can only be dealt with through a sin offering."Well, Ron, my point has always been that it was not a sin offering like other sin offerings. (You now appear to be agreeing.)Ron posted on 16/12/04: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.[/i]Ron posted on 23/12/04: 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.If you are now saying that it is a kind of sin-offering you are agreeing with me and with the Chief Rabbi. (still relishing this moment of accord with the Chief Rabbi. 8-) The thought of being able to start a sentence with the phrase 'The Chief Rabbi and I...' has touched something deep in my peculiar sense of humour)Though they made no distinction between sin and ceremonial uncleanness, we do. Christ did not die for my ritual impurity.No He did not. The point I have trying to make was that ritual uncleanness as a result of priests contacting death when they had been forbidden to do so was 'sin', just as any defiance of any other law was sin. The sense that implies 'it was only a ritual defilement' dilutes the importance of a genuine defilement.The latter two may have had leftover ash to use, but Aaron would have had no such recourse. Bull's blood applied to his ear lobes, thumbs, and big toes was sufficient...despite his undoubted previous contact with the dead.Aaron needed no such resource. His cleansing was effected by the ritual bathing and a sin offering. This initiation of the Levitcal cycle was accomplished by the Mediator of the Covenant. A close look at Lev 8 will show that Moses did the whole thing. From that time on Aaron was prime priest, but it was Moses who initiated the Levitical priesthood. This kicked off the whole cycle with a clean high priest.

Ron--Do you have to work at being obtuse, or do you come about it naturally? ;-)Your Dec. 23, 2004 post did indeed say, "It is not a sin-offering as defined in Leviticus, I have already said so." But then you went on to remark, "What I am saying is that the normal pattern of sin-offering was not possible when Israel were on the march." Can't you see that an alternate, emergency "sin-offering" must correspond to the normal pattern of sin-offering? It must be sin-offering "plan B" to the normal pattern's "plan A"...not a wave offering or a ritual purification. My own guess is that there was no "plan B," but your proposed solution is clearly ad hoc.Yes, the Red Heifer was a sin-offering in their eyes (though not in ours). But even in theirs it was a particular type of sin-offering and its use cannot be viewed as indiscriminate. The high priest can never say, "Well, I guess we'll just use Red Heifer ash for leprosy purification this year; we're short on sacrificial birds...."Red Heifer ash was never designated for any use other than purification from uncleanness caused by contact with the dead. That's it, period.So, if you want to make of it some generalized sin-offering, you're wrong. Even during the march, it would not be seen as a generalized sin-offering. It was never intended to be seen in such a way.That's where we disagree. And we still distinctly disagree.:-D Love ya anyway,--Eric

So, if you want to make of it some generalized sin-offering, you're wrong. Even during the march, it would not be seen as a generalized sin-offering. It was never intended to be seen in such a way.I don't and I didn't, but I think you stopped listening to what I was saying a long time ago. Me and the Chief Rabbi will just have to disagree with you. 8-) obtuse: dull-witted, slow to understand, more than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. Yes, you can put me down for any of them. No I don't have to work at it; it just comes natural. I would like to be sharp wittted and quick to understand. You must explain to me how you manage it. :-D

Ron--Over and over and over again you called it a generalized sin offering. I know you didn't use those words, but you certainly weren't talking about ritual purification taking place during the march.I never stopped listening, but at some point utter confusion sets in when you keep saying you never said what you said and never meant what you meant.Evidently, I am no where near "sharp witted" enough to wade through prose that can be taken to mean anything you wish it to mean at a later date.It seems you are saying we never disagreed on anything. Or did we? Or did we ever even have this conversation? I'm no longer quite sure.--Eric

Over and over and over again you called it a generalized sin offering. I know you didn't use those words, but you certainly weren't talking about ritual purification taking place during the march.You are quite right that I didn't call it a 'generalised sin offering' because I never considered it as such. I never regarded it as a substitute for the tabernacle based sin offering, but as an emergency provision. Its position in Numbers rather than Leviticus led me to note that it would have been peculiarly suited to the emergency of the march when the tabernacle was not erected.It was 'of the nature' of sin offering, not a replacement for the sin offering. The march, after all would only have taken 11 days if sin had not intervened. (Deut 1:2) I know that Israel later used the red heifer offering in its ordinary occupancy of the promised land; but later usage is no guarantee of understanding. Aaron's initial cleansing was accomplished by the ritual of the sin offering and bathing at the laver. Why institute another offering (the red heifer) when the sin offering would have achieved the same purpose? My answer to this is simple; because in the moment of the march neither the altar nor the laver would have been available to them.I don't know why you have not commented on the documentation I supplied from Christian and Jewish writers who concur in recognising that the red heifer was 'a form of sin offering'. You asked for rabbinic evidence and I have provided it; ancient and modern. Are you in disgreement with them too?It seems you are saying we never disagreed on anything. Or did we? As I wrote the original piece agreement or disagreement is your perogative rather than mine; although I have been known to disagree with myself at times! :-) Nothing that you have written has made me need to revise my initial comments. Me and the Chief Rabbi are pretty close on this one! :-D

Me and the Chief Rabbi are pretty close on this one!It would seem to me that the Rabbi's would be open to an understanding of the Gospel through this teaching. It is an angle I never heard at the Institute and if certain Rabbi's past and present are in agreement- it would seem at least plausable that the teaching would be quite useful. -Robert

Ron--You say:"I never regarded it as a substitute for the tabernacle based sin offering, but as an emergency provision."An emergency provision for what? For generalized sin? Or for uncleanness caused by contact with the dead? If the former, then you are indeed regarding it as a substitute for the tabernacle-based sin offering. Your original piece was predicated on its being an "as needed" substitution (or as you playfully suggested re-constitution) for the cross-based sin offering.It is indeed my perogative to agree or disagree with your original premise. (For the record, I disagreed.) But it is your perogative to change your mind and abandon your premise...which at times it has sounded as if you were willing to do.Your original premise is faulty. Hebrews 9 says nothing of the sort. Verse 15 says, "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." He calls. We don't decide willy-nilly when we will come back for some more of that good old ash-water mixture.I see no need to interact with your rabbinic evidence. You yourself have admitted that it was not your normal run-of-the-mill sin offering. I say, fine, case closed on that evidence. Let's move on to what is actually relevant. How is this ritual purification connected to Christ's offering?Hebrews 9 clearly tells us. All of the "sin offerings" of the Old Testament achieved only superficial (outer) cleansing. Jesus has provided us with the profound, life-changing, inner cleansing of our consciences. Once for all, once for all time. Not annually. Not when we feel like it. Not when we have "need" of it. Once for all. For those who are called unto Christ Jesus. He doesn't come and go. He is faithful. Yours in Him,--Eric

I see no need to interact with your rabbinic evidence. You yourself have admitted that it was not your normal run-of-the-mill sin offering. I say, fine, case closed on that evidence. Let's move on to what is actually relevant. How is this ritual purification connected to Christ's offering?It was not an admission but part of the original thesis.Hebrews 9 clearly tells us. All of the "sin offerings" of the Old Testament achieved only superficial (outer) cleansing. Jesus has provided us with the profound, life-changing, inner cleansing of our consciences. Once for all, once for all time. Not annually. Not when we feel like it. Not when we have "need" of it. Once for all. For those who are called unto Christ Jesus. He doesn't come and go.True, but the purpose of my original contribution was to show that a gap could and sometimes did exist between the 'sacrifice' and its 'application'. Between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. The 'living water' was required in this context to apply the accomplished remedy. This 'living water' I linked with the 'living waters of the Spirit' who makes the sacrifice of Christ real to me. It was originally posted on another site in a conversation with one who stated that Christ's accomplished redemption was inevitably applied to the unconditionally elect. I was seeking to show that the availability of the remedy was not a guarantee of its application.

Ron-And so we get to the nitty-gritty of what you were trying to say and which I wished to refute:The fact that the sacrifices of the OT had to be re-applied (such "that the availability of the remedy was not a guarantee of its application") is not in any way analogous to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Only with the red heifer was there a gap between redemption and application. Why did you choose to highlight the one exception rather than the usual rule...that redemption and application were simultaneous? Was it merely because it suited your purposes? (Sorry, but I simply cannot see any other plausible rationale. The NT doesn't single out the red heifer as the only sacrifice similar to Christ's.)Certainly, there is a sense in which the redemption procured by Christ on the cross is applied to those of us coming 2000 years later in our baptisms (and/or confirmations).Catholics, for example, are very clear that the Mass applies the grace of the atonement in our own time (and they are constantly having to counter the Protestant notion that Christ is re-sacrificed in the Roman Mass). Unlike the red heifer (of which, according to the rabbis, there were 9 or 10), Christ's sacrifice has never been repeated (nor can it be, nor need it be).Like the red heifer, Christ's long-ago sacrifice is indeed applied to us who by accident of birth live in the present age.Like the yom kippur sacrifices, the justification won for us on the cross was applied simultaneously with His atoning death and subsequent resurrection.The unconditionally elect will be justified, the application is 100% guaranteed. As far as I can see, your thesis does nothing whatsoever to disprove that. That's why I've been fighting you on this.Nevertheless, wishing you all the best,--Eric

Hello there, I thought you had given up on this theme. The crunch, of course, is Like the yom kippur sacrifices, the justification won for us on the cross was applied simultaneously with His atoning death and subsequent resurrection.which is where I started with the idea of 'Redemption: accomplished and applied.' The yom kippur sacrifice was indeed for the whole of the people, but who were 'the people'? This is where I return to Ex 19 and the 'if -then' statement given at Sinai. Three times the 'people' were required to 'opt in' to this covenant. And that number of the 'people' was not fixed as others could be added to the covenant people .So our struggle over the pawn of the red heifer was really part of a much wider strategy? I had not registered this or I would have understood your tenacity much earlier. If you think we have struggled over 'the red heifer' the prospect of the clearer conflict is awesome, as you American's say.Now shall we move on to the 'unconditionally elect'? If we do, can we do so 'verse by verse' rather than copying out slabs of texts? I have to confess that I never read more than two or three texts quoted in this way; not that this has been your style. Is there one text or passage above all others that you would see as your locus classicus for this doctrine?

wow...this has been most entertaining...if only you could see it from a layman's point of view. the wto of you are so alike it is scary...like long lost brethren. I mean two people so well versed and schooled on the Word...I feel...inadequate...

I am a layman

really? it didn't sound like it from this end. I did have a question though. For those of us who are not even aware of such sacrificial requirements, how does it help in our walk of faith given that we haven't for whatever reason learned about these things?Just curious

The whole purpose of the original post was to show that this sacrifice did not have an automatic effect but needed a moment of appropriation. It is the difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Until the 'sacrifice' was applied to the 'transgressor' it did not benefit him.So Christ's death requires personal application, and is not an automatic consequence. Would you think that important?

The whole purpose of the original post was to show that this sacrifice did not have an automatic effect but needed a moment of appropriation. It is the difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Until the 'sacrifice' was applied to the 'transgressor' it did not benefit him.So Christ's death requires personal application, and is not an automatic consequence. Would you think that important?I think that is important, it's just that pulling that out of the myriad of big words and long explanations (for me at least) was impossible. After the first few posts I found myself lost and unsure what the point was :-? Perhaps the point could have been made in a simpler way? All I could see however was that it seemed that you met your match, found someone as knowledgeable of these things as yourself that you could have a discssion with. It seems Eric has some good points which may cause you to rethink some of your beliefs or interpretations of scripture? Or at least give you more of a challenge during a discussion.

It seems Eric has some good points which may cause you to rethink some of your beliefs or interpretations of scripture? Or at least give you more of a challenge during a discussion.I welcome and encourage challenge of my views. I am constantly rethinking my beliefs and interpretations of scripture. I have been doing so for almost 50 years and will do so to my last breath. I don't regard challenge as a threat. I have nothing to lose but my errors.

I welcome and encourage challenge of my views. I am constantly rethinking my beliefs and interpretations of scripture. I have been doing so for almost 50 years and will do so to my last breath. I don't regard challenge as a threat. I have nothing to lose but my errors.we could all learn from thay attitude, thanks Ron

Ironman--I'm with Ron on that one. We have nothing to lose but our errors. If only we were better at doing so.I never feel threatened, but I do sometimes feel frustrated. Though it is good to have people with strong convictions "stick to their guns" as it were, most of us are better at teaching than being taught. That includes me.As a result, even though we have many errors in our thinking that we'd be better off without, we hang onto them tenaciously. Why? Because we identify too closely with them: "My name is Eric, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. If you dare to attack Calvinism, you attack me!"It's really difficult to get away from that sort of thinking. Plus, we too easily imagine ourselves the savior of the world: "Christendom is going to hell in a handbasket because of... (fill in the blank). If only everyone would just learn to agree with me, this old earth would be a great place to live."I honestly believe that Arminianism detracts from a Christian's walk with God. But I don't think there is that much difference between a devout Arminian and a devout Calvinist. My sainted Grandmother was a Wesleyan through and through, and I will never touch her level of holiness. We should quit treating each other as pariahs. I'm sure the Evil One rubs his hands in glee over some of our inane tussles.If Ron has some winning arguments up his sleeve, I'll be glad to give him a listen. But he'll need the patience of Job (or better yet, the patience of God with Job). I have found the soil of Calvinism incredibly fertile ground.Nonetheless, as a system it deals with God's transcendence better than with His immanence. It emphasizes His sovereign qualities sometimes at the expense of His dynamic qualities (His interpersonal relationship with us).Sorry about any "big words." They are short-cuts that make communication much less of a pain in the butt. Almost always, the concepts behind them are really not that convoluted. We haven't been discussing rocket science. Ask for definitions, and they will be supplied. I'm no major scholar either. I have a Master of Arts in Religion, but that's it.By the way, Ron, I don't think it's the difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied--we both believe in both of those tenets. It's the difference between redemption applied (by Christ Himself) and redemption appropriated (by the Believer, at Christ's invitation). I don't believe there's any "appropriation" going on. That's why we've had this lovely conversation!At any rate, love to you all,--Eric

I've followed this thread, read and re-read it several times and even came across a couple of commentaries that described the Red Heifer ashes as an emerengcy offering but also note the reason it was nessary was due to the large numbers of deaths that would transpire during the wilderness journeys and they went into detail. As soon as I finially came to understanding that part of the post it started to take some turns and now I do have some questions. In John's epistles he talks about sin and confession for forgiveness, would that be the same as appropriation? If not in what sense do we appropriate the works of Christ into our lives ? Please bear with me here-----Also couldn't a person who is just really simple minded but loves Jesus with all thier heart be completely redeemed without really knowing the hows and whys but they just go on strong inward conviction? And finially , I have had long spells of trying to clarify the roles or better put, the man ward side of continued grace in salvation and the God ward side. I know that steps on the toes of Calvinists but I have to believe that we have some responsibility in the relationship and its finial outcome? I'll watch for your responses . God Blesss Bro. Daryl

EricI did get a hint of your frustration as I read through your discussion with Ron, saw a bit of what seemed to be sarcasm (that was funny) and a freakishly similar tenacity about getting the point across. The both of you are rather stubborn. It was entertaining though watching/reading you going back and forth :) You say you are good at teaching and yet it is hard to teach you despite you knowing that there are errors in your thinking. Interesting. Being a teacher is a hard thing, but it requires absolute surety of the truth in what you are teaching because many souls depend on this. If one iota of whatever you teach is wrong, that puts a lot of people in danger. Teachers will also be judged pretty harshly so in all the things you teach, be sure that they are born of the spirit of God, anything less than that does only harm. This may mean abandoning prior beliefs which you may have held for as long as you can remember and conceding that you know less than you think. It's better to do that now rather than spend eternity paying for it. the big words threw me for a loop, maybe a few others so it was a little difficult to follow the thread and understand it all. At some point I kinda didn't remember what it was all about :-? oh so you're no major scholar you say? jus happen to have a master's in religion? man I don't even have a masters :-P At any rate that's more education than most so naturally people will be looking for instruction from you both and I feel that to teach others well, you have to learn well from the Spirit, you can't go wrong with that.the two of you are eerily alike...like buns...perhaps you ARE long-lost brothers :-P

As a result, even though we have many errors in our thinking that we'd be better off without, we hang onto them tenaciously. Why? Because we identify too closely with them: "My name is Eric, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. If you dare to attack Calvinism, you attack me!"Hi EricIt must be reassuring to be able to put yourself under a single label.? ;-) What am I? How long have you got? I am opposed to some of the tenets of Calvinism, but never anti-Calvinist. The system I have strong objections to, the people (that I have met) are great. I love the God-orientation of Calvinists. I think it was Packer who said there are no non-Calvinists just some confused Calvinists. I don't feel confused.I have a tendency to spring to the defence of my friends rather than systems, so these pages have seen me defending just about everybody whose system I have challenged. I have even defended Calvin in his dealings with Servitus. Luther against the anabaptists. Spurgeon against lots of folk. Matthew Henry against people who thought his commentary was 'wooden'. Even Finney, whose theology is the most convoluted thing I have ever read in my life, has had my support. Attacks on Wesley will really rattle my chain, although I think Whitefield was the 'nicer' character. I defend Pentecostals against the cessationists, and almost any underdog will get my support.If you find a label that fits, I am sure you will let me know. "congenital non-conformist' might fit? I like to think of myself as a 'Bible-Christian'. I am open, I trust, to revelation and reason, but not to tradition without challenge. I am a natural sceptic, but I easily embrace revelation and/or reason. So, back to the underlying question. Is covenant imposed or invited? And please understand that I shall not be challenging Calvin's views but yours! :-D

Hey, Daryl--I would love to have those references and see who is saying such things. The number of commentaries out there is un-be-liev-a-ble!Yes, confession of sin would indeed appropriate forgiveness. But this is a matter of discipline of the Spirit within the process of sanctification. Justification is a gift and is received rather than acquired. I must admit I don't know how the LORD will judge those with simple faith. Mormons may "love Jesus with all their hearts" but the Jesus whom they love is hard to recognize as the one the rest of us know and love. So, my guess is that if it actually IS Jesus whom they are faithful to with their simple lives, nothing more is required. Theology is there to help point the way to the True One.Calvinists are by and large "synergists" (together-workers) when it comes to sanctification. In other words, we do indeed work together with God to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling). Even in terms of the final outcome, Calvinists talk about "perseverance" rather than "eternal security" (the Dispensationalist stance). We must put out the effort to persevere. We can't just put our lives on auto-pilot: "Well, I prayed 'the prayer' once a long time ago and that's good enough."We do believe that God is faithful and that we cannot slip out of his hand. With his help, we will persevere...though it may well be difficult.We believe that justification (being declared righteous before the Father because of the atoning blood of Jesus the Christ) is a monergistic (working-alone) act of God. This initial forgiveness cannot be appropriated by an unregenerate man or woman. They must first be "made alive" in Christ and clothed with his righteousness. Then they can start working on their own holiness (with the direction and strengthening of the Spirit).So, as far as I know, you didn't "step on my toes" at all.Good to hear from you,--Eric

Ironman--I don't think teaching requires absolute surety and here's why: the only people who are ABSOLUTELY sure that everything they say is correct are either deluded or unbelievably arrogant. If we wait till we know that we know that we know our theology is right, we will never speak at all. I take my responsibility seriously. I check and double check. I don't actually KNOW any particular place I am in error. (If I did, I'd change it, wouldn't I?) I assume since I'm human that there are all kinds of things I'm at least fuzzy on.If shown to be in error by the plain truth of Scripture, I have no problem with "abandoning prior beliefs." That's part of what I was saying: I'm by no means married to these ideas I currently espouse. I don't have "Calvinist" tatooed on my forehead. I will be led of God wherever he will lead.Probably more than anything else, I am a Calvinist because I have most clearly seen the heart of Christ in passionate, irenic men of God like J.I. Packer, Roger Nicole, and Francis Schaeffer. Don't get me wrong, I love Tozer and Billy Graham and Wesley and Moody (and on and on). But I always feel like they're missing something, something important. Something I believe Reformed Theology imparts.All the best,--Eric

Ron--I cannot be subsumed under any one label either (other than the one you took for yourself: biblical Christian). I actually would rather be called Augustinian (or even Pauline...but that strikes everyone as presumptive). I do not toe the party line. I'm Reformed mostly on the Doctrines of Grace (concerning justification, election, and perseverance).Calvin, Beza, Knox, the Westminster Divines, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Gerstner, Sproul, Horton, Piper, Grudem, etc. all strike me as at least a tad too harsh, too dogmatic. I don't like the bent toward cessationism, anti-Romanism, and dry academics in theology. I think Reformed stances on God's immutability and impassability are often too inflexible. My God is not a machine.I don't defend Calvin concerning Servetus. He messed up and there's no excuse. (I don't care how many thousand Albigensians, Cathari, Waldensians, and Huguenots those "detestable" Catholics tortured and killed.) Two wrongs simply never make a right. Luther's attitude toward Anabaptists and Jews was despicable. Finney was pretty close to an out-and-out heretic and you won't find me defending his "convoluted theology." (No matter how much good he did on the social front...though I will say I would like to see Evangelicals emulate him there.) And I agree, Pentecostals should be defended against cessationists, but they ought also be brought to task to raise the bar concerning order, decorum, and discernment.How in the world do you go about defending Spurgeon? He is so saturated with Calvinism that I don't see how anybody could extricate the tiniest morsel without its being dripping in sauce. I wouldn't think to label you, but you do seem to be opposed to most of the distinctives of Calvinism and the system as a whole appears at times to horrify you. To me the Doctrines of Grace are the very Gospel, and as the Gospel they are all in all...they are the "earth and sky."I think the fifth point (the P of the TULIP) is the dearest to me. I once told an Arminian (he wouldn't have minded the label) that it felt to me like this assurance of the faithfulness of God was the heart of the Gospel. Without blinking an eye (and reacting as if to self-evident nonsense), he replied, "Well, of course, that's not true."******************************************Imposed or invited!!? How in heaven's name does one impose OR invite deliverance?To quote a well-known Arminian:Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature's night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee....Love ya, brother--Eric

I'll look for that commentary for you and post it and the reference page. I have to admitt that I only have a basic understanding of both the armenian(sp?) view and the calvanistic view. Haveing a RC (roman catholic) back ground but having been lead to Christ by a penecostal preacher and discipled AG/ then later Church of God, I have to admitt that much of what they preach is more suited to one losing thier salvation then the ability of God being able to keep us from falling away. I didn't relize that eternal security was part of the calvanistic doctrine though. I sometimes think that God raises up men of extremes to counter balance when things get get loopsided, Like the doctrine of ....say....sinless perfection from a John Wesley. Or a more calvanistic approach to Christ from say a Luther, who as I understand was more calvanistic than Calvin was. But they seem to be men of extremes to counter trends in thier day that were going to far to the right or left?. Any way, God Bless --- Daryl

Daryl--Both RC's and AG's believe you can lose your salvation (although it's difficult under the RC system...you'd just end up going through a longer period of Purgatory).Calvinists do NOT believe in (the Baptist doctrine of) "eternal security" but in "perseverance" which requires more of the believer but has the same end result.Luther may have been even stronger than Calvin on believers coming to faith through "election" (predestination) but if my understanding is correct, Luther believed that you could lose your salvation.I tend to think people who struggle to find the godly "middle" where there is firm ground to stand upon bring more balance than the extremists on either side of an issue...but everyone has their place.--Eric

How in the world do you go about defending Spurgeon? He is so saturated with Calvinism that I don't see how anybody could extricate the tiniest morsel without its being dripping in sauce.He speaks to my heart.I see from your last post that you are I are probably just theological mongrels! :-D Perhaps that's what I should answer when people ask me what I am.I tend to think people who struggle to find the godly "middle" where there is firm ground to stand upon bring more balance than the extremists on either side of an issue...but everyone has their place. You can sometimes effect a balance by putting equal weight at both extremes.

The Church of God and the AG , like Luther both believe that salvation can be lost. I see the scripture texts they use but dispite all that I still look at obscure scripture like Paul's statement on being judged in the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of judgement, and his statement to the church at Corinth where he said because of misuse of the Lord's table some were sickly and some went to sleep---I take that as died physically. I've never been able to reconcile that instance of physical death as lost salvation. So even though I'm not very studied in the matter I do differ somewhat with my own fellowships doctrine there. I do like the idea of perseverance where I can see the grace of God working with the saints but I don't really know enough about the reformed doctrines to ---at least---intelectually, understand them or comment on them. As you and Ron went back and forth I saw points on both sides I could see and agreed with. So balance is a difficult task, a very difficult task. But the one thing I've observed in ministering to people is that if they think they might go to hell by losing thier salvation they generally never learn to just simply love God for who He is and what He's done for them. They seem to stay bound up in fear and that moves them toward legalistic forms of service and worship, I feel out of a wrong motive, for sure not out of love. Bro. Daryl

EricTo teach (assuming this is your responsibility in the kingdom of God) does not rely on what you know but entirely on revelation from the Holy spirit, God will teach through you. Theology, other ologies, isms etc are of no consequence unless they are in line with God. They can become hinderences in our service to God as they become the source of ideas of what we can do for God rather than God HImself being the source. Of late God has been dealing with me such that I am abandoning my past beliefs for whatever He teaches me, in short He showed me that I knew nothing at all of Him. to be effective for Him in the kingdom we need to come to grips with that.are you a preacher by way?

Ironman--We are all called to be preachers--at least with our lives--but I have no such role (in a formal sense) at this time.Teaching cannot possibly rely entirely on revelation. We must have a grid of knowledge to help evaluate whether messages are from God (or just the effects of an undigested piece of sausage). Good men have misread the intentions of the Spirit. Prophecies and interpretations and teachings need to be in line with Scripture. They need to be in line with the consensus of tradition (at least the first four Ecumenical Councils...and major creeds like the Nicene and Apostles'). We also need to be held accountible by those more mature in the faith and by those in ecclesiastical authority over us.Theology that is held by mere intellectual assent can indeed be a hindrance. I do my best to bring my beliefs in line with what the Spirit is teaching me. Sometimes that means abandoning past beliefs, but more often it means holding onto them for all I'm worth.Don't get the notion that the Spirit can only teach through emotion or mystical experience or life situations or prayer and meditation. There is nothing unsanctified in diligent study of the Word, nothing unholy in systematic theology.Nothing keeps the idea that I have nothing of value to offer God and that he is to be my one and only source quite like my theology. It is a tremendous boon and not a detriment at all.--Eric

EricI agree with you concerning our lives being atestament to God's glory and mercy and grace. Indeed in the past men have messed up concerning the leadings of the spirit etc. For us to be sure that prophecy and such line up with scripture we also have to be looking at scripture through the spiritual eyes so it is interpreted perfectly. As for lining up with the 4 ecumenical councils I'm unsure what those entail, could you summerize that in a way that a layman like myself could understand, ie no words more than 5 syllables :-P it is good that you are prepared to abandon past beliefs for new ones if the spirit leads you to do so. That's what God has been teaching me lately. God does not always instruct through emotion etc, I agree and I'm not saying that we should abandon all scriptural study at all. we should however be cautious of the spirit in which we search scripture, is it for God's glory or our own? that should be the question we answer before we do anything, "Am I doing this for the glory of God truly, or for my own?"

Don't get the notion that the Spirit can only teach through emotion or mystical experience or life situations or prayer and meditation. There is nothing unsanctified in diligent study of the Word, nothing unholy in systematic theology.by the way I feel that sometimes we get so wrapt up in geting book knowledge that we tend to leave out revelations of the spirit altogether. We need both.

Hey, The first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicea [325 AD], Constantinople [381 AD], Ephesus [431 AD], and Chalcedon [451 AD]) established such orthodox theological notions as the complete humanity and divinity of Christ, agreed upon the Nicene Creed as a true summary of the faith, and laid down organizing decrees for the governance of the church. Their rulings (especially concerning the nature of Christ) are considered normative by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and by the vast majority of Protestants.Hope that helps,--Eric

EricSo are you saying that all Christian understanding must be consistent with the Scriptures AND the first four Ecumenical Councils? Do we need to add the first four Ecumenicals Council decisions to the canon? My suspicion hairs on the back of my neck begin to prickle with the 'church governance' elements that you mention, as church government was well astray 200 years before Nicea.

Ron--Those hairs of yours are right on target. The Ecumenical Councils are not part of the canon and may indeed err in specifics (although they helped to establish the canon as we know it). On Trinitarian and Christological matters, however, they represent an almost universal consensus in the church down through the years even to our day. Their is nothing wrong with writing down what we have learned from the Spirit as an entire group. And then using that as an ongoing "filter" through which we direct out interpretation of Scripture.--Eric

What do you think about the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral?