Timeline for In Joshua 20:1-6 why must the man-slayer wait until the death of the high priest?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2017 at 2:46 | comment | added | elika kohen |
"Taking this into account, we can say that the death of the high priest atoned for the sins" - This is wrong: Death never atoned for anyone's sin - Scripture is brutally clear on this, (even the New Testament). It was their life of unconditional advocacy that brought atonement. Their unconditional advocacy, of course, was proven by their faithfulness - even unto death.
|
|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 0:33 | comment | added | bach | Regarding the death of the high priest i cannot add anything more than the fact that the high priest officiated in the temple all year round and atoned for the nations sins, so it is only logical to assume that his death also provided atonement for the whole nation, and was regarded as a human sacrifice. The idea that blood atones for the sin of murder is clearly expressed in the ritual of the heifer (deut 21). see also 2 Samuel chapter 21 regarding the (unfortunate and uncomfortable) belief of the Israelites in the atonement of human sacrifice. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 0:33 | comment | added | bach | Take a look at Exodus 21:12-14 that the ancients regarded altars as asylums for murderers. One way to look at it (the way i wrote it down) is that it was rooted in the belief that the altar itself atones for his sins (of course only when it is unintentional). Another way to look at it (found in the IVP Bible commentary), is that they believed that they would pollute the altar if they would kill him while he's grasping the horns. In any case, the law of the city of refuge is modeled after the altar asylum rule which also provided shelter for the murderers! It is the same idea. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 21:56 | comment | added | Timmay_95 | @Bach Makkot isn't recognized as part of the canon of scripture. Can you provide information that is instead? I'm sure you know the Talmud well, but telling us so does nothing, nor does warning us to not start up with you qualify as credentials for your contributions. I am appreciative of information that further expounds upon the answer to this question. | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 23:37 | comment | added | bach | See also Makkot 11b. There it says clearly that the death of the priest atones for his sins. This idea is pretty straightforward and is most prob also the original intent of this law. | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 16:37 | comment | added | user17080 | There is nothing on Makot 2 that indicates the the city of refuge or even banishment itself (גלות) brings atonement (כפרה), although there is a lot about paying or not paying כופר. What particular words on the daf do you think mean this? In any event, there is nothing on the daf that brings a verse to support this idea, so it is not relevant to this forum. | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 15:27 | comment | added | bach | No. But see Makkot 2b. | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 15:18 | comment | added | user17080 | "The whole idea of the city of refuge was to atone for the sin of murder." Does the text say that? | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 15:01 | history | answered | bach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |