Jeremiah 7-9

[wolfpurplemoon]

God does his best to remind the people that he had more rules than just the ones about sacrifices and burnt offerings. Apparently they went a bit far with the sacrifices and offered their children too.

God doesn't want to judge and punish his people but they left him no choice with their wickedness, what else could he possibly do?

You shouldn't boast about your wisdom or riches, but go ahead and boast that you understand God's ways and why he acts like he does. How about we don't do any boasting at all, that'd be nice.

Comments

[zteccc.livejournal.com]

To understand chapter 7, you need to understand what sacrifices were. People offered sacrifices as an apology for sin. They would regularly sacrifice an animal to atone for their accumulated sins. It makes sense, however, that God would prefer that people didn't sin at all rather than sin and then offer a sacrifice. The Israelites were worshiping other gods (idols), cheating, stealing, etc. They even sacrificed their newborn children as sacrifices to other gods (the Baal gods required children to be sacrificed to them). God is saying that he wants Israel to follow his laws rather than offering sacrifices after they willingly sin.

God has given them second chance after second chance for over 1,000 years. God has sent many prophets (including Jeremiah) to tell them what will happen if they do not return to the covenant. When you raise children, you will occasionally have to deal with them doing wrong. Hopefully they stop, but if they do not, at some point, punishment must come, either by the parents or by society. If a child steals once, and apologizes, the child may be punished but all is forgiven. If the child steals repeatedly, all the apologies after the fact cease to matter. Eventually either the child's parents will punish the child, or an outside force (the legal system) will punish the child (and eventually the adult that the child will become).

[k2rider78.livejournal.com]

Human Sacrifice Yikes!

Doesn't really teach much about forgiveness or atonement. How does sacrificing another creature make someone pay for their own sins?

[(Anonymous)]

From the beginning God required blood for atonement. Jesus was not an afterthought. Sacrificial lambs had to be perfect to be considered worthy to be used for atonement. Just as Jesus was without sin when he was crucified for our sins. He is the Lamb of God.

[(Anonymous)]

Good question. This can be answered in a few ways:
1) The penalty for sin that wasn't atoned for was death (under the Hebrew Laws), so the death of an animal was considered to be better than the death of a human. Note that there was no PETA in those days. The humans believed (with some justification) that animals were not equal to humans, so an animal death was definitely preferable.
2) It was indeed a sacrifice. Animals cost money to purchase or work to acquire and/or replace, there was an impact on a person's finances as a result. They didn't just blithely throw animals at the altar. The loss of an animal may have meant a lower crop yield or lean eating during winter. As such, sacrifice of animals was a very real financial impact to the sinner.
3) The priests were full time priests. They didn't have side jobs as fishermen, farmers, merchants, etc. They didn't have their own crops or their own livestock. When an animal was sacrificed, the priests received a portion of the meat and that is how they survived. It is a fairly complete system, with the penalty imposed on the sinner directly providing the necessary resources for the working of the faith.
4) The animal acts as a proxy for the sinner. The sin was ceremonially conferred to the animal and the animal who held the sin died (remember, no PETA). This allowed the repentant human to learn from their mistakes (as opposed to being executed) and the financial penalty/expense of the animal made it prohibitive to continue in sin. This is a symbolic action for redemption of sin.

In point of fact, God, through his prophets, said he'd rather not have sacrifices, but would rather have people obey the covenant.

[k2rider78.livejournal.com]

My point was when you sacrifice another creature for your sins you are not accounting for your own actions there is no atonement. And I am well aware of the scripture symbolism of the lamb of god.
My question was facetious.

[wolfpurplemoon]

Despite being facetious you make a very good point!

[zteccc.livejournal.com]

You've somewhat made God's point in this section. God didn't simply want sacrifices that had no spirit of atonement behind them, no change of behavior. God wanted people to obey, not to sacrifice.

I'm not certain if you'd have preferred for the people to sacrifice something more personal to show they really meant it (a limb perhaps), but given the value of animals and the real cost it would have been to most people to sacrifice one, you can't say they didn't pay a penalty.

It appears that what you are really trying to say is that sacrifice, at all, whether of an animal or anything else, doesn't make sense as a method of atonement for sins. I'm interested in knowing what method for atonement of sins would be acceptable. After all, one cannot pay a fine directly to God, one cannot undo the sin, nor can one make themselves pure in any fashion. The sacrifice was an outward showing of a repentant heart. It had practical purposes, of feeding the priesthood, of sharing a meal (symbolically) with God, of exacting a fine for the sin. It also had the symbolic purpose of renewing a covenant with blood (a very common practice among people of the Middle East prior to the dark ages). Further it was a symbolic offering to God as a penitent act in the hopes that God would accept the offering and grant forgiveness (the Christian resolution of this is vastly simpler). Note as well that some sacrifices were not animals, but grain or other produce (especially if the repentant sinner was poor).

One could, I suspect, say that atonement is only in the heart of the sinner, and if the sinner repents, the there is nothing more needed. The problem with that would be that some sins are very visible to one's neighbors, sometimes even causing them harm. The sacrifice is a public acknowledgment of that sin and public statement of repentance. It involves a modicum of punishment for the sin as well as a ceremonial cleansing both of which are necessary when others are impacted by the sin.

In the end, the practice of sacrifice isn't really the point of this passage, the lack of obedience by the nation of Judah and their reliance on sacrifices as a way to cover them up is the real point. Whether or not you like the sacrifices or understand them, that was their law and custom, but higher in their law and custom was obedience of God's word, and they failed in the first part and tried to cover it up with sacrifices, much like an unrepentant child will say they are sorry and continue to do the very thing they apologized for.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm very curious what made you decide to take on reading the bible through? I commend you for sticking with it. Many christians don't even like to read the old testament. Im eagerly awaiting your views on the life of jesus.

[wolfpurplemoon]

Thanks for your support. My reasons for starting are hazy now, but now I've got this far I'm determined to keep going!