Although some Radical Reformers also held unscriptural beliefs, such as extreme pacifism or the ability for a person to lose their salvation, there is also evidence that some of them held to views that particularly resembled modern Free Grace viewpoints, that often makes the Free Grace movement resemble the 16th century Radical Reformation.
While modern Anabaptistic groups such as Mennonites are descendants of the Radical Reformation, they represent only few of the direct surviving strains of the movement, which showed far more wide ranges of belief in its early form.
Eternal Security
Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.
Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:
"They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."
Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:
Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8
Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.
This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.
However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:
Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)
However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold.
Anthropology
The Radical Reformers were often strictly opposed to Augustinian theology, and thus consequently, they resisted claims of infant damnation, and inherited guilt, for example, Radical Reformers such as Leupod Schiemer wrote the following:
But until that light shines in Children—that is, until they know the difference between good and evil—they remain innocent and will enter into the promised land. In this case we are not referring to the earthly land of Canaan but rather the heavenly Jerusalem." - Three kinds of grace in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, para. 15
This was also mentioned by the Radical Reformer Sebastian Franck, who although not an Anabaptist himself, he often symphatized with their teachings and still held to Radical Reformation beliefs. Franck wrote the following:
"Nearly all Anabaptists consider children to be of pure and innocent blood, and they consider original sin not a sin which of itself condemns both the children and the adults. They also claim that it does not make anyone unclean except the one who accepts this sin, makes it his own, brings forth fruits of it and is unwilling to part from it. For they claim foreign sin does not condemn anybody, and in this they refer to the Ezekiel 18." - Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, Fol. 446
However, this belief was condemned by the Lutherans, who taught that infants are saved through Baptism:
"Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism." - Article IX
Thus, the Anabaptists rejected that infants born are born guilty, however they still maintained that we inherit consequences of sin, such as a sinful nature inclined to sin, which inevitably leads every human to sin and human mortality.
Rejection of infant Baptism
A major consequence of the Anabaptist rejection that Baptism is a means of grace was their rejection of infant baptism, instead teaching that only those capable of belief should be baptized. This view was often attacked by the Reformed confessions, as the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) reads:
"We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16), and they are in the covenant of God (Acts 3:25). Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (chapter 20).
Infant baptism is also is also commonly rejected by modern Evangelicals, including those who hold to Free Grace theology.
Free Will
Unlike Lutherans and Calvinists, the Radical Reformers often saw unconditional election as unscriptural, instead holding to libertarian free will, breaking away from the medieval Augustinian views. Among these, a strong defence of free will was created by the moderate Anabaptist theologian, Balthasar Hubmaier, as he writes:
Grace comes to us, not out of us, so that no one can boast in himself but in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 1:4. For our flesh and blood cannot reach such sonship out of their own power, John 1:12; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50. Since, however, this sonship is offered to all people equally, for the seed of the divine Word falls equally in four kinds of earth, it follows that we have the equal power to accept the seed and to bear fruit, John 1:12; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Matt 13:3ff; Mark 4:3ff. If we do not do that, then it is not God who is guilty, or his seed, but the evil of the earth, that is, we ourselves. Thus Peter hears Christ, accepts his Word, and brings forth fruit, John 1:42. Herod also hears it, however, does not accept his Word, and does not bear fruit. Now that is the fault of the wickedness of Herod. Since, however, Peter and Herod are alike sinners and evil, the reason why his inborn evil does not harm Peter and yet harms Herod is that Herod follows his inborn evil and walks according to it, but not Peter, Eph 3; 1 Cor 15:45ff; Rom 8:5-9. In addition, the fact that God looks at Peter and moves him to lament his sins has to do with the mercy of God, Matt 26:75. That he does not look at Judas is the fault of the traitor who sold innocent blood for thirty pennies. He had to sentence himself and say, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood," Matt 27:4. Whoever is not satisfied with this answer, namely, that the mercy of God is the cause of our salvation and our wickedness is the cause of our damnation, must ask God himself, Rom 11:11-12. I was not his advisor, nor was I with him in his council. Whoever says that God wills sin does not know what God or sin is. For sinning is always to do or to omit something against the will of God, 1 John 2:5-6. - Balthasar Hubmaier, "Freedom of the Will, II" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed. Pipkin & Yoder (1989), (p 468-469)
Thus, the Radical Reformers tended to reject both the Lutheran view of single predestination and the Calvinist view of double predestination, by rather holding that God gives us a genuine free will choice to either accept Christ or not. They also strongly resisted any claims that God decrees sin, as the Calvinists held.
Conclusion
The Radical Reformation in many ways showed support for concerns often held today by the Free Grace movement, such as on eternal security, free will, believers' baptism and opposition to strict Calvinistic views. Now, neither movement was a monolith, some Free Grace individuals such as Charles Ryrie were somewhat influenced by Calvinism, and many Radical Reformers were still not clear in their understanding of grace (including modern forms of Anabaptism), nevertheless, when looking at the Reformation period, it is the Radical Reformation where we can see many parallels between modern Free Grace and old Radical Reformation concerns,
Hi Valtteri,
ReplyDeleteHow's it going? I haven't seen you post for a bit so I hope everything is okay and all. God bless
I have been for the large part really been struggling with OCD, especially as I accidentally stumbled upon critiques of Old Testament historicity (like claims like because the Brazen Altar walls were made of wood, the fire itself would destroy the walls as bronze does not protect from heat well, so the text has errors), or Colenso's calculations trying to discredit the possibility of the Pentateuch. I have been reaching out for answers ofc, but it just has been recently creating mental distress due to my OCD-charecteristics making it really difficult to tolerate any uncertainty.
DeleteWow, I'm sorry to hear that. I will be praying for you.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the objection that the fire on the Brazen Altar would destroy it is complete rubbish. What burns up is the skeptics' objection, not the Brazen Altar! Because first of all, acacia wood is naturally fire resistant. Secondly, the acacia wood was encased in solid bronze so the wood never came in direct contact with the fire. Thirdly, the Brazen Altar was quite large. The dimensions given in Exodus 27:1 describe it as being 5 cubits long, 5 cubits wide, and 3 cubits high. If a cubit is 18 inches (or 1.5 feet), then the Brazen Altar was 7.5 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and 4.5 feet high. It was thus quite large! A fire could easily be arranged inside it without ever getting close to its walls. Thus, fourthly, the fire was not directly next to the bronze walls of the altar. The altar was like a hollow box and there was metal grating placed about half-way down in the middle to put the sacrifices on. Commenting on Exodus 27:1-2, Norm Geisler says that stones or earth were placed in the bottom of the hollow altar and then the wood for burning was arranged on top of the stones under the metal grating. And of course the sacrifices would be placed on top of the metal grating. (See Norm Geisler's book "When Critics Ask," p. 79.) But actually, both the firewood and the animal sacrifices could have been place on top of the metal grating! In this case the fire would be even more separated from the walls of the altar because the metal grating was placed only about half-way down in the middle of the altar so air flow could go under it. Thus both the firewood and the animal sacrifices would be on top of the metal grating. This makes sense especially for the sacrifice of the burnt offering where the entire animal sacrifice was burned up (see Leviticus 1:7-9).
Someone might say, "But the acacia wood could warp." My response would be, first of all, saying that the acacia wood could warp is quite different from saying that it will burn up and be destroyed. Secondly, in regard to the acacia wood warping, just how much could it even warp if it was encased in solid bronze? The bronze inner and outer casing of the altar would likely help to keep the wood from warping, is my point.
These objections by skeptics are like old wives tales. Even though they have already been answered and debunked, they keep getting passed around because the skeptics are like a one-trick pony or someone who plays on a one-string fiddle. They are always playing same old song. Or to use yet another metaphor, they just keep recycling these worn-out and debunked objections hoping that somebody will fall for it.
I guess for me a major issue is however, is that my mind creates infinite "what if" scenarios due to OCD-patterns, so even when I get explanations which are rational, my mind still often ends up creating stress, because when my mind encounters even 0,1% uncertainty, it tends to make a "mountain out of a molehill".
DeleteAnother issue which I have been long thinking is that if the populations were literal, it would not technically have been purely naturally possible for all the mandatory offerings to have been managed on the altar, though that scenario probably never happened because Israel was never so actively obedient, but what do you think would have happened in a hypothetical scenario where Israel actually would have been obedient at those numbers?
What chapters and verses in the Old Testament are you referring to? Or what sacrifices?
ReplyDeleteI have two initial thoughts in regard to your question.
ReplyDelete1) In 2 Chronicles 7:7 it says that Solomon consecrated the middle courtyard for doing more sacrifices because the single bronze altar could not accommodate the vast number of sacrifices that were performed that day. It was a special day however, being the dedication of the newly build temple. So this shows that Israel had a way of handling the situation if they were faced with that problem of having an overabundance of sacrifices.
2) My second thought is in regard to when you asked about how would it be "possible for all the mandatory offerings to have been managed on the altar"? I'd say that the situation that I just mentioned from 2 Chronicles 7:7 is the exception, not the rule. I should note, however, that a similar problem was encountered when King Hezekiah reinstituted temple worship and conducted reforms (see 2 Chron. 29:34). Normally, it seems that Israel did not have the problem of having too many sacrifices for the one brazen altar to accommodate. There is an interesting note in 2 Chron 30:4-5 in the description of King Hezekiah's reforms. The text says that "Israel...had not celebrated it [i.e. the Passover] in great numbers as it was prescribed." So your thought is correct that for the most part "Israel was never so actively obedient," for the problem to even present itself. But when in the few instances when it did become a problem, the Bible tells us how the Levitical priests handled it. Either they consecrated more altars in the temple courtyard in order to accommodate all the sacrifices (as in the days of King Solomon), or they conscripted more Levites to help (as when King Hezekiah reinstituted the Passover).
BTW, I like Hubmaier's statement that you quoted on the topic of Free Will. I think his statement is helpful in illustrating how man's will is, at least to some extent, indeed free. Namely, in that people can choose to sin, which is against God's will. Thus showing (negatively) that we are free to make our own choice.
ReplyDeleteSomeone might say that such reasoning still does not prove or illustrate free will, but only shows that man is in bondage to sin. But in response to such an objection I would say, but you can't have it both ways. Because at times man obeys God, and at times man chooses to sin. So either:
1) we are in bondage to both God's will and sin (in which case bondage is essentially freedom because what other choice is there if sin is anything contrary to God's will?), or
2) God's will is sin and we thus we are in bondage to both because they are the same (the effect of #2 is the same as #1), or
3) they are distinct and we are in bondage to neither because we can choose to obey one or the other
That seems to be the logic, as far as I can tell. But maybe I'm missing something. What are your thoughts about it?
I would say that apart from God drawing everyone to Himself (Jn. 6:44), and apart from Christ drawing all people to Himself (Jn. 12:32), and apart from the Holy Spirit's ministry to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn. 12:8-9), people are in bondage to sin. But since God took the initiative to draw us, we can respond to Him.
The Bible verse that says "no one seeks God" (Rom. 3:11) means in the sense that no one naturally seeks God. Or, no one seeks God of their own initiative. We are like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when, after they sinned, they hid from God. That is all of us if left to ourselves. But praise the Lord, God went out looking for Adam and Eve! Jesus said He came to earth "to seek and save the lost" (Lk. 19:10). And concerning the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, we know that He convicts "the world" of sin because they don't believe in Jesus (Jn. 16:8ff).
In Acts 7, Stephen said to the Pharisees who were about to stone him to death: "Ye do always resist the Spirit" (Acts 7:51). And so God wants even the Pharisees to get saved. So since God has enlightened the whole world (see John chapter 1), man can therefore make a choice to seek God or not.
That's why I say that we can choose to do God's will or we can choose to sin. Since God took the initiative and has enlightened the world and is drawing all men to Himself, we have the capacity to respond to God. Or not. To me, that is free will. Because what other choice is there? There is either God's will or not God's will. Right? I suppose someone could say there are subsets to the category of "not God's will," but that doesn't disprove my point. The only two main choice that I see are:
1) God's will, or
2) Not God's will (Sin).
As I said, there may be different categories of sin, but they all are subsets under the umbrella of "Not God's will". And we have a choice to do God's will or not do God's will.
So I don't know, it doesn't seem that complicated. How is our will not free? Maybe I'm missing something.
I also want to mention that in the Bible, in the Old Testament one of the offerings was even called a "freewill offering" (Lev. 23:38). So that seems to support the premise that our will is free to make a choice.
ReplyDeleteHey btw, one thing about the brazen altar I am still wondering is: how could the altar walls have avoided being crushed by the pressure, as anything above 100c would make the wood release water vapour, which would very much increase the pressure. The bronze was unlikely very thick, as it would become too heavy to carry.
DeleteWell, if the bronze overlay was not very thick (which I agree it may not have been very thick although I'm not sure the Bible says how thick it was exactly), then that appears to answer the question of the skeptic and refute it actually. Because think about it, if the wood was just overlay with a thin bronze sheeting (such as if a think sheet of bronze was folded over the wood frame), then it would not be air-tight. In other words, it would not be sealed. The bronze sheeting would have edges where the air would naturally escape. And if the bronze was somehow thicker and more structural, it could easily have holes bored or drilled into it at certain places to allow for the wood to release any water vapor or air or whatever. Line drain holes for it it got water in it somehow. That's my thoughts on it anyway. The Israelites were very skilled craftsmen (and women). I'm sure they had it all figured out. I mean, they helped construct the pyramids in Egypt so I'm sure they had plenty of craftsman. Not to mention the fact that God say He gave some of them special skill to construct and design the various items in the tabernacle. I'm talking about when the Israelites were coming out of Egypt and going to the Promised Land. And in Solomon's day, the Israelites were at that time very skilled craftsman as well. King Solomon built ships with which they sailed to different parts of the world and brought back all types of exotic things (1 Kings 9:26-29). Remember, King Solomon was the wisest man in the world! I'm sure designing items for the temple was no problem for him. If I recall, it was David his father who had made the designs for the temple. But either way, Solomon was given wisdom by God so I'm sure it was no problem in that regard. It seems that the skeptics who have these little objections sort of forget about that. Their objections which they try to make sound so complicated would be like kindergarten math (1+1) to Solomon!
ReplyDeleteDo you think its possible that they may have had things like small internal walls around the fire, or perhaps around the lower end of the walls that were closest to the fire or perhaps the wood may have been pre-charred before use for some slight additional thermal protection?
DeleteAs with needing a large air gap, the amount of space usable does decrease a lot, if we take the position that burnt offerings had to literally cremate before finishing, it seems to become quite physically extreme, as things such as Sukkot (in the book of Numbers) required 13 whole bulls in one day. While bulls were smaller back then, the mass would still be in the multiple tons, which would exceed altar capacity if we take the strict view that the olot = burnt offerings had to fully cremate before removal from the altar. Do you think its possible however that this assumption is wrong?
* Instead of "a think sheet" (typo above) I mean to write "thin": "a thin sheet of bronze"
ReplyDelete** Another type when I wrote: "Line drain holes for it it got water in it somehow." I meant to say: "Like drain holes for it if it got water in it somehow."
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Do you think its possible however that this assumption is wrong?" What I think is that you should start with the Bible, not with the speculation. That's why I asked you several comments ago what passages in the Old Testament are you specifically referring to? What chapter and verse? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you ever told me. In fact, I don't think you've cited one Bible verse in any of your comments here. That's my point. You are looking at this whole thing backwards. The Bible is where to start. And quite frankly, where to end as well.
ReplyDeleteI think it helps to keep in mind that if and when the sacrifices exceeded the altar's capacity, the necessary changes were made to accommodate it. That's why I mentioned the example from Solomon's temple in one on my previous comments.
ReplyDeleteI think it's also helpful to keep in mind that the brazen altar wasn't like Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace. But the way you are talking, it almost sounds like it. The brazen altar was like a barbeque grill. I don't think it's that difficult to burn up an animal. If you leave food on the stove or in the oven too long it can burn up quick! And it's not like everyone brought a burnt offering to the altar every day. After all, how many cattle can survive in a desert with no grass?? Remember, the Israelites were wandering around in the desert for 40 years and were complaining that they had no food to eat. Obviously they didn't have many cattle, if any. So how are they going to offer burnt offerings on the altar if they have no cattle? You see what I'm saying? Then in the days of the Judges, yes Israel was back in their land, but the Bible says that "every man did what was right in his own eyes." So they were not following God's laws, is my point. So again, they most likely were not bringing many burnt offerings to the tabernacle. Remember the one Israelite who had a Levite living with him in the house who was acting as his personal priest?! So again, they were not going to the tabernacle much if at all, is my point.
I mean I am still struggling to understand the brazen altar, this is because even with ventilation, radiant heat is still the problem, and as the bronze would get very quickly filled with soot, the emissivity would be a big problem. The issue with radiant heat is that the wind doesn't blow it up at all, it goes equally in all directions. The fire would seem to have to be incredibly small to be able to safely fit?
DeleteI mean, I pointed directly to the feast of Sukkot (its instructions are in Numbers), where it instructs the priests themselves to offer 13 bulls in one day, even human cremation with modern technology takes 2 hours, so if we assume that burnt offerings required full cremation, atleast the mere brazen altar wouldn't seem to be able to handle it.
DeleteI guess we could assume something like what Solomon did could have happened (though keeping Sukkot is not a hypothetical, it is recorded in Joshua), however the text never says the space for burning was expanded? But I have heard some question if cremation was the standard for burnt offerings.
Well, first of all you are assuming that the Israelites couldn't figure out how to roast 13 bulls on the altar in a single day! That is quite a slap in the face, I'd say. No offense, I understand that you are just repeating the objection of the skeptic, but my goodness. It seems obvious from thinking about it for 30 seconds that if it takes 2 hours to incinerate (i.e., burn up) a corpse, basic math would say it would take 26 hours, correct? Okay, so obviously the Israelites would have to burn 2 bulls at a time, correct? (In order to incinerate the 13 bulls in one day.) I don't see the problem. If the brazen altar is 7.5 feet square, then 2 bulls could easily fit the on the altar at one time. Thus, instead of taking 26 hours to burn up all the bull offerings on the altar, it would only take 13 hours. So it would only take about 13 hours to burn up the 13 bulls on the altar. So if the priests started the burnt offerings of the bulls just before sunrise, let's say, they could finish by sunset (approximately). That's perfect timing, isn't it? I don't see what the problem is?
ReplyDeleteActually, I was thinking about the actual ritual requirement of the burnt offering, as "wholly" does not necessarily refer to the degree of burning, but could mean "whole" in the sense that the entire fire is dedicated to the fire? A human cremation under the maximum possible takes about 2 hours, but a bronze age bull was still noticeably larger than a human, and if a noticeable gap between the fire and walls were necessarily, only one bull could spatially fit above the fire itself.
DeleteThat is why I am wondering if there is any merit to the viewpoint if the requirement of a burnt offering was not strict cremation, since that would solve it quite easily.
Additionally, it was not just 13 bulls, but also the tamid + 14 lambs, 2 rams and 1 goat.
DeleteI made a typo, I mean entire animal dedicated to the fire, not entire fire
DeleteAs I contacted a pastor, his chief answer was to question if burnt offerings really required absolute cremation before they were ritually counted as sufficient in a ritual sense, the term form burnt in Hebrew apparently emphasizes the pleasing smoke more than the process of burning itself, for example bones do not create a pleasing smoke when they burn, which could put into question if they were even expected to calcinate before they could be removed from the altar.
DeleteAdditionally, in the traditional Jewish understanding atleast, no offering can be placed on the altar after the Tamid (Leviticus 6), so the actual window for offerings was only 12 hours if that is assumed.
DeleteAnd one more reason why I find the cremation model difficult is that modern crematorioums do get far hotter than open fires, and archeologically we find in tact bones around altars in the Levant rather than completely calcinated bones that have cremated
DeleteAnd remember, the 13 bulls only had to be sacrificed on that first day of the feast (Numbers 29:13). The remaining days of the feast it was less bulls that were required to be burned each day. So we are only even talking about how to figure it out on this one single day! The objection is absurd, is my point.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concern, but I think my point still stands from my previous comment. But let me go through the details that you brought up.
ReplyDeleteYou said something about "wholly". I'm not sure exactly what Bible verse you are referring to (?), but I agree that it could refer to the act of dedication rather than to the degree of burning.
You said, "A human cremation under the maximum possible takes about 2 hours, but a bronze age bull was still noticeably larger than a human." Yes, but if the bull is cut up into pieces then it is actually smaller than a human. And the pieces could be arranged on the altar. And if there was some commandment in the Mosaic Law that prohibited the Levites from cutting up the bulls (I don't know if there was or not), then refer back to my previous comments. Because, more than one bull could be placed on the altar at one time. Even including the other animals (lambs, etc.) they would burn up much faster since they were smaller animals, therefore allowing time for extra bulls to be placed on the altar after the smaller animal got burned up more quickly. It's not rocket science. I think you are over-complicating it.
You said: "if a noticeable gap between the fire and walls were necessarily, only one bull could spatially fit above the fire itself." But you don't know that. So your argument is an argument from silence. Or at least an unknown hypothetical. Which is a weak argument. Furthermore, you don't need an air gap if most of the fire is above the altar. The metal grating was placed half-way up the altar, correct? Do you think the bulls where placed directly on the metal grating? Maybe not. It seems like it would make more sense to first put the firewood directly on top of the metal grating and then place the animal sacrifices on top of the wood. Especially if it was a burnt offering. So the firewood would then come up to the top of the altar, correct? There's your air gap. Most of the fire would be above the top of the altar.
You said: "Additionally, it was not just 13 bulls, but also the tamid + 14 lambs, 2 rams and 1 goat." Right, but those are much smaller animals than a bull. They could therefore fit on the altar much more easily and also burn up much more quickly. Even if the altar could only fit 2 bulls on it at a time with no other animals, it would only take about 12-13 hours to burn the bulls, leaving evening time to burn the other smaller animals. And as I pointed out previously, the 13 bulls was only required on that one day of the feast. The rest of the days required less bulls to be burned. So you are making a big fuss about one single day, and it almost seems like you are ready to question the authenticity of the Bible because you can't figure out how to burn up 13 bulls on the altar in one day! I think you are blowing all this out of proportion. Everything you have brought up doesn't seem that complicated and it seems like it is easy to figure out and yet you are acting like it's an unsolved mystery. I see no mystery in it whatsoever. It's common sense if look at it with "the eye of faith" and with a believing heart rather than with the mind of a skeptic. If you want to question something, question creation! But how to cremate 13 bulls (and sundry smaller animals) on the Brazen Altar in a single 24-hour period, that's not really something that raises any real difficulty.
But ignoring this specific topic of Sukkot, what are your viewpoints on how to specifically interpret the requirement on burnt offerings, and at what point they would be ceremonially complete? I think the common view assumed that it needed absolute cremation is also complicated by archeology, as we don't find pure powder from Levantine excavations of altars.
DeleteHonestly, I haven't really studied the details of Sukkot. That is the Feast of Tabernacles, i.e., the Feast of Booths, correct?
ReplyDeleteBut as far as the burnt offering itself, the Mosaic Laws for it are given in Leviticus 1. The bull, incidentally, was to be a young bull (v. 5, NASB), therefore it wasn't a huge full-grown one. And it was to be cut in pieces (v. 6). Thus making it easier to burn. Apparently, the skin of the animal was the only part of it that wasn't burned (see Lev. 7:8). As far as whether or not there was "absolute cremation" of the burnt offering, I would say that there were ashes (see Lev. 6:8ff), but whether those ashes were from the firewood, and/or from the animal, or from both, I'm not entirely certain. The implication, is far as I can tell from reading Leviticus 6, is that the burnt offering was completely reduced to ashes.
And as far as finding "pure powder from Levantine excavations of altars," the skeptics sure are on a witch hunt to disprove the Bible if they are going to that extent! To me that seems hard to prove, because obviously the Israelites burned fires and thus there would be ashes. My question would be, what civilization didn't have ashes? So then the question becomes, how do you analyze the ashes, because unless a civilization is living underwater, the people were likely making fires and thus there would be ashes.
But to me, that argument sort of is self-refuting. Because the previous argument about burning the animals assumes that the Israelites did have fires and were burning animals! So either they did or they didn't. It seems like the skeptic wants to have it both ways. In other words, the previous discussion about the burnt offerings assumes as true that the Israelites were doing the burnt offerings. But in this your most recent comment you present a seemingly different perspective from the skeptics. Am I understanding you correctly that now the skeptics want to deny the fact that the Israelites were even doing the burnt offerings?! If that is indeed what they are saying, then their own methodology is self-refuting, because they already admitted that the Israelites were doing the burnt offerings. Thus whether or not the sacrifices were completely burned to ash is somewhat beside the point. As least as far as proving the Old Testament as reliable. Because maybe we are misunderstanding the Mosaic Law about reducing the burnt offering to ash. Or if they didn't, maybe they were disobedient to the Law in that regard. Like I said, this question about finding and excavating the ashes (or analyzing them) is sort of beside the point in terms of "Old Testament historicity" (your original discussion).
I think you misunderstood me, I mean that when I asked about the topic from a Free Grace Dispensationalist pastor himself (not a sceptic), he argued that the view that burnt offerings required literal cremation is not necessitated by the text.
DeleteI repeated his points from above, as "deshen" translated "ash" may not be literal powder.
DeleteGotcha, okay that's helpful. Yes, I tend to agree. Although I'm more comfortable saying "absolute cremation" (i.e. full cremation) does not seem to be necessitated by the text. Obviously there were ashes. Whether the burnt offering was always 100% turned to ash (or 100% powderized) does not seem to be required (nor specified) by the text. As far as I can tell.
ReplyDeleteHow the pastor I contacted argued (he is from Chafer Seminary originally), argued that "deshen" is not identical to the modern English definition of "ash".
DeleteAh, interesting. I like that argument, because it sounds like he's going back to the Bible and back to the original language.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think it's pretty cool how we can communicate so easily here online even though we are in completely different countries.