One reason for posting Zuck's comments and the information regarding Esther 7:6 is because those posts show ra and its cognates can refer to wicked/evil persons or to those who are vile. Contrary to Benner, the evidence for ra demonstrates that it can denote moral evil in some contexts. Benner's discussion is wrong on many levels, not just one.
It's patently ridiculous to claim that Jews believed God is both functional and dysfunctional. Furthermore, Benner's insistence that the "eastern mind" thought such and such is just wrong. Those kind of generalizations will get us nowhere.
Yes, Jews did believe that Haman was evil, wicked and full of perfidy. "That dysfunctional Haman" just does not cut it.
Moral light and moral darkness are not equally necessary for the ancient Hebrews. Sounds like Jeff is talking about Taoism or some other Asian religion, not Judaism.
Benner is not generalising. It would seem that you are.
He is not referring to rabbinic Hebrew. He is referring to ancient Hebrew which is not even the whole of the tanakh. This is Torah Hebrew. I have have already demonstrated that later texts use ra'a' in combination with other terms to denote wickedness. Yes, that is all about intent, but where are your early examples?
Now my work on Leviticus in comparison to Deuteronomy is well underway I can demonstrate an evolution in thought over time on a number of points, and I soon will.
Here's a question that needs an answer. Why is the "cloud by day" always depicted as a light and fluffy one? What tells us that it would look like that.
An alter made of acacia wood. But what wood was burned on it? IMO, not acacia. What ever it was, hardly any of it was used. It was only used as a wick.
"Beeswax candles had a number of advantages over the tallow candles, primarily; the candles burned much cleaner, without producing smoke, and the candles gave off a sweet smell – tallow candles were known to produce a foul, unpleasant, odour."
How am I generalizing? Second, I never said Benner was talking about rabbinic or medieval Judaism. That was not why I have a link for the website. I think Benner is misconstruing ancient Hebrew and the biblical Israelites.
My early examples of ra and its cognates are found in Genesis, which we discussed earlier. I await your work on Leviticus.
Any depiction of the cloud by day is just that. I don't rely on art to provide an ontological description of Jehovah's divine glory.
But we do have data to work with that guides the depiction of the smoke from the alter. During the day a black plume and at night the flames flash through the plume.
"This is, of course, an easily defensible interpretation, since the adjectives a?a??? and ?a???, can notoriously refer to moral objectives ('good' and 'evil') as well as strategic ones ('effective' and 'ineffective')."
I don't have a problem with viewing the fire as burning regularly or continually, although the implication is that the fire should never go out.
There was a big gap between the Egyptians and faithful Israelites. As the book about Maat points out, even the Egyptians did not fully equate evil with good. But I would expect Israel to be different from the Egyptians as YHWH led and trained them.
Furthermore, I'm not saying that ra always denotes moral evil. I've actually said this many times already. Rather, I'm talking about the word/cognates having that denotation in certain settings.
I've been repeatedly saying that ra can refer to things besides moral evil as we see in Isa. 45:7. I argued this point in my dissertation over a decade ago.
Agreed about effective/ineffective, but I just have a problem with reducing good and evil to functions as opposed to values/ethics/morals in some cases. Adultery is not simply evil (bad) because it's dysfunctional: Aristotle thinks it's intrinsically wrong and I agree. But my reasons for thinking adultery is wrong in terms of values might differ from Aristotle's.
Sociologists/counselors also like to point out that 95%+ families are dysfunctional. Whether that claim is right or wrong, I don't define a dysfunctional family unit in terms of evil/bad. In other words, it's not good to be dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean the family is bad in a moral sense.
As for the fire, I'd like to probe a little deeper, but the account suggests the perpetual fire would be a miracle. I've never seen fire come from heaven and consume an animals either: Doesn't mean it can't happen. More importantly for our purposes, how did the early writers envision this process happening?
Well, we an account of a burning bush that required no addition of wood & the bush was not burned so why would the priests have to keep adding wood to the alter?
http://www.payvand.com/news/18/apr/1011.html
This may be a perpetual fire, but certainly not in its holder. Every few days it would be full of ash. There is no visible method of cleaning this out from below, so something would have to be done but I cannot find out what, unless we think that this is a miracle.
I would be inclined to think that the alter would have a metal lining too.
The account says Jehovah started the initial fire, and then the priests had to keep it burning. Most sources I've said says the fire was kept going at all times, without being extinguished or going out on its own.
Gordon J. Wenham's comments follow:
In the morning the ash had to be cleared away (vv. 3–4 [10–11]). In approaching the altar the priest had always to wear the correct priestly clothes, especially designed to cover his flesh, i.e., his private parts (v. 3 [10]; cf. Exod. 20:26; 28:42–43), even when he was not actually engaged in sacrifice but was merely clearing away the ashes. When he left the altar to carry the ash away to a place outside the camp, he had to put on other clothes. The holy garments were reserved for use in the sanctuary (v. 4 [11]). The holy and the common must not be confused (cf. Lev. 10:10). What was the purpose of the perpetual fire of the burnt offering? What did it symbolize? Since it is never explicitly explained in Scripture, we can only list the suggestions that have been made. Calvin notes that the first burnt offerings in the tabernacle and in the temple were lit by fire from heaven (Lev. 9:24; 2 Chr. 7:1). The priests had to keep this fire going so “that the offerings should be burnt with heavenly fire.”³ Keil⁴ thinks the fire had to be kept burning because the burnt offering “was the divinely appointed symbol and visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah.” Gispen⁵ thinks that it represented the continual consecration of the people to God. If the burnt offering was also seen as a propitiatory sacrifice,⁶ the perpetual fire served as a reminder of the constant need for atonement.
Whichever interpretation is adopted, Christians can draw a lesson from it. If the perpetual fire represents God’s eternal presence with his people, the Christian is reminded to keep the divine fire ever burning within him. In the words of Paul, “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:16ff.). If it speaks of our abiding need for atonement, we are reminded that Christ “always lives to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25).
Jay Sklar adds:
The text mentions three times the need for a continual fire (vv. 9b, 12, 13), emphasizing that this offering was to be burning continually. And since the offering’s purpose was to seek the Lord’s favour, this law taught the priests that they and the Israelites were to have a posture of continual dependence and worship before him (cf. Ps. 127:1; Deut. 6:5), a posture that the modern believer is also to have (cf. Matt. 22:37; 2 Cor. 12:9–10; Phil. 4:13). At the same time, in order for the fire to burn continually, the priests would need to perform their duties diligently. If they did not, the worship of God would suffer (cf. 1 Sam. 2:12–36). This passage is therefore a strong exhortation to priestly faithfulness (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12–16) and, specifically, to intercede on Israel’s behalf for the Lord’s favour and help (cf. Eph. 1:15–23; Phil. 1:3–4; Col. 1:3–5). Israel’s priests did this by means of an animal offering, but Jesus, our great High Priest, does this by means of the perfect sacrifice of himself, by which he has eternally secured the Lord’s favour for ‘those who come to God through him’ (see Introduction; see also Heb. 7:25–27; 10:11–14; cf. Rom. 8:34–39)
The got questions website extracts a lot from Wenham's commentary, but adds some to it. Their explanation makes the fire sound miraculous, which is fine with me.
Cannot see why they all fail to speculate about the cloud over the alter.
If one ads salt to the offering it will burn yellow.
Regarding moving the altar in the midbar:-
"There is no answer to this question in the MT itself, but there are several possible answers that do not overtly contradict the MT:
The law dates from the time of, or only refers to, the stationary central sanctuary in Bet El or Jerusalem.
The law applied only when the altar in the desert was actually set up, but not to the time during which it was transported.
The law was interpreted to mean "every day" in the sense of at least part of the day and the fire should not be intentionally put out.
There was an additional means, possibly miraculous, not mentioned in the text, by which the fire on the altar was transported.
The earliest reference to this question is in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Yoma (Yom Kippur) Chapter 4, Mishna 6 (page 23b)1:
Rabbi Yohanan said "Even during transport the fire was not allowed to go out". What did they do? During transport they covered the fire with a copper hood [loan word from the Greek ψυκτήρ] as Rabbi Yehudah said. Rabbi Shimon said, "During transport they tended the fire [in a separate vessel, not on the altar itself]".
Similar problems with other "eternal" commandments occur in the case of the showbread and its accompanying spice offering, which were solved in practice during the second temple period by either interpreting the commandment to mean "daily" as in (3) above or by sliding off the past week's bread while simultaneously sliding on the new bread.
Note that this problem either did not bother anyone in the ancient world very much, or else the material relating to it was lost in the processes of "natural selection" that favors preservation of texts with more practical value. The Jerusalem Talmud is the only ancient text that references this question, and it is a work of secondary importance in the Jewish tradition. Critical scholars today would probably say that Leviticus 6 referred to the stationary sanctuary only, as in (1) above."
"the phrase Give Aaron and his sons this command directs these regulations (torah) to the priests. The section centers on the altar fire and the ashes. The priests are instructed to keep the offering on top of the altar overnight and to ensure that the fire does not go out. The continuity of the fire may symbolize divine presence continuing with the community."
"The importance of keeping the fire burning is again emphasized in verse 12, along with a mention of the fellowship offerings. Besides being a symbol of divine presence, the continuously burning fire answers the practical concerns that offerings be consumed entirely and that fire always be available."
Here is also a comment from Kenneth Matthews:
"Our passage specifies how the priests were to maintain the fires, too. The priests placed fresh wood on the altar each morning, which would have stoked up the simmering fires of the offering presented the night before. Next the burnt offering was placed on the ar- ranged wood followed by the fat pieces derived from peace offerings presented by worshippers. This fat functioned as combustible fuel to assist the burning process. Little or nothing was left to chance or human invention. That detailed instructions were given to the priests tells us that the worship of God is not a casual matter that can be treated carelessly."
These commentaries hint at the reality of maintaining a fire in the midbar. If one looks at how many sacrifices the nation were to put on this alter it was not to aid the wood in burning. The wood acted as a wick for burning the tallow. What kind of access to wood do you think they had? Camp fires were probably using dried animal dung. The salt changes the colour of the flame making it more visible. IMO the alter was burning when they were on the move. But none of this answers the conundrum of how it would be cleaned while still kept alight. It was probably the flame from the lampstands that was used to re-light it after it was emptied and cleaned.
See Matthew Henry's commentary on Lev. 6:8ff here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/leviticus/6.html
K-D on Lev. 6:13:
Fire was to be kept constantly burning upon the altar without going out, not in order that the heavenly fire, which proceeded from Jehovah when Aaron and his sons first entered upon the service of the altar after their consecration, and consumed the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, might never be extinguished (see at Leviticus 9:24); but that the burnt-offering might never go out, because this was the divinely appointed symbol and visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah, which the covenant nation could never suspend either day or night, without being unfaithful to its calling. For the same reason other nations also kept perpetual fire burning upon the altars of their principal gods. (For proofs, see Rosenmller and Knobel ad h. l.)
See the reflections at https://www.aju.edu/ziegler-school-rabbinic-studies/our-torah/back-issues/sitting-altar-your-table
Quote:
The Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 4:6 expounds on this lesson of the Torah saying: “It (the fire) is never to be put out – even in your travels. When they traveled (in the desert) what did they do? They would cover the flame with a large pot?” Moreover, Maimonides presents this as a positive Torah commandment to keep a fire burning on the altar.
Why is it that the Torah commands that the fire never be extinguished, and that Talmud sees it as so important that it applied even during times when the altar may have been portable? Would we not think that the fire could be re-lit at each new location or as needed for each new sacrifice? Moreover, in a time when the Temple no longer stands, how are we to fulfill the mitzvah and what are we to take out of its message?
So it looks like it was a fire box but there must have been an opening at the bottom of one side to remove ash. Not all ash would be remove in this case as a 3 inch layer would insulate the bottom, if made of wood. The bronze grill would have to be quite thick or it would bow over time.
When it refers to horns, it be indicating that the sides had v shaped tops. This would protect the fire from direct wind.
So it could still fit the fire by day and the cloud by night. I think a very important point was that the sacrifice was to be salted. Sea salt and rock salt give different effects.
One problem I see with your suggestion is that the cloud and fire come into play before the tabernacle is built and before the Leviticus command is given. Further the cloud and fire are miraculous: they're not a result of man simply doing something, but rather God.
With much respect, Duncan, I don't see how Numbers 9:21 answers my questions. As Barnes writes:
The cloud ... - The phenomenon first appeared at the Exodus itself, Exodus 13:21-22. The cloud did not cover the whole structure, but the "tent of the testimony," i. e. the enclosure which contained the "ark of the testimony" Exodus 25:16, Exodus 25:22, and the holy place. The phenomenon is now again described in connection with the journeyings which are to be narrated in the sequel of the book.
[END QUOTE]
So if there was no altar or perpetual fire, yet the clod/fire still followed Israel day and night, then the cloud/fire cannot simply be chalked up to the fire that burned at the tabernacle or temple. Secondly, no command had even been given in Exodus to keep a perpetual fire going, yet there was the cloud/fire guiding Israel. For ancient Israel, the clod/fire was also miraculous--not man made.
See this paper regarding crop growing in the arid dry lands (not to be confused with desserts, which are man made phenomena).
Arid dry-lands can be highly productive & not just for cattle, but only for so long dependent on weather and the population that they can support at any given time.
This blog is not the place to list the masses of data on dry-land environments, but they tend to be painted with a very ignorant brush most of the time.
"A similar diversity is shown in diffusive conductance and transpiration of adjacent plants (Ullmann 1985), but on the whole the leaves of the deciduous acacias seem to operate on higher conductances than the foliage of the evergreen species."
The cattle and people could benefit from this, as long as one controlled the goats.
Also note that we have judges 20:40 referring to a pillar of smoke - the difference is the materials burned and the appearance.
Salting the tallow would also remove water from it (do we know how long it would be salted before being placed on the alter?) making for a much cleaner burn and a lighter smoke (cloud).
The smoke from the camp fires would look quite different.
I'm gonna let my objection rest for now. My point was not just that the divine presence was manifested at the holy place, but rather, I was pointing out that the cloud and fire occurred before Israel started burning the perpetual fire. The cloud/fire was not dependent on humans lighting a fire. But I will desist.
Other verses in the OT/NT make clear that Moses was part of Israel (part of the people of God). However, Moses stood in a special position as mediator and prophet for Gd's people. As the letter to the Hebrews states, Moses served in the house of that one (i.e., God). Yet, did that mean he wasn't a member of the house?
Have you noticed that the type of dialogue in Deut. 1 is somewhat common in the Hebrew Bible, where we have speeches or addresses to a group?
The idea of the cloud/fire might have developed over time, but I think basically all the references of this phenomenon are connected.
Article about the pillar: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Pillar-Fire-Cloud
Some rationalistic writers have suggested that the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night may have been produced by a lighted bowl of pitch mounted on a pole. There are references by ancient historians and later travelers to the practice of Pers. armies and Arab caravans carrying braziers of burning wood at the head of their march. The large bronze pillars in front of Solomon’s Temple, which are thought by some to have been fiery cressets (or bowls of pitch), that emitted smoke and flame by day and night during festivals (1 Kings 7:15), were called “pillars” (עַמּוּד, H6647). There is, however, absolutely no proof in the Heb. text for this theory. Although it may be conceded that a device made with God’s approval could still serve His purpose, and that fire and smoke might have been employed as symbols of His presence. Yet the Scripture narrative implies that the pillar of fire and of cloud was supernatural in origin, and was intended to demonstrate God’s presence rather than merely symbolizing it.
This is a straw man and I am referring to the alter which we do have significant details about. One is going to have to explain away the function of the salt and tallow. If the alter was primarily fueled by wood they would have stripped the drylands bare. These other arguments just do not stand up to the reality of migrating through the midbar. The sacrifices also controlled the population of livestock which could also have eaten the midbar to dust.
"It is common knowledge among students of ancient Semitic religions, at least since Julius Wellhausen and his famous book, Reste arabischen Heidentums (1897), that pagan cults of the Arabian peninsula were often provided with large precincts, called hima or haram and regarded as the sacred land on which cultivation of soil, hunting game, cutting trees, etc. were strictly forbidden."
15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, [h]utterly destroying it and >>>all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword.<<< 16 Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God; >>>and it shall be a [i]ruin forever.<<< >>>It shall never be rebuilt<<<. 17 Nothing from that which is put >>>>under the ban<<<< shall cling to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn from His burning anger and show mercy to you, and have compassion on you and make you increase, just as He has sworn to your fathers, 18 [j]if you will listen to the voice of the Lord your God, [k]keeping all His commandments which I am commanding you today, [l]and >>>doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God<<<.
Your earlier comments made it sound like you were trying to give a scientific explanation for the cloud and smoke. I was addressing that point. It helps to know what point you're trying to make. And none of this discussion is about the OP.
Leviticus 1:5 also has functional features. Continually splashing blood on all sides of the alter would stop the Acatia wood from drying out to the point where it would burn more easily. This would also minimize water use.
An interesting feature is in verse 9:-
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/1-9.htm
The washing of the parts that would either contain or be covered with excrement.
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/1-12.htm
The head and the salt covered tallow was not washed.
"Your brain also contains cells, nerve fibers, arteries, and arterioles. It also contains fat and is the fattiest organ in the body — nearly 60 percent fat."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gmOvCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=learning+from+the+sages&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmjsa0m7jnAhUTShUIHaUmDMwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=wicked&f=false
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/good-and-bad.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/1-5.htm
ReplyDeleteOne reason for posting Zuck's comments and the information regarding Esther 7:6 is because those posts show ra and its cognates can refer to wicked/evil persons or to those who are vile. Contrary to Benner, the evidence for ra demonstrates that it can denote moral evil in some contexts. Benner's discussion is wrong on many levels, not just one.
ReplyDeleteIt's patently ridiculous to claim that Jews believed God is both functional and dysfunctional. Furthermore, Benner's insistence that the "eastern mind" thought such and such is just wrong. Those kind of generalizations will get us nowhere.
Yes, Jews did believe that Haman was evil, wicked and full of perfidy. "That dysfunctional Haman" just does not cut it.
Moral light and moral darkness are not equally necessary for the ancient Hebrews. Sounds like Jeff is talking about Taoism or some other Asian religion, not Judaism.
https://huc.edu/evil-matter-intent
ReplyDeleteSee the paragraphs about medieval and rabbinic Judaism
Benner is not generalising. It would seem that you are.
ReplyDeleteHe is not referring to rabbinic Hebrew. He is referring to ancient Hebrew which is not even the whole of the tanakh. This is Torah Hebrew. I have have already demonstrated that later texts use ra'a' in combination with other terms to denote wickedness. Yes, that is all about intent, but where are your early examples?
Now my work on Leviticus in comparison to Deuteronomy is well underway I can demonstrate an evolution in thought over time on a number of points, and I soon will.
Here's a question that needs an answer. Why is the "cloud by day" always depicted as a light and fluffy one? What tells us that it would look like that.
ReplyDeleteLev 6:8
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9F5LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=leviticus+altar+burning+tallow&source=bl&ots=O1wXLo7EhI&sig=ACfU3U2SwHkaT5TAjue2VwXfTEfFrlKL4w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyvJP9kLrnAhWMYsAKHQjXCTgQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=intestines%20tallow&f=false
ReplyDeleteAn alter made of acacia wood. But what wood was burned on it? IMO, not acacia. What ever it was, hardly any of it was used. It was only used as a wick.
"Beeswax candles had a number of advantages over the tallow candles, primarily; the candles burned much cleaner, without producing smoke, and the candles gave off a sweet smell – tallow candles were known to produce a foul, unpleasant, odour."
https://www.thecandleselection.co.uk/history-of-candles
"A candle flame that is longer than its laminar smoke point will emit soot."
How am I generalizing? Second, I never said Benner was talking about rabbinic or medieval Judaism. That was not why I have a link for the website. I think Benner is misconstruing ancient Hebrew and the biblical Israelites.
ReplyDeleteMy early examples of ra and its cognates are found in Genesis, which we discussed earlier. I await your work on Leviticus.
Any depiction of the cloud by day is just that. I don't rely on art to provide an ontological description of Jehovah's divine glory.
Leviticus 6:8? NRSV simply reads that the Lord said to Moses, period. Did you have another verse in mind?
ReplyDeleteBut we do have data to work with that guides the depiction of the smoke from the alter. During the day a black plume and at night the flames flash through the plume.
ReplyDeleteDid not notice the break. Lev 6:9.
ReplyDeleteThe alter hiring in the day and through the night. Presumably a break in the morning to empty the box.
Compare Lev. 6:13; 9:24.
ReplyDeleteIt was to be a perpetual fire.
So are continually and regularly the same? Apparently they are in Hebrew.
ReplyDeleteThe Egyptian expression evil-good, which is normally employed to mean "everything."
ReplyDeleteGordon, Cyrus H.; Rendsburg, Gary A. (1997). The Bible and the ancient Near East (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-393-31689-6.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ams2OPbmHMUC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=maat+evil+good&source=bl&ots=5N4JP9m_X2&sig=ACfU3U06MzosqeXjQV-1zNAVftv3qNRLsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsxYff8rznAhXMRxUIHQMcCKoQ6AEwD3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=maat%20evil%20good&f=false
Job 6:2
"This is, of course, an easily defensible interpretation,
ReplyDeletesince the adjectives a?a??? and ?a???, can notoriously refer to moral
objectives ('good' and 'evil') as well as strategic ones ('effective' and
'ineffective')."
pg 204
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4433545?seq=1
I don't have a problem with viewing the fire as burning regularly or continually, although the implication is that the fire should never go out.
ReplyDeleteThere was a big gap between the Egyptians and faithful Israelites. As the book about Maat points out, even the Egyptians did not fully equate evil with good. But I would expect Israel to be different from the Egyptians as YHWH led and trained them.
Furthermore, I'm not saying that ra always denotes moral evil. I've actually said this many times already. Rather, I'm talking about the word/cognates having that denotation in certain settings.
I've been repeatedly saying that ra can refer to things besides moral evil as we see in Isa. 45:7. I argued this point in my dissertation over a decade ago.
Doesn't effective' and ineffective seem very close to functional and disfunctional?
ReplyDeleteDon't see how the fire in the alter itself can burn continually? You would have to clean it out at some point.
ReplyDeleteAgreed about effective/ineffective, but I just have a problem with reducing good and evil to functions as opposed to values/ethics/morals in some cases. Adultery is not simply evil (bad) because it's dysfunctional: Aristotle thinks it's intrinsically wrong and I agree. But my reasons for thinking adultery is wrong in terms of values might differ from Aristotle's.
ReplyDeleteSociologists/counselors also like to point out that 95%+ families are dysfunctional. Whether that claim is right or wrong, I don't define a dysfunctional family unit in terms of evil/bad. In other words, it's not good to be dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean the family is bad in a moral sense.
As for the fire, I'd like to probe a little deeper, but the account suggests the perpetual fire would be a miracle. I've never seen fire come from heaven and consume an animals either: Doesn't mean it can't happen. More importantly for our purposes, how did the early writers envision this process happening?
Well, we an account of a burning bush that required no addition of wood & the bush was not burned so why would the priests have to keep adding wood to the alter?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.payvand.com/news/18/apr/1011.html
This may be a perpetual fire, but certainly not in its holder. Every few days it would be full of ash. There is no visible method of cleaning this out from below, so something would have to be done but I cannot find out what, unless we think that this is a miracle.
I would be inclined to think that the alter would have a metal lining too.
The account says Jehovah started the initial fire, and then the priests had to keep it burning. Most sources I've said says the fire was kept going at all times, without being extinguished or going out on its own.
ReplyDeleteGordon J. Wenham's comments follow:
In the morning the ash had to be cleared away (vv. 3–4 [10–11]). In approaching the altar the priest had always to wear the correct priestly clothes, especially designed to cover his flesh, i.e., his private parts (v. 3 [10]; cf. Exod. 20:26; 28:42–43), even when he was not actually engaged in sacrifice but was merely clearing away the ashes. When he left the altar to carry the ash away to a place outside the camp, he had to put on other clothes. The holy garments were reserved for use in the sanctuary (v. 4 [11]). The holy and the common must not be confused (cf. Lev. 10:10).
What was the purpose of the perpetual fire of the burnt offering? What did it symbolize? Since it is never explicitly explained in Scripture, we can only list the suggestions that have been made. Calvin notes that the first burnt offerings in the tabernacle and in the temple were lit by fire from heaven (Lev. 9:24; 2 Chr. 7:1). The priests had to keep this fire going so “that the offerings should be burnt with heavenly fire.”³ Keil⁴ thinks the fire had to be kept burning because the burnt offering “was the divinely appointed symbol and visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah.” Gispen⁵ thinks that it represented the continual consecration of the people to God. If the burnt offering was also seen as a propitiatory sacrifice,⁶ the perpetual fire served as a reminder of the constant need for atonement.
Whichever interpretation is adopted, Christians can draw a lesson from it. If the perpetual fire represents God’s eternal presence with his people, the Christian is reminded to keep the divine fire ever burning within him. In the words of Paul, “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:16ff.). If it speaks of our abiding need for atonement, we are reminded that Christ “always lives to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25).
Jay Sklar adds:
The text mentions three times the need for a continual fire (vv. 9b, 12, 13), emphasizing that this offering was to be burning continually. And since the offering’s purpose was to seek the Lord’s favour, this law taught the priests that they and the Israelites were to have a posture of continual dependence and worship before him (cf. Ps. 127:1; Deut. 6:5), a posture that the modern believer is also to have (cf. Matt. 22:37; 2 Cor. 12:9–10; Phil. 4:13). At the same time, in order for the fire to burn continually, the priests would need to perform their duties diligently. If they did not, the worship of God would suffer (cf. 1 Sam. 2:12–36). This passage is therefore a strong exhortation to priestly faithfulness (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12–16) and, specifically, to intercede on Israel’s behalf for the Lord’s favour and help (cf. Eph. 1:15–23; Phil. 1:3–4; Col. 1:3–5). Israel’s priests did this by means of an animal offering, but Jesus, our great High Priest, does this by means of the perfect
sacrifice of himself, by which he has eternally secured the Lord’s favour for ‘those who come to God through him’ (see Introduction; see also Heb. 7:25–27; 10:11–14; cf. Rom. 8:34–39)
https://www.gotquestions.org/altar-fire.html
ReplyDeleteCloud by day fire by night.
The got questions website extracts a lot from Wenham's commentary, but adds some to it. Their explanation makes the fire sound miraculous, which is fine with me.
ReplyDeleteCannot see why they all fail to speculate about the cloud over the alter.
ReplyDeleteIf one ads salt to the offering it will burn yellow.
Regarding moving the altar in the midbar:-
"There is no answer to this question in the MT itself, but there are several possible answers that do not overtly contradict the MT:
The law dates from the time of, or only refers to, the stationary central sanctuary in Bet El or Jerusalem.
The law applied only when the altar in the desert was actually set up, but not to the time during which it was transported.
The law was interpreted to mean "every day" in the sense of at least part of the day and the fire should not be intentionally put out.
There was an additional means, possibly miraculous, not mentioned in the text, by which the fire on the altar was transported.
The earliest reference to this question is in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Yoma (Yom Kippur) Chapter 4, Mishna 6 (page 23b)1:
Rabbi Yohanan said "Even during transport the fire was not allowed to go out". What did they do? During transport they covered the fire with a copper hood [loan word from the Greek ψυκτήρ] as Rabbi Yehudah said. Rabbi Shimon said, "During transport they tended the fire [in a separate vessel, not on the altar itself]".
Similar problems with other "eternal" commandments occur in the case of the showbread and its accompanying spice offering, which were solved in practice during the second temple period by either interpreting the commandment to mean "daily" as in (3) above or by sliding off the past week's bread while simultaneously sliding on the new bread.
Note that this problem either did not bother anyone in the ancient world very much, or else the material relating to it was lost in the processes of "natural selection" that favors preservation of texts with more practical value. The Jerusalem Talmud is the only ancient text that references this question, and it is a work of secondary importance in the Jewish tradition. Critical scholars today would probably say that Leviticus 6 referred to the stationary sanctuary only, as in (1) above."
Further commentary from W.H. Bellinger, Jr.:
ReplyDelete"the phrase Give Aaron and his sons this command directs these regulations (torah) to the priests. The section centers on the altar fire and the ashes. The priests are instructed to keep the offering on top of the altar overnight and to ensure that the fire does not go out. The continuity of the fire may symbolize divine presence continuing with the community."
"The importance of keeping the fire burning is again emphasized in verse 12, along with a mention of the fellowship offerings. Besides being a symbol of divine presence, the continuously burning fire answers the practical concerns that offerings be consumed entirely and that fire always be available."
Here is also a comment from Kenneth Matthews:
"Our passage specifies how the priests were to maintain the fires, too. The priests placed fresh wood on the altar each morning, which would have stoked up the simmering fires of the offering presented the night before. Next the burnt offering was placed on the ar- ranged wood followed by the fat pieces derived from peace offerings presented by worshippers. This fat functioned as combustible fuel to assist the burning process. Little or nothing was left to chance or human invention. That detailed instructions were given to the priests tells us that the worship of God is not a casual matter that can be treated carelessly."
Compare https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/900211/jewish/Positive-Commandment-29.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.com/books?id=_ARNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=maimonides+leviticus+perpetual+fire&source=bl&ots=cXD2S0NaYN&sig=ACfU3U3v0tTsx44SPq9MfyNMkfWdSzWXqA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwv5y4m8HnAhVxTd8KHTwqDN0Q6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=maimonides%20leviticus%20perpetual%20fire&f=false
ReplyDeleteThese commentaries hint at the reality of maintaining a fire in the midbar. If one looks at how many sacrifices the nation were to put on this alter it was not to aid the wood in burning. The wood acted as a wick for burning the tallow. What kind of access to wood do you think they had? Camp fires were probably using dried animal dung. The salt changes the colour of the flame making it more visible. IMO the alter was burning when they were on the move. But none of this answers the conundrum of how it would be cleaned while still kept alight. It was probably the flame from the lampstands that was used to re-light it after it was emptied and cleaned.
ReplyDeleteSee Matthew Henry's commentary on Lev. 6:8ff here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/leviticus/6.html
ReplyDeleteK-D on Lev. 6:13:
Fire was to be kept constantly burning upon the altar without going out, not in order that the heavenly fire, which proceeded from Jehovah when Aaron and his sons first entered upon the service of the altar after their consecration, and consumed the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, might never be extinguished (see at Leviticus 9:24); but that the burnt-offering might never go out, because this was the divinely appointed symbol and visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah, which the covenant nation could never suspend either day or night, without being unfaithful to its calling. For the same reason other nations also kept perpetual fire burning upon the altars of their principal gods. (For proofs, see Rosenmller and Knobel ad h. l.)
See the reflections at https://www.aju.edu/ziegler-school-rabbinic-studies/our-torah/back-issues/sitting-altar-your-table
ReplyDeleteQuote:
The Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 4:6 expounds on this lesson of the Torah saying: “It (the fire) is never to be put out – even in your travels. When they traveled (in the desert) what did they do? They would cover the flame with a large pot?” Moreover, Maimonides presents this as a positive Torah commandment to keep a fire burning on the altar.
Why is it that the Torah commands that the fire never be extinguished, and that Talmud sees it as so important that it applied even during times when the altar may have been portable? Would we not think that the fire could be re-lit at each new location or as needed for each new sacrifice? Moreover, in a time when the Temple no longer stands, how are we to fulfill the mitzvah and what are we to take out of its message?
Cover it with a large pot - I like it, very comical.
ReplyDeleteThe way yo not let it go out is to keep feeding it fuel.
https://www.knowableword.com/2017/09/29/exodus-271-19-moving-mountains/
ReplyDeleteSo it looks like it was a fire box but there must have been an opening at the bottom of one side to remove ash. Not all ash would be remove in this case as a 3 inch layer would insulate the bottom, if made of wood. The bronze grill would have to be quite thick or it would bow over time.
When it refers to horns, it be indicating that the sides had v shaped tops. This would protect the fire from direct wind.
So it could still fit the fire by day and the cloud by night. I think a very important point was that the sacrifice was to be salted. Sea salt and rock salt give different effects.
https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.2.13?lang=bi&with=Ramban&lang2=en
Looking at these commentaries, they have many strange ideas because they do not look at what salt actually does, its effect.
IMO this is a major failing of all theological works, they are ignoring the functions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_krKmQLcqM
ReplyDeleteOne problem I see with your suggestion is that the cloud and fire come into play before the tabernacle is built and before the Leviticus command is given. Further the cloud and fire are miraculous: they're not a result of man simply doing something, but rather God.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem whatsoever.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/numbers/9-21.htm
I also find it interesting that the "pillars" of the tabernacle were covered in "gold".
ReplyDeleteCf https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/4-5.htm
ReplyDeleteNot how "cloud" and "smoke" are used together by day. (poetic)
"shining" & "flaming".
With much respect, Duncan, I don't see how Numbers 9:21 answers my questions. As Barnes writes:
ReplyDeleteThe cloud ... - The phenomenon first appeared at the Exodus itself, Exodus 13:21-22. The cloud did not cover the whole structure, but the "tent of the testimony," i. e. the enclosure which contained the "ark of the testimony" Exodus 25:16, Exodus 25:22, and the holy place. The phenomenon is now again described in connection with the journeyings which are to be narrated in the sequel of the book.
[END QUOTE]
So if there was no altar or perpetual fire, yet the clod/fire still followed Israel day and night, then the cloud/fire cannot simply be chalked up to the fire that burned at the tabernacle or temple. Secondly, no command had even been given in Exodus to keep a perpetual fire going, yet there was the cloud/fire guiding Israel. For ancient Israel, the clod/fire was also miraculous--not man made.
So when it speaks about moses and about the people, is that one and the same?
ReplyDeleteI do not think your argument is sound.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/numbers/9-23.htm
The command of Yehovah at the hand of Moses.
Saying that the cloud covered the "tent of the testimony" does not exclude anything else - it is making a point.
Why would a large crowd of people have to move at all if they were being miraculously fed? Also were the cattle miraculously fed?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/673844?seq=1
ReplyDeleteSee this paper regarding crop growing in the arid dry lands (not to be confused with desserts, which are man made phenomena).
Arid dry-lands can be highly productive & not just for cattle, but only for so long dependent on weather and the population that they can support at any given time.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00202400
ReplyDeleteNote that many in this region are the evergreen variety & function as transpirational water pumps.
https://www.kkl-jnf.org/tourism-and-recreation/touring-holy-land/trees/acacia.aspx
This blog is not the place to list the masses of data on dry-land environments, but they tend to be painted with a very ignorant brush most of the time.
"A similar diversity is shown in diffusive
ReplyDeleteconductance and transpiration of adjacent plants
(Ullmann 1985), but on the whole the leaves of
the deciduous acacias seem to operate on higher
conductances than the foliage of the evergreen
species."
The cattle and people could benefit from this, as long as one controlled the goats.
Also note that we have judges 20:40 referring to a pillar of smoke - the difference is the materials burned and the appearance.
ReplyDeleteSalting the tallow would also remove water from it (do we know how long it would be salted before being placed on the alter?) making for a much cleaner burn and a lighter smoke (cloud).
The smoke from the camp fires would look quite different.
http://www.victorianweb.org/technology/domestic/1.html
"Fat of any kind was collected, though fat from salted meat was avoided if possible. "
This is when you want to minimize smoke.
I'm gonna let my objection rest for now. My point was not just that the divine presence was manifested at the holy place, but rather, I was pointing out that the cloud and fire occurred before Israel started burning the perpetual fire. The cloud/fire was not dependent on humans lighting a fire. But I will desist.
ReplyDeleteSee Nehemiah 9:19-21
ReplyDeleteSee Nehemiah 8:13,14
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with what you are saying either, but reading between the lines is necessary as there are so many things we are not told.
ReplyDeleteWere the before and after events the same thing?
I think that my main point is that the explanations as to why the tallow was salted are not satisfying, so that is where I start.
Of significant interest is Deuteronomy chapter 1.
ReplyDeleteNote how "us" & "you" are used.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/1-33.htm
Other verses in the OT/NT make clear that Moses was part of Israel (part of the people of God). However, Moses stood in a special position as mediator and prophet for Gd's people. As the letter to the Hebrews states, Moses served in the house of that one (i.e., God). Yet, did that mean he wasn't a member of the house?
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed that the type of dialogue in Deut. 1 is somewhat common in the Hebrew Bible, where we have speeches or addresses to a group?
The idea of the cloud/fire might have developed over time, but I think basically all the references of this phenomenon are connected.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/4-16.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/exodus/33-10.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/1-33.htm
Article about the pillar: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Pillar-Fire-Cloud
ReplyDeleteSome rationalistic writers have suggested that the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night may have been produced by a lighted bowl of pitch mounted on a pole. There are references by ancient historians and later travelers to the practice of Pers. armies and Arab caravans carrying braziers of burning wood at the head of their march. The large bronze pillars in front of Solomon’s Temple, which are thought by some to have been fiery cressets (or bowls of pitch), that emitted smoke and flame by day and night during festivals (1 Kings 7:15), were called “pillars” (עַמּוּד, H6647). There is, however, absolutely no proof in the Heb. text for this theory. Although it may be conceded that a device made with God’s approval could still serve His purpose, and that fire and smoke might have been employed as symbols of His presence. Yet the Scripture narrative implies that the pillar of fire and of cloud was supernatural in origin, and was intended to demonstrate God’s presence rather than merely symbolizing it.
This is a straw man and I am referring to the alter which we do have significant details about. One is going to have to explain away the function of the salt and tallow. If the alter was primarily fueled by wood they would have stripped the drylands bare. These other arguments just do not stand up to the reality of migrating through the midbar. The sacrifices also controlled the population of livestock which could also have eaten the midbar to dust.
ReplyDeleteThis article is of significant note to this discussion and other discussions we have had regarding the "food laws".
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20723574?seq=1
https://www.ecomena.org/hima/
ReplyDeleteSee the semitic tri litteral root HRM
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew2.htm
https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3292024/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herem_(war_or_property)
ReplyDelete"It is common knowledge among students of ancient Semitic
ReplyDeletereligions, at least since Julius Wellhausen and his famous
book, Reste arabischen Heidentums (1897), that pagan cults
of the Arabian peninsula were often provided with large
precincts, called hima or haram and regarded as the sacred
land on which cultivation of soil, hunting game, cutting trees,
etc. were strictly forbidden."
https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/4542/1/Gawlikowski_The_sacred_space_in_ancient_arab_1982.pdf
Deuteronomy 13
ReplyDelete15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, [h]utterly destroying it and >>>all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword.<<< 16 Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God; >>>and it shall be a [i]ruin forever.<<< >>>It shall never be rebuilt<<<. 17 Nothing from that which is put >>>>under the ban<<<< shall cling to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn from His burning anger and show mercy to you, and have compassion on you and make you increase, just as He has sworn to your fathers, 18 [j]if you will listen to the voice of the Lord your God, [k]keeping all His commandments which I am commanding you today, [l]and >>>doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God<<<.
Your earlier comments made it sound like you were trying to give a scientific explanation for the cloud and smoke. I was addressing that point. It helps to know what point you're trying to make. And none of this discussion is about the OP.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for the additional material.
How do you know Israel even used tallow? Their salt would have differed from ours too.
ReplyDeletehttps://blog.kettleandfire.com/what-is-tallow/
ReplyDelete"Tallow is made from rendering suet, which is the hard, white fatty layer that surrounds an animal’s organs, specifically the loins and kidneys."
My term is close enough for comparison. As I said, salt would desiccate it so as far as I am concerned we are talking about one and the same item.
Salt options :-
Rock salt generally contains between 90 to 98 percent sodium chloride
Sea salt is usually made up of between 98 and 99 percent sodium chloride
Rock salt would be more probable.
Organs containing heme iron may add a slight variation in color, as would traces of other minerals in the salt.
https://www.baconismagic.ca/italy-2/how-to-make-lardo/
ReplyDeleteAn example of method but obviously not with wild boar.
https://www.pgi.gov.pl/en/psg-1/psg-2/informacja-i-szkolenia/wiadomosci-surowcowe/10955-rock-salt-the-white-gold.html
ReplyDelete"Johnson said the main sources of saturated fats are butter, lard, >>>beef tallow<<< palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/05/01/advisory-replacing-saturated-fat-with-healthier-fat-could-lower-cardiovascular-risks
Any complete system should work on multiple levels.
"Lamb fat or tallow, usually contains slightly higher levels of saturated fat than beef and pork (2)."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/lamb#nutrition
Leviticus 1:5 also has functional features. Continually splashing blood on all sides of the alter would stop the Acatia wood from drying out to the point where it would burn more easily. This would also minimize water use.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting feature is in verse 9:-
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/1-9.htm
The washing of the parts that would either contain or be covered with excrement.
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/1-12.htm
The head and the salt covered tallow was not washed.
"Your brain also contains cells, nerve fibers, arteries, and arterioles. It also contains fat and is the fattiest organ in the body — nearly 60 percent fat."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.healthline.com/health/is-the-brain-a-muscle
Interesting stuff, but we've gotten away from the OP. Thanks, Duncan.
ReplyDeletehttps://studylib.net/doc/18636428/mental-illness-as-sin--sin-as-neurosis-
ReplyDeleteruach ra'ah
A broken mind.