The episode is now live!
About The Author
Mike’s Book Sale is History
July 21, 2010
Walton and Van Wolde: Hebrew Bara’ Does Not Mean “To Create”
February 22, 2010
More Trouble for the “Jesus Wife” Fragment
April 22, 2014
Seventy Weeks of Daniel (aka, The Pit of Despair)
August 30, 2011
Hey Mike. Something big clicked with me after listening to this episode. I would like to share it.
Leviticus uses the word atonement for offerings to God. Today, in our language, we assume atonement means removal or payment for sins. The Hebrew word atonement in its proper context in the first couple of chapters in Leviticus, means purification of a sacred space. The offerings to God we’re not to take away sin, but to purify a place for God to dwell among His people.
With this thought in mind, I started thinking about Christ and the cross. Jesus was the only suitable offering for atonement, yes He removed sin, but He created a constant purified sacred space for us, so that when the Holy Spirit came, The Spirit would never need another offering so that God could dwell within man. I’ve always looked at the crucifixion as Jesus offering Himself in a sinful state to God. Now, I am seeing that Jesus offered himself for us. Here’s what I mean. God does not need purification, He is purity and He is sacred. Jesus told the disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine, because He was offering Himself as an atonement sacrifice for man. When we eat the bread and drink the wine, we accept Jesus’ offering of constant purity and therefore we are now sacred spaces.
That’s certainly an element that is lost on us for the most part.
Apologies for poor grammar and spelling. Yikes.
This is probably a stretch, but the only dumb question is the one not asked, right? (Well, that question might be a stretch too…)
Anyway, you speculated if the mentioning of the liver might be a subtle polemic regarding not using them for divination, regarding the specific mentioning of the kidneys, since that’s also the word used for the “seat of consciousness” or “seat of emotions”, or what we’d call the “mind”, is there perhaps additional messaging going on?
I tend to not think so. It’s sort of expected anatomical vocabulary, and I don’t see any cryptic significance.