Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Altar and atonement

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Altar and atonement
  • Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 08:00:22 -0700


Some time ago, Liz wrote
>>The purpose of the temple sacrifice was not to be righteous anyway, it was
to atone for the altar. With the temple destroyed, the issue of sacrifice is
moot, there is no altar to atone for.<<

I have been intrigued with this statement since I first read it. The problem
with righteousness - imputed or otherwise - is that it is or can be
self-centered. The concept of atonement being for the altar - so that God
would, as it were, stay 'with us' - becomes God-centered.

But when I look in the HB, I don't see this sole emphasis on the altar:
everything is sprinkled with blood - e.g. Ex 29:20 ff Aaron's right ear, his
son's right ears, thumbs, great toe, the altar, their clothes etc - so that
Aaron and his sons become holy. It is not just to atone for the altar - at
least not here.

So I read the atonement procedure (after the death of Aaron's sons for doing
it wrong Lev 16:1) it is true that the altar is sprinkled (vs 18), but the
purpose of the atonement (Lev 16:30) is "to purify you. Before YHWH you will
be clean of all your sins". The altar is a very small part of the process -
the main part is the holy of holies and the mercy seat - which is not the
altar.

To the other matters of primitive sacrifice as raised: What would Paul have
understood about the presence of God in relation to the sacrifice and the
altar? Surely not that God was eating the offered meats - The psalmist says
as God's spokesperson - Mine are the cattle on a thousand hills. If I were
hungry, would I ask you? (50:12-14) And not just in one psalm. I would
expect 1st century Jews to take the psalms and prophets as defining the
meaning of the ancient sacrifices.

What does the author of Hebrews mean when he says - "we have an altar from
which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat"?

How does this fit with Paul's instructions on eating meat sacrificed to
idols, the communion (1 Co 10, 11), and the commensuality that is now
allowed between Jews and Gentiles in the new dispensation? And the
instruction 'with such a one not to eat'.

It seems to me that who you can eat with is of paramount importance to their
thinking. It is also strongly related to their perception of their own
bodies especially in relation to sexual purity. The issue of the cessation
of the requirement of circumcision is central since this is in direct
violation of the words of the covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:11-14) - where
this conversation started.

Abraham considered God righteous before he was circumcised - but YHWH
plainly says - "the uncircumcised male shall be cut off from his people".

Paul's thinking has removed this requirement out of the relation with God.
This is the beginning of the movement towards the epistle to the Hebrews - a
long and beautiful explanation of how the old covenant points to its
fulfillment.

I personally find this very difficult to explore - there are too many pieces
in the puzzle and they are all connected.

BobMacDonald AT home.com
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +
Catch the foxes for us,
the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)

http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page