This was more for those who are interested in interlinear resources for OT text. For me, OT interlinears are rare to find. I use NT interlinears alot and I want to do the same thing for OT text. Mind you, the Apostolic Polyglot Bible has interlinear structure for both its OT and NT sources but that Bible is new to me.
Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
Rom 11:25 For I do notG3756 G1063 wantG2309 youG1473 to be ignorant,G50 brethren,G80 G3588 of this mystery,G3466 G3778 thatG2443 you should notG3361 beG1510.3 [2inG3844 3yourselvesG1438 1intelligent],G5429 thatG3754 callousnessG4457 [2in partG575 G3313 3 to G3588 4IsraelG* 1has happened]G1096 untilG891 of which time G3739 theG3588 fullnessG4138 of theG3588 nationsG1484 should enter in.G1525
Rom 11:26 AndG2532 soG3779 allG3956 IsraelG* shall be delivered,G4982 asG2531 it has been written,G1125 [3shall comeG2240 4from out ofG1537 5ZionG* 1the oneG3588 2rescuing],G4506 andG2532 he shall turnG654 impious deedsG763 fromG575 Jacob.G*
Rom 11:27 AndG2532 thisG3778 [3to themG1473 1 is theG3588 4byG3844 5meG1473 2covenant],G1242 wheneverG3752 I should removeG851 G3588 their sins.G266 G1473
Rom 11:28 Indeed according toG2596 G3303 theG3588 good news,G2098 enemiesG2190 for your account;G1223 G1473 but according toG2596 G1161 theG3588 selection,G1589 belovedG27 on account ofG1223 theG3588 fathers.G3962
Rom 11:29 For irrevocableG278 G1063 are theG3588 favorsG5486 andG2532 theG3588 callingG2821 G3588 of God.G2316
Rom 11:30 For asG5618 G1063 alsoG2532 youG1473 at some time or otherG4218 resisted persuasionG544 to G3588 God,G2316 but nowG3568 G1161 you were shown mercyG1653 in theG3588 [2of theseG3778 1disobedience];G543
Rom 11:31 soG3779 alsoG2532 theseG3778 nowG3568 resisted persuasionG544 to G3588 yourG5212 mercy,G1656 thatG2443 alsoG2532 theyG1473 should be shown mercy.G1653
Rom 11:32 [3closed upG4788 1ForG1063 G3588 2God]G2316 all of the onesG3588 G3956 inG1519 disobedience,G543 thatG2443 all of the onesG3588 G3956 he should show mercy.G1653
Rom 11:33 OG5599 the depthG899 of wealthG4149 andG2532 wisdomG4678 andG2532 knowledgeG1108 of God;G2316 asG5613 unsearchableG419 G3588 are his judgments,G2917 G1473 andG2532 untraceableG421 G3588 are his ways.G3598 G1473
Rom 11:34 For whoG5100 G1063 knewG1097 the mindG3563 of the Lord,G2962 orG2228 whoG5100 [2his counselorG4825 G1473 1became]?G1096
Rom 11:35 OrG2228 whoG5100 first gaveG4272 to himG1473 andG2532 he shall recompenseG467 to him?G1473
Rom 11:36 ForG3754 from out ofG1537 himG1473 andG2532 throughG1223 himG1473 andG2532 untoG1519 himG1473 are all things.G3588 G3956 To himG1473 be theG3588 gloryG1391 intoG1519 theG3588 eons.G165 Amen.G281
APB
You mean like this? Where is Morphemes?
Last edited:
A more useful version of the ABP format has the original language word mentioned also. See https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/genesis/1.htm
What do you think of the ABP? I'd like to learn more about its sources. In addition to the Vaticanus-Sixtine being a source, it is also sourced from the Aldine Edition, the Lambert Bos Vetus Testamentum, and the Complutensian Polyglot. Very soon the Vatopedi manuscript might be integrated into it. That's quite a few sources that I've only heard about recently.
Syntax is up to the reader who has a decent command of the original language. That's why I shy away from Hebrew.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-known member
Brother-all my life I have been doing WORD studies-not a waste of time but here-allow me to explain-
ABP
Gen 1:1 InG1722 the beginningG746 God madeG4160 G3588 G2316 theG3588 heavenG3772 andG2532 theG3588 earth.G1093
Gen 1:2 But theG3588 G1161 earthG1093 wasG1510.7.3 unseenG517 andG2532 unready,G180.2 andG2532 darknessG4655 was uponG1883 theG3588 abyss,G12 andG2532 spiritG4151 of GodG2316 boreG2018 uponG1883 theG3588 water.G5204
What is missing? The Morphologies.
Gen 1:1 The Creation
In the beginningH7225 Prep-b+N-fs bə·rê·šîṯ בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית N1 createdH1254 H8804 V-Qal-Perf-3ms bā·rā בָּרָ֣א GodH430 N-mp ’ĕ·lō·hîm אֱלֹהִ֑ים -H853 DirObjM ’êṯ אֵ֥ת the heavensH8064 Art+N-mp haš·šā·ma·yim הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם andH853 Conj-w+DirObjM wə·’êṯ וְאֵ֥ת the earth.H776 Art+N-fs hā·’ā·reṣ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Gen 1:2 and the earthH776 Conj-w-Art+N-fs wə·hā·’ā·reṣ וְהָאָ֗רֶץ wasH1961 H8804 V-Qal-Perf-3fs hā·yə·ṯāh הָיְתָ֥ה formless,H8414 N-ms ṯō·hū תֹ֙הוּ֙ and void;H922 Conj-w+N-ms wā·ḇō·hū וָבֹ֔הוּ and darknessH2822 Conj-w+N-ms wə·ḥō·šeḵ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ [was] overH5921 Prep ‘al- עַל־ the faceH6440 N-cpc pə·nê פְּנֵ֣י of the deep.H8415 N-cs ṯə·hō·wm תְה֑וֹם and the SpiritH7307 Conj-w+N-csc wə·rū·aḥ וְר֣וּחַ of GodH430 N-mp ’ĕ·lō·hîm אֱלֹהִ֔ים was hoveringH7363 H8764 V-Piel-Prtcpl-fs mə·ra·ḥe·p̄eṯ מְרַחֶ֖פֶת overH5921 Prep ‘al- עַל־ the faceH6440 N-cpc pə·nê פְּנֵ֥י of the waters.H4325 Art+N-mp ham·mā·yim הַמָּֽיִם׃
Berean Hebrew Study Bible
See that? Wouldn't you like to know the Tenses-Perfect-Plural-Imperfect-Participle-Piel-Pual-Noun- Verb-Feminine-and STUDY that instead of "word studies?"
You say-"Syntax is up to the reader who has a decent command of the original language. That's why I shy away from Hebrew."-NOT SO!
You can get a basic Hebrew and Greek grammar book and I have listened to literally hundreds of debates from rabbis-this is how they study and this is WHY they win their arguments!
We have the tools-it is up to us to USE these tools-
2Ti 2:15 HastenG4704 G5657 V-AMA-2S Spoudason Σπούδασον yourself,G4572 PPro-AM2S seauton, σεαυτὸν, approvedG1384 Adj-AMS dokimon δόκιμον to presentG3936 G5658 V-ANA parastēsai παραστῆσαι -G3588 Art-DMS tō τῷ to GodG2316 N-DMS Theō Θεῷ a workmanG2040 N-AMS ergatēn ἐργάτην not ashamed,G422 Adj-AMS anepaischynton, ἀνεπαίσχυντον, accurately handlingG3718 G5723 V-PPA-AMS orthotomounta ὀρθοτομοῦντα theG3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν wordG3056 N-AMS logon λόγον -G3588 Art-GFS tēs τῆς of truth.G225 N-GFS alētheias. ἀληθείας.
2Ti 2:16 -G3588 Art-AFP Tas Τὰς ButG1161 Conj de δὲ worldly,G952 Adj-AFP bebēlous, βεβήλους, empty babblingsG2757 N-AFP kenophōnias κενοφωνίας avoid,G4026 G5732 V-PMM-2S periistaso, περιΐστασο, onG1909 Prep epi ἐπὶ to moreG4119 Adj-ANS-C pleion πλεῖον forG1063 Conj gar γὰρ they will leadG4298 G5692 V-FIA-3P prokopsousin προκόψουσιν ungodliness,G763 N-GFS asebeias, ἀσεβείας,
See if you can parse this and THEN compare it with scholarly work @synergy-once you get the hang of this-the rest is easy.
You may reject my advice, no problem.
Johann
Diserner
Well-known member
Nice site.
I see that the ABP is missing that morphologies information. Good catch!
I noticed that the biblebento.com website does have morphologies for its LXX and Hebrew quotations.
I'll leave behind the ABP in favor of the Brenton, Orthodox Study Bible, and biblebento.com Hebrew and LXX OT Bible editions.
Johann
Well-known member
biblebento is the same as the Berean Bible in Morphologies brother-but a good site anyway.
What software did you use to copy and paste your Berean Hebrew Study Bible quote?
Johann
Well-known member
e sword and Word brother.
E-sword is my favorite app. I get lost in the other apps like the Logos Bible app and the Blue Letter Bible app.
Johann
Well-known member
I have it for over 30 years.
Diserner
Well-known member
E-sword came out in 2000. I still remember it.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
He could have a time machine.
Diserner
Well-known member
after 20 years it really does all feel the same..
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I had a "pocket pc" device just to run it. A Dell Axim. You should have seen the looks at church when I brought it...
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Morphologies are problematic. It is difficult enough to understand the etymology of most any word much less breaking it apart across multiple languages.
The value of such is hugely overstated.
The best way to understand the origins of words is to study their context and repetitive use within the Scriptures themselves. Which is why I appealed to the Torah in dealing with Isa 53.
The good thing about the ABP is that gives you the ability to do this to some degree with the Strong numbering system. The NETS translations is actually a better translation than the ABP. The ABP is a very good source relative to tagging.
Last edited:
Diserner
Well-known member
I had a "pocket pc" device just to run it. A Dell Axim. You should have seen the looks at church when I brought it...
That's cool I had a Pocket PC too! And a Palm Pilot, remember those, lol.
Smart phones just took over the market.
Johann
Well-known member
from a Christian systematic theology: (Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Eerdmans:1939/41):
[Statement 3] “The possibility of vicarious atonement. All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable objection to the idea of vicarious atonement. They consider it unthinkable that a just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. There is undoubtedly a real difficulty here, especially in view of the fact that this seems to be contrary to all human analogy. We cannot conclude from the possibility of the transfer of a pecuniary debt to that of the transfer of a penal debt. If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver.
This piece will explore this issue…
...................................................................................
As we look at this issue, we will need to keep in mind the distinctions between "what/that" and "how/why".
We will start with the “What/That” (what exactly is 'penal substitution' and what is it not, plus what was it FOR, and 'that' the biblical record teaches it); weaving in the “How” (how does this actually work, and how does it solve the problem it was supposed to solve”), and the “Why” (why was it done this way, rather than some other).
We may not have enough data to get all the way through these questions, but we can at least surface as many of the issues and perspectives as we can. And we can assess the various objections along the way. We will, also, confine our discussion to perps who are seeking forgiveness from God. That is, they are not continuing criminals, persistently perp-ing, or steadfastly self-divinized. Our test case will match the pattern of the individual in the Old Testament/Tanaach who approached Yahweh for the forgiveness of sins.
............................................................
The What.
The basic points of this can be laid out fairly simply:
A moral agent commits a crime of privation/assault/devaluation against God (perhaps through a crime against other moral agents in community, but not necessarily).
Under Reciprocity (philosophy), God --and perhaps others--are obligated to treat the perp under Reciprocity and “pri-vate upon” him, proportionally.
Under Extended Reciprocity (outreach, and not just responsive Reciprocity), the perp owes a debt to all offended parties.
Under God as Legislator/Judge (theology) , God-as-Judge has to apply the law to the perp, necessitating previously-defined punishment.
Under God as Owner, the perp owes to God whatever the perp destroyed/stolen from Him (including his own life, if he had destroyed another's life in the crime).
Essentially, therefore, there are two obligation flows: one from God to the perp, and one from the perp to God. [There are other obligations, of course, between God, the perp, and Moral Others, but we are talking here exclusively about the God-perp relationship. We'll comment on this later below]
These are obligations toward God (commitments, duties, things owed, things deserved, contractually binding tasks, moral imperatives, things-culpable-if-omitted) on the part of the perp.
.......................................
In the area of Law, these are punishments/privations for specific acts done (or left undone), both criminal (as Judge) and civil (as Owner).
In the area of contracts/covenants, these are penalties owed under breach-of-contract, for failure to keep one's commitments (both civil and criminal--as in embezzlement).
In the area of moral reciprocity, there are proportionate responses due from God to the perp, for any action (in this case, for anti-good action).
Continue
Johann
Well-known member
Since the objection to P-S is primarily a 'legal' one, let's start with that:
Law. In our case, we are focused exclusively on God's Law, since the perp—once forgiven by God—will be instructed by God to then submit himself to human law (for reasons of community health).
The substitute of Jesus on the Cross was about satisfying the wrath of God—not of exempting forgiven criminals from human punishment.
But in the realm of God's own law (“the soul that sinneth, it shall die”) this issue is rather straightforward. If God-as-Legislator sets up the legal code to explicitly allow substitution (which He did with the sacrificial system), then ipso facto substitution cannot be 'illegal' in His system!
Whether or not it has parallels in Western Law, ancient tribal law, the rules of secret clubhouses or of Greek sororities has no bearing on the subject of its legality whatsoever. Legality is measured from within a legal code—and God's code explicitly allowed sacrificial substitution, and penal sacrificial substitution at that.
Guilt was something that God could legally (under His revealed Law) transfer to another, given such a request by a repentant forgiveness-seeker. It was not automatic (magical), but a process God set up in his Law (like a bankruptcy law?) for specific cases like this. Let's sketch out the Mosaic procedure first, and then see how the New Testament applies it.
Most readers will already be familiar with this material, but let me go over the basics:
When an Old Testament Israelite broke one of the Mosaic laws, it was always against God, and sometimes against God's people.
When it involved damage to people, the perp had to 'make it up' to the other community member (often with what we would call 'punitive damages', some 'extra' tacked on to the restitution), before or while approaching God for His forgiveness. Never, however, was there a crime only against humans—there was always an offense against God and His law involved too, creating a complicated web of consequences.
Under the general principle of 'the soul that sinneth, it shall die', the perp—if he elected not to pursue forgiveness with God-- should have voluntarily surrendered his/her life to the human penal authorities to be 'cut off' (i.e., either death or banishment from Israel), as punishment (as per the legal statute) for the impurity contracted by sin/trespass, even after having resolved the community damage issues. [The human government had the authority to use force to do this, of course, if the perp were non-compliant.]
However, God had provided an alternate method of satisfying that requirement for certain types of crimes/impurities, by creating the legal procedure of sacrifice.
[Some crimes, however, were not forgivable—the 'presumptuous' crimes were too radically evil to allow the perp to live, and were not followed by repentance or forgiveness-seeking anyway.]
The contrite Israelite who came seeking forgiveness from God brought a live animal (with economic value), as a bloodshed substitute(?) for the person.
The supplicant typically placed his hands on the animal, to somehow 'unite' with it, so that its life/death was somehow shared(?) with the offender.
[In the Day of Atonement ritual, this 'uniting' of the High Priest with the animal is described as the transfer of “ownership” of the guilt of Israel onto the animal.]
The impurity of the Israelite's sin was removed by the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial animal in the act of sacrifice. The offender was then forgiven by God, and allowed to continue living in the community and under God's blessing.
This accomplished two goals: expiation (removal of sin from the offender) and propitiation (a balancing of God's moral outrage/wrath, with satisfaction of His sense/claims of justice).
Consequences of the sin-act, however, were typically not “immediately” remedied: community damage to trust, reputation, vitality was still compromised, and the effects of the sin on the supplicant's moral faculty was still real.
Continue--
Law. In our case, we are focused exclusively on God's Law, since the perp—once forgiven by God—will be instructed by God to then submit himself to human law (for reasons of community health).
The substitute of Jesus on the Cross was about satisfying the wrath of God—not of exempting forgiven criminals from human punishment.
But in the realm of God's own law (“the soul that sinneth, it shall die”) this issue is rather straightforward. If God-as-Legislator sets up the legal code to explicitly allow substitution (which He did with the sacrificial system), then ipso facto substitution cannot be 'illegal' in His system!
Whether or not it has parallels in Western Law, ancient tribal law, the rules of secret clubhouses or of Greek sororities has no bearing on the subject of its legality whatsoever. Legality is measured from within a legal code—and God's code explicitly allowed sacrificial substitution, and penal sacrificial substitution at that.
Guilt was something that God could legally (under His revealed Law) transfer to another, given such a request by a repentant forgiveness-seeker. It was not automatic (magical), but a process God set up in his Law (like a bankruptcy law?) for specific cases like this. Let's sketch out the Mosaic procedure first, and then see how the New Testament applies it.
Most readers will already be familiar with this material, but let me go over the basics:
When an Old Testament Israelite broke one of the Mosaic laws, it was always against God, and sometimes against God's people.
When it involved damage to people, the perp had to 'make it up' to the other community member (often with what we would call 'punitive damages', some 'extra' tacked on to the restitution), before or while approaching God for His forgiveness. Never, however, was there a crime only against humans—there was always an offense against God and His law involved too, creating a complicated web of consequences.
Under the general principle of 'the soul that sinneth, it shall die', the perp—if he elected not to pursue forgiveness with God-- should have voluntarily surrendered his/her life to the human penal authorities to be 'cut off' (i.e., either death or banishment from Israel), as punishment (as per the legal statute) for the impurity contracted by sin/trespass, even after having resolved the community damage issues. [The human government had the authority to use force to do this, of course, if the perp were non-compliant.]
However, God had provided an alternate method of satisfying that requirement for certain types of crimes/impurities, by creating the legal procedure of sacrifice.
[Some crimes, however, were not forgivable—the 'presumptuous' crimes were too radically evil to allow the perp to live, and were not followed by repentance or forgiveness-seeking anyway.]
The contrite Israelite who came seeking forgiveness from God brought a live animal (with economic value), as a bloodshed substitute(?) for the person.
The supplicant typically placed his hands on the animal, to somehow 'unite' with it, so that its life/death was somehow shared(?) with the offender.
[In the Day of Atonement ritual, this 'uniting' of the High Priest with the animal is described as the transfer of “ownership” of the guilt of Israel onto the animal.]
The impurity of the Israelite's sin was removed by the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial animal in the act of sacrifice. The offender was then forgiven by God, and allowed to continue living in the community and under God's blessing.
This accomplished two goals: expiation (removal of sin from the offender) and propitiation (a balancing of God's moral outrage/wrath, with satisfaction of His sense/claims of justice).
Consequences of the sin-act, however, were typically not “immediately” remedied: community damage to trust, reputation, vitality was still compromised, and the effects of the sin on the supplicant's moral faculty was still real.
Continue--
Johann
Well-known member
Point 1: Most of the sacrifice laws are about re-establishing a 'peaceful' relationship between the offender and God, regardless of human victims. Violations of God's Law was a crime against God, first. The many other laws given in the Law concern human relations and justice.
“In the world view of the OT, any person who does something wrong becomes obligated both to God and to society (cf. 2 Chr 19:10; Num 5:6; cf. Jer 51:5)” [WBC, Leviticus]
Point 2: The sacrificial system included several types of sacrifices, a couple of which were focused on forgiveness and remediation. The 'sin offering' (the main one under discussion here) was intended for sins primarily against God, and the 'guilt' (or 'reparation') offering involved restitution to others:
“The guilt offering is described in Lev. 5:14-6:7 (MT 5:14-26); 7:1-7. It is different from the sin offering chiefly in the restitution requirement. The offerer has to make good on any loss that he has made in the holy things of the Lord and pay an additional fifth of its cost to the priest (5:16). Damages against another person are also dealt with in 6:1-7 (MT 5:20-26), where the one-fifth restitution clause is also in effect. This offering also atones for the sacrificer and he is forgiven. The sin offering deals with sins against God that also threaten the community. The guilt offering deals more with sins that require restitution to God or man.” [ISBE, s.v. “Sacrifices and Offerings”]
Examples of these 'punitive damages' can be found in Lev 6 (“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: When any of you sin and commit a trespass against the Lord by deceiving a neighbor in a matter of a deposit or a pledge, or by robbery, or if you have defrauded a neighbor, or have found something lost and lied about it. if you swear falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby, when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.”) and Exodus 22 ("If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.")
“In light of the preceding, committing a sin produces a complex pattern of consequences. Because it is disobedience of a law given by God, a sin places a person's relationship with Yahweh in jeopardy. If a sin is committed against another, it, of course, damages the relationship between the parties involved. Any sin is thus detrimental to the community's welfare and solidarity. Another factor is that every sin carries its own penalty. This idea is twofold. On the one hand, a defined penalty attends a specific violation of a law (e.g., the laws in chap. 20). On the other hand, there is the principle of retribution, i.e., every sin is pregnant with its own consequences (e.g., Job 20:12-18). From either perspective, a sinful deed causes an obligation to hang over the head of the sinner. The doer is responsible for his act. The idiom 'one carries an iniquity' (cf. 5:1, 17), bears witness to the burden that accompanies every sin. That burden is either the penalty or the retributive punishment that attends a sinful act. The person experiences that burden as guilt. After a person has sinned, that person does not have any inner power to escape the harm due (cf. von Rad, OT Theology, 1:268). A sinful act, in addition, unleashes impurity, which is attracted to the sanctuary (...). Thus a sin committed produces a web of complications, personal, social, and spiritual.
“The offering of the appropriate sacrifice was the way Israelites addressed these multiple consequences resulting from a sin. When the person who had sinned presented the animal at the altar, that one laid a hand on the animal's head, identifying the animal as his and making sure that the achievement of the sacrifice accrued to his favor. In making an offering, no surrogates [tn: the offender had to make the offering himself—no 'proxy' was allowed] were possible. It is assumed that at this step the offerer made a confession of sin or a word of praise or a statement of intent concerning the offering. The prophets, selected psalms, and the rabbinic tradition forcefully teach that personal remorse and contrition were essential for an expiating sacrifice to be effectual. Whenever the sin was against property, in addition to offering a sacrifice the guilty person had to restore that property or make compensation for it and pay a penalty of 20 percent. Restitution particularly aided the restoration of strained relationships on the human level. Furthermore, the achievement of expiation mended the relationships between the sinner and God and between the sinner and the community... God forgave that sinner, restoring the relationship between the two of them. Forgiveness also meant that the person became free from the guilt attending the sin. Indeed expiation broke 'the nexus of sin and calamity' (von Rad, OT Theology, 1:271). No longer did the guilty person have to fear retribution on any level, for all the harm released by a sin was addressed by making the appropriate sacrifice.
“Another aspect of sin involves the status of the one who sins. The higher the spiritual leadership of the one who sinned, the greater the damaging force of that sin. A high priest and the entire congregation had to offer a high purification offering because their sins were more polluting (4:1-21). The political leader and a citizen offered a lesser purification offering, for their sins had less impact on the community's relationship with God (4:22-35). Because of the greater pollution released by a sin committed by those in the first group, blood rites from the sacrifice had to be done within the sanctuary (4:5-7a, 16-18a), and none of the animal's meat could be eaten (4:11-12, 21). In the case of a sin committed by a prince or an individual, the blood rites were done at the main altar, since miasma from a sin committed by one of them did not penetrate into the sanctuary (4:25a, 30a, 34a), and the meat became the priests' (6:19, 22[26, 29]). In eating this meat, the priests expressed God's acceptance of the sacrifice on behalf of the offerer.” [Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxx). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]
Point 3 : This comes from the frequent stipulations in the Mosaic Law that if someone did not comply with the legal code (which included the sacrifices), then they were to be 'cut off from Israel'. It would do no good (under this legal system) to only 'right the wrong' to the human party; the offense against God and His law had to be addressed as well.
The way this is envisioned in the OT/Tanaach is through the notion of 'impurity' or 'uncleanness'. Sin, trespass, crime, and transgression against the Law was an impurity, 'attached' to the perp while the crime was being committed. After the crime, the person was 'impure' and this impurity had to be 'removed' (often with the images of cleansing, purging, purifying). Impurity was a contagion—it was on the altar, the tabernacle, houses, people, etc. This impurity had to be constantly remedied/removed by ritual/legal means—to allow God to continue to operate from within the community of Israel. [Remember, God had told Moses that it was better for Israel if He did NOT travel in their midst—lest He have to destroy them for their constant rebellion—Ex 33:3-5.] If impurity came into the presence of God (near the Tabernacle, where a special 'instance' of His presence was, the Shekinah Glory)--apart from within a legally defined 'approach process'--then the impurity-bearer must be destroyed (or the whole camp was in danger). The invariable punishment for un-resolved and/or 'stubborn' impurity was death or banishment (which, as being 'cut off', was considered a death, actually). Purification required either the death/removal of the impure party (the perp) or the death/removal of an “impurity-absorbing”(?) animal sacrifice—there were no other options under the Mosaic law.
“Normally in the Old Testament, atonement is mentioned in connection with sacrifices, such as the sin offering. But in twenty-two passages, atonement was effected by means other than ceremonial offerings (for example, Ex 32:30-32; Deut 21:1-9; 2 Sam 21:3-9) [tanknote: almost all non-ceremonial cases involved the judicial death of the offending party—and it was called 'atonement' for the nation]. Therefore, just as the life of the animal was a substitute, the means of ransoming the life of the guilty party, so the holiness of God was defended in this case through the substitution of the lives of the sinning couple. With atonement made, God could pardon his people and halt the spread of the plague. [Hard sayings of the Bible, at Num 25]
Continue--
“In the world view of the OT, any person who does something wrong becomes obligated both to God and to society (cf. 2 Chr 19:10; Num 5:6; cf. Jer 51:5)” [WBC, Leviticus]
Point 2: The sacrificial system included several types of sacrifices, a couple of which were focused on forgiveness and remediation. The 'sin offering' (the main one under discussion here) was intended for sins primarily against God, and the 'guilt' (or 'reparation') offering involved restitution to others:
“The guilt offering is described in Lev. 5:14-6:7 (MT 5:14-26); 7:1-7. It is different from the sin offering chiefly in the restitution requirement. The offerer has to make good on any loss that he has made in the holy things of the Lord and pay an additional fifth of its cost to the priest (5:16). Damages against another person are also dealt with in 6:1-7 (MT 5:20-26), where the one-fifth restitution clause is also in effect. This offering also atones for the sacrificer and he is forgiven. The sin offering deals with sins against God that also threaten the community. The guilt offering deals more with sins that require restitution to God or man.” [ISBE, s.v. “Sacrifices and Offerings”]
Examples of these 'punitive damages' can be found in Lev 6 (“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: When any of you sin and commit a trespass against the Lord by deceiving a neighbor in a matter of a deposit or a pledge, or by robbery, or if you have defrauded a neighbor, or have found something lost and lied about it. if you swear falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby, when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.”) and Exodus 22 ("If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.")
“In light of the preceding, committing a sin produces a complex pattern of consequences. Because it is disobedience of a law given by God, a sin places a person's relationship with Yahweh in jeopardy. If a sin is committed against another, it, of course, damages the relationship between the parties involved. Any sin is thus detrimental to the community's welfare and solidarity. Another factor is that every sin carries its own penalty. This idea is twofold. On the one hand, a defined penalty attends a specific violation of a law (e.g., the laws in chap. 20). On the other hand, there is the principle of retribution, i.e., every sin is pregnant with its own consequences (e.g., Job 20:12-18). From either perspective, a sinful deed causes an obligation to hang over the head of the sinner. The doer is responsible for his act. The idiom 'one carries an iniquity' (cf. 5:1, 17), bears witness to the burden that accompanies every sin. That burden is either the penalty or the retributive punishment that attends a sinful act. The person experiences that burden as guilt. After a person has sinned, that person does not have any inner power to escape the harm due (cf. von Rad, OT Theology, 1:268). A sinful act, in addition, unleashes impurity, which is attracted to the sanctuary (...). Thus a sin committed produces a web of complications, personal, social, and spiritual.
“The offering of the appropriate sacrifice was the way Israelites addressed these multiple consequences resulting from a sin. When the person who had sinned presented the animal at the altar, that one laid a hand on the animal's head, identifying the animal as his and making sure that the achievement of the sacrifice accrued to his favor. In making an offering, no surrogates [tn: the offender had to make the offering himself—no 'proxy' was allowed] were possible. It is assumed that at this step the offerer made a confession of sin or a word of praise or a statement of intent concerning the offering. The prophets, selected psalms, and the rabbinic tradition forcefully teach that personal remorse and contrition were essential for an expiating sacrifice to be effectual. Whenever the sin was against property, in addition to offering a sacrifice the guilty person had to restore that property or make compensation for it and pay a penalty of 20 percent. Restitution particularly aided the restoration of strained relationships on the human level. Furthermore, the achievement of expiation mended the relationships between the sinner and God and between the sinner and the community... God forgave that sinner, restoring the relationship between the two of them. Forgiveness also meant that the person became free from the guilt attending the sin. Indeed expiation broke 'the nexus of sin and calamity' (von Rad, OT Theology, 1:271). No longer did the guilty person have to fear retribution on any level, for all the harm released by a sin was addressed by making the appropriate sacrifice.
“Another aspect of sin involves the status of the one who sins. The higher the spiritual leadership of the one who sinned, the greater the damaging force of that sin. A high priest and the entire congregation had to offer a high purification offering because their sins were more polluting (4:1-21). The political leader and a citizen offered a lesser purification offering, for their sins had less impact on the community's relationship with God (4:22-35). Because of the greater pollution released by a sin committed by those in the first group, blood rites from the sacrifice had to be done within the sanctuary (4:5-7a, 16-18a), and none of the animal's meat could be eaten (4:11-12, 21). In the case of a sin committed by a prince or an individual, the blood rites were done at the main altar, since miasma from a sin committed by one of them did not penetrate into the sanctuary (4:25a, 30a, 34a), and the meat became the priests' (6:19, 22[26, 29]). In eating this meat, the priests expressed God's acceptance of the sacrifice on behalf of the offerer.” [Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxx). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]
Point 3 : This comes from the frequent stipulations in the Mosaic Law that if someone did not comply with the legal code (which included the sacrifices), then they were to be 'cut off from Israel'. It would do no good (under this legal system) to only 'right the wrong' to the human party; the offense against God and His law had to be addressed as well.
The way this is envisioned in the OT/Tanaach is through the notion of 'impurity' or 'uncleanness'. Sin, trespass, crime, and transgression against the Law was an impurity, 'attached' to the perp while the crime was being committed. After the crime, the person was 'impure' and this impurity had to be 'removed' (often with the images of cleansing, purging, purifying). Impurity was a contagion—it was on the altar, the tabernacle, houses, people, etc. This impurity had to be constantly remedied/removed by ritual/legal means—to allow God to continue to operate from within the community of Israel. [Remember, God had told Moses that it was better for Israel if He did NOT travel in their midst—lest He have to destroy them for their constant rebellion—Ex 33:3-5.] If impurity came into the presence of God (near the Tabernacle, where a special 'instance' of His presence was, the Shekinah Glory)--apart from within a legally defined 'approach process'--then the impurity-bearer must be destroyed (or the whole camp was in danger). The invariable punishment for un-resolved and/or 'stubborn' impurity was death or banishment (which, as being 'cut off', was considered a death, actually). Purification required either the death/removal of the impure party (the perp) or the death/removal of an “impurity-absorbing”(?) animal sacrifice—there were no other options under the Mosaic law.
“Normally in the Old Testament, atonement is mentioned in connection with sacrifices, such as the sin offering. But in twenty-two passages, atonement was effected by means other than ceremonial offerings (for example, Ex 32:30-32; Deut 21:1-9; 2 Sam 21:3-9) [tanknote: almost all non-ceremonial cases involved the judicial death of the offending party—and it was called 'atonement' for the nation]. Therefore, just as the life of the animal was a substitute, the means of ransoming the life of the guilty party, so the holiness of God was defended in this case through the substitution of the lives of the sinning couple. With atonement made, God could pardon his people and halt the spread of the plague. [Hard sayings of the Bible, at Num 25]
Continue--
