"they have not committed sin of which we have any knowledge (that is what we
mean by "innocent", after all)."
True, but is that what the historical context means?
I went and looked up the Hebrew words and two came back with the possible meanings: "to be free, be exempt from obligation" Which I take as a reference to the Law of Moses and not to a holy, sanctified state.
"If the pagans were "sacrificing the guilty," then the text would be nonsense." Since man was created in the image of God it still showed idolitry and murder of which the Jewish reader should draw a connect again back to the Law of Moses.
Just trying to think these things through before I can come to an opinion on MacArthur's position.
Harry
"James W. Allen" <jallen@...> wrote:
I think you are overthinking this one.
In the text, Israel is condemned for doing what the pagans do, that is,
"sacrificing innocents." The whole point is the condemnation of Israel for
doing what the pagans were doing, so the identity between the sins is
mandatory to the point.
If the pagans were "sacrificing the guilty," then the text would be
nonsense.
MacArthur's reading of the text is fine, although (of course) one must
consider carefully what "innocent" means in the context. I think it means
they have not committed sin of which we have any knowledge (that is what we
mean by "innocent", after all). He certainly does not mean they are not dead
in Adam.
James W. Allen
jallen@...
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace