Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum  You can't just make the Israelites into crypto-romanists. The actions of the priests didn't just "work" and *BAM!* sins of everybody atoned for.
How convenient.
No, the efficacy of any (authorized) ritual or behavior whatsoever is only to the degree it is mixed with faith. True today or yesterday. |
The sanctuary, tabernacle, and the altar didn't have faith. Does that mean that they were not atoned for?
Of course, they did not have any sin either.
I am not contesting that repentance and faith are required for salvation, but I do not think that we should automatically read systematic soteriological categories back into an OT situation. While it is obvious that there was some element of sin and its expiation involved with the people, I think that we must say there was more to it than that, due to the inclusion of these other objects.
We cannot just focus on the people, and forget the other things mentioned in these passages, as they have significance as well. What we could ask is, granted that the efficacy of the atonement was "ex opere operato" for the inanimate items, were there two differing types of atonement occurring here, and, if not, was the atonement for the people in this passage of a different type than that of which we are assuming? I have no quick answers here for you all, just raising some other lines of thought to spur on conversation (and I didn't want the tabernacle to feel left out).