Exodus 34:19-20 -- Please explain what these verses actually mean

danieldemol said:

In my opinion the text does not say it is mandatory to make an offering of some sort. It says there are two offerings that are acceptable, 1 A lamb, 2 Breaking its neck. The text certainly does not say option number 2 is unacceptable in my opinion

Click to expand...

Well sure, but it would have been obvious to the meanest intellect which one would be preferable, right?

exchemist said:

Well sure, but it would have been obvious to the meanest intellect which one would be preferable, right?

Click to expand...

If you are saying that a poor man would have probably preferred to trade his only means of livelihood for a lamb it would depend on whether the lamb or the KO'd donkey would feed his family for longer I would imagine.

danieldemol said:

If you are saying that a poor man would have probably preferred to trade his only means of livelihood for a lamb it would depend on whether the lamb or the KO'd donkey would feed his family for longer I would imagine.

Click to expand...

I think some other posters have explained that in practice other more modest offerings , e.g turtle doves, were also acceptable, but now you are stretching my knowledge of ancient religious practice beyond its capacity.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

And please, try to be rigorous in your analysis, not just make crap up that helps you feel good about your beliefs.

Genesis 34:19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed."
​

When I read these words, it speaks of sacrifice -- of giving up something. That is the meaning of "no one is to appear before my empty-handed." Pay up, folks.

Clearly, the "firstborn males of your livestock" seems to infer sacrifice. This is reinforced by verse 20, which acknowledges that, hey, donkeys are kind of costly so you might replace it with a much cheaper lamb. But the word "redeem" poses a problem. While it might mean "set aside" (for what purpose? If you can't use it, who will?) the suggestion that "if you do not redeem it, break its neck" suggests strongly that we're talking about here is sacrifice. And if that is the case, then how do we proceed to the next sentence, "redeem all your firstborn sons?"

​

Click to expand...

I think you are quoting Exodus, not Genesis.

Anyway, maybe some light. This is Rashi.

AND NONE SHALL APEAR BEFORE ME EMPTY — According to the plain sense of the verse this is an independent statement and does not refer to the firstborn just mentioned — because in connection with the command concerning the firstborn there is no duty of appearing before the Lord; but it is another (a separate) prohibition merely connected by a conjunctive ו with the former statement and means: when you go up to the festival gathering to Jerusalem to appear before the Lord, none shall appear before Me empty; it is your duty to bring the burnt offering prescribed for the appearance before My face (Chagigah 7a). According to the Halachic explanation of the Boraitha this portion of the verse is redundant (since the same commandment already appears Exodus 23:15) and is consequently “free” (מופנה) to be used for a גז"ש (an analogy based on verbal similarity in two texts, viz., the word ריקם here and in the text Deuteronomy 15:13 לא תשלחנו ריקם “thou shalt not let him go away ריקם”) — it is repeated here after the law about the first born to teach you that the outfit given to a Hebrew slave when he leaves your service should consist of five Sela’im-worth of each of the things (mentioned Deuteronomy 15:14: thy sheep, thy threshing floor, and vinepress) just as the ransom of the firstborn is five Sela’im. Thus are we taught in Treatise Kiddushin 17a.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

And please, try to be rigorous in your analysis, not just make crap up that helps you feel good about your beliefs.

Genesis 34:19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed."
​

When I read these words, it speaks of sacrifice -- of giving up something. That is the meaning of "no one is to appear before my empty-handed." Pay up, folks.

Clearly, the "firstborn males of your livestock" seems to infer sacrifice. This is reinforced by verse 20, which acknowledges that, hey, donkeys are kind of costly so you might replace it with a much cheaper lamb. But the word "redeem" poses a problem. While it might mean "set aside" (for what purpose? If you can't use it, who will?) the suggestion that "if you do not redeem it, break its neck" suggests strongly that we're talking about here is sacrifice. And if that is the case, then how do we proceed to the next sentence, "redeem all your firstborn sons?"

​

Click to expand...

Its a relic of earlier beliefs and practices of human sacrifice. Judaism is an evolved religion. The "atonement theory" that evolved after Jesus left is also a relic of the animal sacrifice system which had replaced the human sacrifice system. (Circumcision was an earlier compromise as well).


SIN, SACRIFICE, AND ATONEMENT

"Primitive man regarded himself himself as being in debt the to the spirits, as standing in need of redemption. As the savages looked at it, in justice the spirits might have visited much more bad luck upon them. As time passed, this concept developed into the doctrine of sin and salvation. The soul was looked upon as coming into the world under forfeit—original sin. The soul must be ransomed; a scapegoat must be provided. The head-hunter, in addition to practicing the cult of skull worship, was able to provide a substitute for his own life, a scapeman.

The savage was early possessed with the notion that spirits derive supreme satisfaction from the sight of human misery, suffering, and humiliation. At first, man was only concerned with sins of commission, but later he became exercised over sins of omission. And the whole subsequent sacrificial system grew up around these two ideas. This new ritual had to do with the observance of the propitiation ceremonies of sacrifice. Primitive man believed that something special must be done to win the favor of the gods; only advanced civilization recognizes a consistently even-tempered and benevolent God. Propitiation was insurance against immediate ill luck rather than investment in future bliss. And the rituals of avoidance, exorcism, coercion, and propitiation all merge into one another." UB 1955

exchemist said:

The concept of making sacrifice to God is pervasive throughout the Old and New Testaments, culminating (for Christians) in the final sacrifice of Jesus (another first-born male) on the cross. "Redeem" means to "buy back". In this context it means that although God has a right in principle to these first born males, they can be "bought back" by offering something suitable in their place.

In Christian theology, Christ's sacrifice on the cross "redeems" mankind from the "bondage" of sin and death: a bit of a different idea, but similar imagery.

So although the ideas about sacrifice evolve, as one read through the bible, this imagery of sacrifice is fairly central.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That does clear up a part of it for me.

Of course, I'm still mystified why God would need anything that mere humans could offer up. I mean, this is the creator of universes here, not the government needing the first 20% of my earnings to run the country and build roads and bridges.

cOLTER said:

Its a relic of earlier beliefs and practices of human sacrifice. Judaism is an evolved religion. The "atonement theory" that evolved after Jesus left is also a relic of the animal sacrifice system which had replaced the human sacrifice system. (Circumcision was an earlier compromise as well).


SIN, SACRIFICE, AND ATONEMENT

"Primitive man regarded himself himself as being in debt the to the spirits, as standing in need of redemption. As the savages looked at it, in justice the spirits might have visited much more bad luck upon them. As time passed, this concept developed into the doctrine of sin and salvation. The soul was looked upon as coming into the world under forfeit—original sin. The soul must be ransomed; a scapegoat must be provided. The head-hunter, in addition to practicing the cult of skull worship, was able to provide a substitute for his own life, a scapeman.

The savage was early possessed with the notion that spirits derive supreme satisfaction from the sight of human misery, suffering, and humiliation. At first, man was only concerned with sins of commission, but later he became exercised over sins of omission. And the whole subsequent sacrificial system grew up around these two ideas. This new ritual had to do with the observance of the propitiation ceremonies of sacrifice. Primitive man believed that something special must be done to win the favor of the gods; only advanced civilization recognizes a consistently even-tempered and benevolent God. Propitiation was insurance against immediate ill luck rather than investment in future bliss. And the rituals of avoidance, exorcism, coercion, and propitiation all merge into one another." UB 1955

Click to expand...

So, clearly, what the Urantia Book is saying is that when the Bible claims to speak of what God has commanded, that's really just people imagining what God might command, yes?

Evangelicalhumanist said:

So, clearly, what the Urantia Book is saying is that when the Bible claims to speak of what God has commanded, that's really just people imagining what God might command, yes?

Click to expand...

Yes, be they ever so sincere. In a very different and enchanting age, this concept of God made since to them. God doesn’t change, we get closer to understanding God.

cOLTER said:

Yes, be they ever so sincere. In a very different and enchanting age, this concept of God made since to them. God doesn’t change, we get closer to understanding God.

Click to expand...

You will understand, of course, that this only leaves me wondering why I should expect the writers of the Urantia Book to have any more authoritative knowledge than the writers of the Bible.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

You will understand, of course, that this only leaves me wondering why I should expect the writers of the Urantia Book to have any more authoritative knowledge than the writers of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Understood. Periodic revelations come when we are able receive them. A gallon can’t fit into a quart. If the UB is correct, it explains that there are many and diverse life forms in a friendly and carefully managed universe. The authors of the UB claim to be celestial beings of different types tasked with making the presentation of the 5th epochal revelation at this time. It makes for a compelling presentation considering the bits and pieces available to us preserved in scriptures. They claim to speak with historical authority. Ok, what do they say???
The content speaks for itself apart from such extraordinary claims.

Subduction Zone said:

If you look at their history that protection did not exist. Of course God was always making up excuses for his failures.

Click to expand...

And if you look at how many times they were disobedient (Psalms 78:41), you’ll see why that protection wasn’t there.

Subduction Zone said:

From the Ten Commandments that Christians ignore. So much fun.

Click to expand...

Christianity is not Judaism.
Judaism was symbolic worship. And offensively so, many Christians also engage
in symbolic worship.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

And please, try to be rigorous in your analysis, not just make crap up that helps you feel good about your beliefs.

Exodus 34:19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed."
​

When I read these words, it speaks of sacrifice -- of giving up something. That is the meaning of "no one is to appear before my empty-handed." Pay up, folks.

Clearly, the "firstborn males of your livestock" seems to infer sacrifice. This is reinforced by verse 20, which acknowledges that, hey, donkeys are kind of costly so you might replace it with a much cheaper lamb. But the word "redeem" poses a problem. While it might mean "set aside" (for what purpose? If you can't use it, who will?) the suggestion that "if you do not redeem it, break its neck" suggests strongly that we're talking about here is sacrifice. And if that is the case, then how do we proceed to the next sentence, "redeem all your firstborn sons?"

​

Click to expand...

My Day of Distress (Genesis 34-35)

The analysis (link above) comes from Reverend Melissa Scott (who is noted for translating the earliest versions of the bible to get the true meaning).

Genesis 34 is about Shechem raping Dinah, then wanting to marry and hostage Dinah. Dinah's bros, Simeon and Levi, agreed to the marriage if Shechem's relatives were circumcised (picturing wielding a Samurai sword wildly while yelling keeeeyiiiii). Later, with sore male parts, Shechem's relatives were murdered by Dinah's bros.

Redeeming with a lamb might be some weird sexual act (might have to sing a love song like "ewe and only ewe" and gaze deeply into the ovine's eyes.

Clara Tea said:

My Day of Distress (Genesis 34-35)

The analysis (link above) comes from Reverend Melissa Scott (who is noted for translating the earliest versions of the bible to get the true meaning).

Genesis 34 is about Shechem raping Dinah, then wanting to marry and hostage Dinah. Dinah's bros, Simeon and Levi, agreed to the marriage if Shechem's relatives were circumcised (picturing wielding a Samurai sword wildly while yelling keeeeyiiiii). Later, with sore male parts, Shechem's relatives were murdered by Dinah's bros.

Redeeming with a lamb might be some weird sexual act (might have to sing a love song like "ewe and only ewe" and gaze deeply into the ovine's eyes.

Click to expand...

The OP made an error. He meant Exodus 34.

PruePhillip said:

Christianity is not Judaism.
Judaism was symbolic worship. And offensively so, many Christians also engage
in symbolic worship.

Click to expand...

Symbolic, like the Christian cross, or fish, or flesh of Christ, or blood of Christ, or holy grail?

Jews have shofars, menorahs, star of David, etc. But those are not worshiped, they are used during celebrations.

Clara Tea said:

Symbolic, like the Christian cross, or fish, or flesh of Christ, or blood of Christ, or holy grail?

Jews have shofars, menorahs, star of David, etc. But those are not worshiped, they are used during celebrations.

Click to expand...

True. There ARE symbols in true Christianity -
these are the bread and wine "do this in remembrance of me."
and Baptism.

That's about it.

There's no Easter, no priest, no holy garments, no temples made with hands, no rosary, no holy days......
but plenty of this stuff in the Old Testament.

a)
Exodus 34:19-20 -- Please explain what these verses actually mean

b)

Evangelicalhumanist said:

And please, try to be rigorous in your analysis, not just make crap up that helps you feel good about your beliefs.

Click to expand...

About "rigorous" & "crap" & "feel good"

Sure you want me to answer b)?:
a) Please explain what these verses mean (In your humble opinion)
b) Please explain the verses in a way that makes @Evangelicalhumanist "feel good about his beliefs"

stvdv said:

a)
Exodus 34:19-20 -- Please explain what these verses actually mean

b)

About "rigorous" & "crap" & "feel good"

Sure you want me to answer b)?:
a) Please explain what these verses mean (In your humble opinion)
b) Please explain the verses in a way that makes @Evangelicalhumanist "feel good about his beliefs"

Click to expand...

Many Christians tell me that the Bible is the "Word of God," that it is the source of the morality by which they live. I have noticed, however, that many Christians also don't always appear terrible moral -- especially when with somebody they dislike, or want something. I'm trying to figure out how this Word of God really fits into their belief system. This becomes especially important when I read from this Word of God things that appear entirely evil to me. Which is why I would like an explanation.

As to the "rigorous" and "crap," well, be honest -- you see here all the time "explanations" that have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, just a lot of bumpf made up out of whole cloth. Or, you see people responding, "you've just taken it out of context." To which I say, "okay, then, tell me the context in whcih it would be a good thing to break an innocent animals neck to please a god?"

Or, there are people like you who, instead of even bothering to answer the question, try to turn it into a way of making the questioner look like an idiot. That is, of course, your right. But really, does it make you feel morally pure to do so?

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Many Christians tell me that the Bible is the "Word of God," that it is the source of the morality by which they live. I have noticed, however, that many Christians also don't always appear terrible moral -- especially when with somebody they dislike, or want something. I'm trying to figure out how this Word of God really fits into their belief system. This becomes especially important when I read from this Word of God things that appear entirely evil to me. Which is why I would like an explanation.

Click to expand...

True, but irrelevant. There are many things we as individuals can concede as being
correct, without us having to live by them. Hell, I agree with speed limits - but often
don't obey them.
Interestingly, there's places in the bible where it speaks of those who live for what
they "think is God." Meaning they are misinformed or unwilling,

Evangelicalhumanist said:

. Or, you see people responding, "you've just taken it out of context." To which I say, "okay, then, tell me the context in whcih it would be a good thing to break an innocent animals neck to please a god?"

Click to expand...

If God wanted you to do than then it would be right to do it.