Comments on: Some Faulty Theological Arithmetic

By: David Murray

David Murray — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:50:07 +0000

Response to questions here: http://headhearthand.posterous.com/big-question-bigger-consequences

By: Andrew Suttles

Andrew Suttles — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:19:33 +0000

Isn’t there a sense in which the levitical system ‘saved’ the national of Israel, as a whole. I guess ‘saved’ is not the right word, but preserved is probably better. I mean, leaving personal salvation aside, isn’t there a sense in which the Old Covenant is a works covenant made with the nation as a whole (‘do this’ and you, as in you all, will have long life and prosper ‘in the land’)? It seems that we often confuse the national with the personal when we read of the works aspect of the Old Covenant.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:29:19 +0000

OK having now read the comments above I feel I can stand by my comment. I think the key word in this discussion is ‘saved’ (p. 114 in Dr Hamilton’s book). The blood of animals can’t do that. But participating in the OT sacrificial system does indicate faith (as Dr Hamilton says in his helpful comment above), which does save, through Jesus’ blood. Looking at Lev. 1:4-5 it seems clear the blood of animal sacrifices is achieving *something* – not just as evidence of faith, the blood itself seems to be achieving something. Can we say that the blood of the OT sacrificial system achieves ceremonial atonement, while the blood of Jesus achieves salvific atonement (for both OT and NT believers)? Just a rhetorical question, no need for anyone to answer. I think that’s basically a different way of putting what Doug Smith says above.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:36:19 +0000

Ah, I now see lots of comments have been added between my logging on to the page and my submitting of my comment – including some from James Hamilton himself!

By: Bernard

Bernard — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:32:32 +0000

Hebrews 9:15 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.’ That means the cross functions retroactively, providing atonement for those under the previous covenant (who offered animal sacrifices). I suspect James Hamilton would agree with that because he’s unlikely to disagree with Hebrews 10:4: ‘It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.’ So perhaps what’s happening here is that he’s writing somewhat loosely, missing out a step or two. What he really means is ‘…for people to substitute animals of sacrifice that will be judged in their place, that they might be saved [as a result of the retroactive work of Jesus' death, applied to those who expressed their need for atonement by making use of the sacrificial system].’

By: Jim Hamilton

Jim Hamilton — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:30:35 +0000

Further explanation can be found in GGSTJ. I think it more likely that the worshiper was thinking something along these lines: this animal costs a lot of money, and it has to be an unblemished one. This animal could yield a lot to me in terms of increased flock, or wool, or whatever, to say nothing of the feast we could have if we ate it. But Moses gave these instructions. Does my transgression (or uncleanness resulting from contact with the dead) require this? This God must be both morally pure and clean. I know that he spoke through Moses, and I know his word is authoritative (cf. Exod 24:6–7), so because I believe I'll offer this sacrifice. JMH

By: MarkandKristi Olivero

MarkandKristi Olivero — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:43:17 +0000

I went back to Leviticus reading several portions throughout. It seems to me that the key to understanding Leviticus is to understand Exodus (and Genesis too). God offers His Presence to His people before a sacrificial system is in place.I’m not sure my understanding of Redemptive theology can hook on to the idea that the sacrificial system was put in place so that God could dwell with His people. I’m still pondering that one. More explanation might be helpful.The question that keeps tapping on my shoulder as I read Leviticus is this: “What was the worshiper motivated by as he brought his animal to the Tab/Temple to be slain?” I want to get inside his head. What things might he have thought about as he brought his animal to be killed (a few have come to mind): “this is just a symbol cause something better is still to come” or “glad I made it – I’m covered for another year” or “I feel so awful about what I did last week – hope this sacrifice is enough to cover my guilt – maybe I’ll bring another one next week just as insurance” or “Atonement – that is what our Israelite worship is built on – so I’ll keep doing this to help keep our religion going.”any thots?

By: David Bissett

David Bissett — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:19:12 +0000

What a joy to see a comments section being so helpful. Thanks to all. Plan to read the book too (and wait for David Murray to write his own). db

By: David Murray

David Murray — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:04:53 +0000

Jim: Thanks so much for jumping in and offering these helpful clarifications. And thanks also for pointing me to your review of Sailhamer. I’ll definitely follow that up. I’ll probably come back to this subject next week. But I really, really appreciate the huge work you’ve invested in this book. Doug: Thanks for your thought-provoking comments. Again, I’d like to think further about what you say and come back next week on it.

By: Jim Hamilton

Jim Hamilton — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:18:08 +0000

Thanks Doug, I basically agree with you. The only thing I would add is that the point of the sacrificial system in its old covenant context is to make it so that God, who is holy, can dwell among his people, who are sinful and regularly made unclean by contact with the dead. Blessings!JMH