Burnt Offering vs. Death Penalty

[Guest M Paul]

I'm seeking a Jewish perspecitve on Biblical Law and the significance of the Burnt Offering, Leviticus chapter one. First, let me set out how I view the Law, from studying under a Christian perspective.

The Law is not a comprehensive legal code, and even the word Torah should be defined as instruction, advice, direction, which in a collective sense can be referred to as a body of Law--"The Law of Moses." Actually, the law has an emphasis on religious regulations, and its purpose appears to be for setting guidelines on the people's conduct and relationship to God. Exodus 18:13-24 and Deuteronomy 1:15-18, would indicate quite a supplemental body of legal precedent was established for applying the law to specific situations.

Now, here is my question. Does the Law maintain a strict enforcement of the death penalty -- for sins such as abusing parents, breaking the Sabbath, practicing magic, false testimony, and the list goes on even to adultry and murder?? If so, just what is the burnt offering good for?? Note Leviticus 1:4, that the offerer put his hands on the head of the animal, that its death would atone for his sin??? Note Leviticus 17:11, that a blood sacrifice atones for sin. I don't see murder or adultry or any other crime excluded.

It appears to me, that if a person committed any of the sins requiring a death penalty, a legal process was set in place to determine the punishment, and a burnt offering might be made at the Tabernacle to atone for the crime in place of enforcing the death penalty, to be decided case by case, although other punitive measures still could be considered.

However, I don't believe we really know how the Law was enforced in ancient times. Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or contradicting this possibility as set out in the preceding paragraph??

Note also from a Christian perspective, that King David was guilty of murder and adultery, but Psalm 51 indicates he did not pay the legal penalty. God would not have left him off the hook, just because he was king, so this Psalm would appear to support the position that a legal process was in place to determine what punitive measures should be undertaken for commiting sin on an individual case basis.

Note also Hebrews 10:28 -- He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15. Thus, this verse would support the view that under the Mosaic Law there was a way establish another punishment for a crime in place of death.

Thanks for any responses,

Paul

[Guest M Paul]

Very sharp response!! My commendations!!

Now, if the death penalty was strictly enforced, what is the purpose of the burnt offering??? What sin is antoned for (especially since the animal is killed in the sinner's place), and why does Leviticus make such mention of the blood atoning for our lives and overcoming sin??? I guess the answer is, that it atones for sin not requiring the death penalty, and for sin so requiring it, just before the person is put to death.

And for David, it does appear his case was decided on an individual basis, in that he was spared the death penalty.

And, you say two or three witnesses are required to confirm guilt of death--but how does it work establishing a standard, that the witnesses do still find guilt of another degree of punishment??? Is a degree of probability assigned to the testimony of the witness??? Is it held even the best testimony is only 97% probable??? I suppose it would be a matter for the finder of fact to decide, and there would be some type of 97% or so rule. By chance, do you know does the record indicate a point in time when the Jews first used the witness rule to avoid the death penalty??? For all we know, does the record only establish this rule as a relatively late development???

However, there is still the question of Hebrews 10:28, dying without mercy if despising the Law and under two or three witnesses. If that addresses being saved from hell, two or three human witnesses would not be a factor. If it addresses being saved by having to be put to death for sin, then it appears there were exceptions.

In the case of the burnt offering as an atonement for sin in the event of a death penalty, one wonders what was the concept of the after life at the time of the giving of the Law. Exodus 32:32,33 refers to God's book, but can we be certain that is the same book as that of Phillipians 4:3, or Revelation 3:5??? Yet, there are references to heaven and hell, Deuteronomy 26:15; 32:22. And, later scripture indicates there was an understanding that the covenant applied to the after life, Job 19:2329; Psalm 9:17; 23:26; 41:12; 133:6; Ecclesiates 12:7,14; Daniel 12:2; Hosea 13:14; John 5:39.

Regards,

Paul

Edited October 7, 2005 by M Paul