Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The next place to look
into for this project is Leviticus 4. This passage in Leviticus is the beginning of a lengthy series of prescriptions for what to do about sin - sin of all sorts. The idea is that by performing sin offerings, atonement is made for the one who has sinned. Right relationship is restored between God and the sinner.

Here is the odd thing. Sitting side by side with these prescriptions for how to handle sin there are numerous cases presented where making a sin offering is not an option. Starting in Leviticus 7 and resuming in Leviticus 17 is the re-introduction of the phrase "cut off". I say re-introduction because the idea of being cut-off has already made several appearances earlier in the story. (Worth looking up: Gen 9 and Gen 17). Certain sins are to result in the guilty party being cut off from the covenant people. This is obviously a bad thing. A slow death.

Further on in the book of Leviticus, things get very serious. Certain other sins are to result in the guilty party being killed on the spot. And in some cases, the guilty parties are killed in an unmediated fashion: i.e. God is the one who performs the execution.

So my first question is why is it that this elaborate system of sin offerings is not effectual for all sin? Why did God not allow a way for these other sins to be atoned for? My second question is how do these Leviticus passages instruct us.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

And for any theonomists who might be reading out there, what is the general equity of being 'cut off' in a New Covenant of repentance and forgiveness?