To the Forum:
It is one thing for a "scholar" to make a statement, it is another to back it up with facts.
Morris quote: "Again, to speak of the life as in some way existent in the blood subsequent to the slaughter of the animal is to ignore the Hebrew stress on the connexion of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from
thinking of an immaterial principle of life that they associated hie in
the age to come not with the immortality of the soul, but with the resurrection of the body. If they found difficulty in thinking of human life persisting after the death of the body it is most unlikely that they would think of the life of an animal as persisting after slaughter, and indeed in the case of most of the sacrifices there is explicit mention of the animal being killed before the blood is referred to. To take an example at random, it is very difficult to believe that the writer had life in mind when he said, with reference to the cleansing of a leprous house, the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird' (Lev. 1451), for the bird is expressly said to be 'slain'. We seem far from the extremely practical Hebrew turn of mind when we read of 'soul substance' (with Oesterley and E. O. James) or of the term blood suggesting 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation'.1
It is much more likely that Stibbs is correct when he sums up with 'Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh. It is a witness to physical death,
not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Dewar (paraphrasing): as noted before, here Morris confuses late post-exilic thinking among the Hebrews with primitive beliefs. Also,
Leviticus 14:1-7 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds F21 alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.The Sufferings and Death ofChrist in Types by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology; Vol.III, Ch.V, Pgs.116-126:
3. THE TWO BIRDS (Lev. 14:1-7). As on the Day of Atonement when two goats were required to fulfill the entire picture of Christ's death, so two birds are required in the cleansing of leprosy - the type of sin. The first bird slain speaks of Christ "delivered for our offences," while the second bird, dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4:25).
Truthtesty: To prematurely conclude that the bird was slain therefore blood represents "death only" is to ignore all the rest of the clear type evidence. Continuing past the first slain bird
(why does Morris ignore this?), the type evidence says the second bird was dipped in the blood(containing the life) of the first bird and the second bird is released(with the blood and life). The second bird's release representing, as Dr. Chafer said: "speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification.""
Morris is wrong here, the term blood naturally suggests itself, but also suggests 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation' and the like, when you take into consideration the blood being transfered to the second bird. And the second bird is released. Morris appears to only be considering the first bird. But the blood (with the life)(to the "pratical" Hebrew mind) continues to the second bird.
Morris quote: "It is a witness to physical death, not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Truthtesty: The last sentence is suspect to me of what Morris is thinking. How is it that blood could be a "live""witness" if there is no life in the blood? Clearly, from Morris' own words, Morris has not thought this through. In any case it is clear the Hebrews thought "practically" just as they wrote that "The life of the flesh is in the blood".
Also, Morris quote: "the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird'"
The [certain things] dipped in the blood of the slain bird' were: cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet. And as Darby said(about the heifer): "cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. "
Darby: The Heifer was completely burned without the camp, even its blood, except that which was sprinkled directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, that is, where the people were to meet God. There the blood was sprinkled seven times (because it was there that God met with His people),
a perfect testimony in the eyes of God to the atonement made for sin. They had access there according to the value of this blood. the priest threw into the fire cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. Then, if anybody contracted defilement, though it were merely through neglect, in whatever way it might be, God took account of the defilement. And this is a solemn and important fact: God provides for cleansing, but in no case can tolerate anything in His presence unsuited to it. It might seem hard in an inevitable case, as one dying suddenly in the tent. But it was to shew that for His presence God judges of what is suited to His presence. The man was defiled and could not go into God's tabernacle. To cleanse the defiled person, they took some running water, into which they put the ashes of the heifer, and the man was sprinkled on the third and on the seventh days; then he was clean. - Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, new ed., I, 264-65
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 06:24AM by Truthtesty.