Hi, DM.
I see many thoughts which need a detailed response in the last post, and I will probably need to wait until tomorrow or perhaps Thursday to really do so.
As a stop-gap, there are a some details I can answer now.
I
do understand “sin offering” to be for the same reason(s) in different places in scripture, but the word “sin” has more than one meaning.
It is correct that the sin offering could have been for things that are symbolic breaking of the commandments more than physical damage – and since that isn’t obvious to a first time reading of the text – I’ll give more details later.
Rather than revisit meaning of “their” purification, at this time, I would rather just make a suggestion of why I am keeping options open regarding the sin offering vs. the ransom and perhaps that will stimulate some thought.
The ransom was required in exchange for the events which happened in Egypt, and in the desert following. Although we have not discussed in detail what the contract (covenant) and violations are – I would ask, for the moment, that you entertain the idea that a violation of the terms occurred somewhere between Abraham and the time the Israelites “sold”
themselves to the Egyptians as slaves.
Typically today, one would find that if they failed to fulfill a contract (eg: pay a water bill or property tax by the due date specified in the contract – that the person typically becomes liable to a fine.)
The small fine is what I would understand as an “atonement” or “reparation” for failing to fulfill the contract on time.
In my thinking the Atonement is distinct from the actual value of the damage, although many people speak of the entire payment “principle” and “fee” as “atonement.”
But:
eg: in a car wreck, in my mind, the atonement is for “pain and suffering” not really for the value of the medical bill, nor the value of the destroyed vehicle.
The atonement has the purpose of discouraging people from taking advantage of the good will of one of the parties in a contract by giving the offended party something more as a token of good will, (incentive not to call the collections agencies in…)
Just so, I would observe, that a person who is fails to pay a second time is increasing the fine (eg:need for atonement).
And often times, the one offended will either hand them over to the collection agencies (eg:hell) or will require that they make a payment of at least a small amount in addition to the fine (a sacrifice, at minimum symbolic).
In my eyes, the “ransom” being required for all firstborn sons is one possible way to look at the events in Egypt eg: that Israel dared
sell itself as a whole into slavery even though it belonged to God – eg: they sold the firstborn son of God (eg:the nation israel, figuratively) into slavery without permission. So, now, they OWE God their firstborn (and priestly) sons to repay God what is lost – in addition to this, they owe an atoning sacrifice.
Just so, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are coming to the temple in accordance with the law – to pay back what is owed because of what happened in Egypt by their fore-fathers.
They owe a value for their firstborn son – (the debit itself) – and an atonement in addition (I presume the bird is the atoning sacrifice).
Given this type of reasoning, I would offer an additional way to look at the sacrifices being made in the temple.
Should the parents be given a child by God, they owe it to him. But since the killing of children (not adults) in sacrifice is not permitted – they owe something of like value (horror to suggest, I know) to a child – eg: a young, immature lamb. But also, In addition, there is a “fine” because the payment is still later than originally expected – eg: an “atonement” (fee).
Symbolically, one has to discover what the relationship is between the signs sheep, child, slavery, death, stillborn, etc.
To get an idea of what the individual sacrifices are for.
Should the child die – this may be looked at in multiple ways, eg:the parents failed (sinned) to produce offspring, or perhaps the parents are the “cause” of death for their child, as their disobedience has caused the death – or again, perhaps the parents do not owe God for the loan of a child which did not live. (These are possibilities that need to be sorted out in how they do/or don’t apply.)
without expounding a theory in detail, I would simply note that young things are considered of less value than adult things.
So, I would conjecture, that perhaps the holocost animal ransoms or “pays” for the “damage” done. Eg: it satisfies the “original” bill – but the non-holocost item is more of an atoning sort of sacrifice (eg: a “fee”).
–A detailed study, I can’t go into now – but suffice it to say that the price of the child is a lamb and the late fee (a low cost bird for atonement) is a
new bird.
The sin may refer to the sin incurred in Egypt, or it may refer to a sin incurred at the death/loss of a child, or perhaps to getting blood on the child, etc. So understanding which sin applies to which physical event is the key to definitively answering the question of whether or not an “actual” sin is implied by the sin offering, or an ancestral sin – and if it applies to Mary.
I’ll let you think about that for today, and try to be more scriptural and thorough at a later time. I’d be interested in the kinds of thoughts this causes – and what kind of feelings that evokes regarding apologetics – eg: like defensive, confusing, silly, that kind of stuff.
God bless you very much this day.
, there may be no recorded positive explicit infant command which is clear to the many contradictory 20th century scholars – but there are two problems and a large number of idiot-savant scholars that makes me wonder about your choice of sources!
