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....)