Alferd Edershim: The Temple

[Theopesta]

DEAR ALL
please I find what al. Edershim wrote about the sin offering not compatibale with what I read in meny searches,

I donot know are his writtings are sure or to what extent I depend on his opinion?

if and one of you no any thing can please answer me

many thanks
in CHRIST

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Theopesta,

Above you wrote:


please I find what al. Edershim wrote about the sin offering not compatibale with what I read in meny searches, [...].

However, you did not provide the text or a link -- perhaps accidentally? It would be interesting to read the comments you mention, if you are able to point us towards them.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

in chapter 18 On Purifications/ Levitical Defilement Traceable to Death:

'It is a sin-offering' (#Nu 9:17). But it differs from all other sin-offerings. The sacrifice was to be of pure red colour; one 'upon which never came yoke'; 4 and a female, all other sin-offerings for the congregation being males (#Le 4:14).

this commentery not compatible with the bible, with the jewish encyclopedia and with the commentery of some christian explainers they that more acuurat than him,

the sin oferring sometimes male sometimes female my proof:

LEV 5: 6- 9 "6 (lxxe) And he shall bring for his transgressions against the Lord, for his sin which he has sinned, " a ewe lamb of the flock, or a kid of the goats, for a sin–offering;...."

the jewish encyclopedia/ SIN-OFFERING/ —Biblical Data:

the sin-offering is a young bullock without blemish. Should the ruler so sin, his offering is a male kid without blemish. But when a private individual sins, his offering must be either a female kid or a female lamb without blemish, or, if he is too poor to provide one of these, a turtle-dove.

also, al. Edershim wrote in chapter 6 The Temple: Its Ministry and Services Alfred Edersheim

Chapter 6
The Burnt-Offering, the Sin- and Trespass-Offering, and the Peace-Offering
Symbolism of the Sin-offering

In fact, the trespass-offering may be regarded as representing ransom for a special wrong, while the sin-offering symbolised general redemption. Both sacrifices applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in opposition to those done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). For the latter the law provided no atonement

I find in a search under the name of:
"The Levitical Offerings
THE SIN & TRESPASS OFFERING
(Leviticus 5:1-6:7)"

http://www.thebiblestudypage.com/trespass.shtml

[1]. The in offering deals with sins done in ignorance while the trespass offering deals with known sins.

the words of edershem itself I feel with some contradiction:
how he said that:

In fact, the trespass-offering may be regarded as representing ransom for a special wrong, while the sin-offering symbolised general redemption

then in the same context said that:

Both sacrifices applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in opposition to those done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). For the latter the law provided no atonement, but held out 'a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation

the write that:
By sins 'through ignorance,' however, we are to understand, according to the Rabbis, not only such as were committed strictly through want of knowledge, but also those which had been unintentional, or through weakness, or where the offender at the time realised not his guilt.

finally I reach to Edershim is very spritual in understanding and commenting in the bible but the cermonials not accurate I want to know this opinion is the right or I am not understanding well

many thanks
in CHRIST

[Theopesta]

LEV 4: 27- 29:
"(AKJV) And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he does somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

"Or if his sin, which he has sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned
And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering."

finally the sin-offering not only femal in case of death uncleanness as Edershim comment.

also, on commentery: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge on Lev 5: 6:

The sin offering seems to have been for the expiation of offences committed in matters of religion, from a mistake or inadvertency respecting the law; but the trespass offering was required for the casual deviations from the ritual law, when well known, or for crimes against moral precepts, implying injustice to man.

edershim wrote that: those done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). the law provided no atonement

[Theopesta]

I must introduce many apologizes to all of you when AL.ED said:

in chapter 18 On Purifications/ Levitical Defilement Traceable to Death: 'It is a sin-offering' (#Nu 9:17). But it differs from all other sin-offerings. The sacrifice was to be of pure red colour; one 'upon which never came yoke'; 4 and a female, all other sin-offerings for the congregation being males (#Le 4:14).

this is correct as all sin-offerings for the congregation are always male

but that for individual are female

forgive me all
IN ONE CHRIST
theopesta