Imputation taught by Jesus

A fellow Catholic today has informed me that, yes, Jesus did teach the Protestant concept of imputation, where by a filthy sinners is "imputed" with righteousness externally.

You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.--Matthew 23:27

We see the Calvinists are not the only ones that prides themselves on artifical appearance of righteousness-- the Pharisees did too. This fits in line totally with the Calvinists that believe even a regenerate believer is STILL "totally depraved." Essentially, Calvinists believe God just white washes them, when under neath they are still filthy tombs.  I'd imagine a good Calvinist commentator of this verse would say "well, whats wrong with that?"

Purification of Mary, Sin offering

 

 

Protestants use Luke 2 with mention of Mary's purification and link it with the sin offering mentioned in Leviticus 12 as evidence Mary had committed sin, however the Catholic view is that this whole process was not necessary for Mary because of her situation (she bore the Son of God in her womb!) Leviticus 12 states the woman while she is unclean shall touch nothing holy,  yet we are told Jesus is Holy in Luke 1. Was Mary breaking the law simply by touching her son? If you were a Protestant saying this process was an obligation, then you would say yes! On top of that the word "sin offering" according to the Jewish Study Bible can mean "decontamination offering" and cite Leviticus 4 for the word chatat, since no sin is actually involved in the process of pregnancy and birth.

 

Here is the Hebrew text of Leviticus 12:

וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ, לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת, תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה, וּבֶן-יוֹנָה אוֹ-תֹר לְחַטָּאת--אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן--Leviticus 12:6

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:--Leviticus 12:6 KJV

 The word means לְחַטָּאת l'atat "for sin" or "for purification" as in Numbers 8:7

וְכֹה-תַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לְטַהֲרָם, הַזֵּה עֲלֵיהֶם מֵי חַטָּאת; וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל-כָּל-בְּשָׂרָם, וְכִבְּסוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם וְהִטֶּהָרוּ--Numbers 8:7

And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying [חַטָּאת] upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.--Numbers 8:7 KJV

Also, we see in Numbers 19:9 the same:

 וְאָסַף אִישׁ טָהוֹר, אֵת אֵפֶר הַפָּרָה, וְהִנִּיחַ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, בְּמָקוֹם טָהוֹר; וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת, לְמֵי נִדָּה--חַטָּאת הִוא--Numbers 19:9

And a man [that is] clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay [them] up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it [is] a purification for sin.--Numbers 19:9

So we see that same word with the same spelling, just lacking the lammed "l" meaning "for" is missing, so the KJV and other translations recognize this translation as being valid at least in other verses.

The Jewish Study Bible in the commentary for Leviticus 12:6-7 p. 233-234:

6-7a: The expiation , that is, decontamination of the sanctuary, is accomplished elsewhere by means of the "ḥata't" sacrifice (see ch 4). Uniquely the mother is also required to offer a burnt offering (see ch 1), though generally this is not needed for expiation. It may be an expression of thanks or a required gesture of obeisance. 6: Sin offering, correctly, purification offering (see 4.3); no sin has been committed. 

for when the word in contention is used in JSB's Leviticus 12:6 translation footnote:

See note at 4.3

At Leviticus 4:3 p. 212-213 the note reads:

A sin offering: This is the usual translation of "ḥata't," associating it with "ḥet'," "sin, misdeed" and "ḥata'," "to sin, err" (see above). The noun is actually derived, however, from the verb "ḥite'," "purge, decontaminate" (8.15; 9.15; 14.49, 52; Num. 8.21; 19.12, 13, 20; 31:19-20, 23; Ezek. 43.22-23; 45.18; Ps. 51.9) which is virtually synonymous with "kipper," "atone" (see also Exod. 29.36; Ezek. 43.20), and so the preferred translation is "purification offering"; note also the "ḥata't"-water (Num. 8.7), which means "water of purification." 

Also we see in the footnotes of the NIV state:

Footnotes:

1. Leviticus 12:6 Or purification offering; also in verse 8

 

So even some Bible translations recognize this as possible! We also see a modern Catholic translation reading:

When the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter are fulfilled, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a yearling lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtledove for a purification offering.--Leviticus 12:6 NABRE

And a "High-Church" Protestant one:

When the time of purification is complete, whether for a son or a daughter, the mother must bring a one-year-old lamb as an entirely burned offering and a pigeon or turtledove as a purification offering to the priest at the meeting tent’s entrance.--Leviticus 12:6 CEB

Also, let's look at Ezekiel 43:22 and how it uses the word hata't (and other forms) in the colors:

וּבַיּוֹם, הַשֵּׁנִי, תַּקְרִיב שְׂעִיר-עִזִּים תָּמִים, לְחַטָּאת; וְחִטְּאוּ, אֶת-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כַּאֲשֶׁר חִטְּאוּ, בַּפָּר--Ezekiel 43:22

And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse [it] with the bullock.--Ezekiel 43:22 KJV

Three times חִטְּא is used. We see the first time לְחַטָּאת l'hata't is used and its translated here as "sin offering." The second time וְחִטְּאוּ v'hit'u is used translated as "and they shall cleanse." Saying "and they shall sin the altar" would be nonsense, here it clearly dose not mean sin! Finally, חִטְּאוּ hit'u is translated as "they did cleanse."

 

Furthermore, some Fathers read Leviticus 12 as saying its for women that receive seed (ie semen) so as to get pregnant. which Mary as a virgin certainly did not receive. Others explain the sin offering as a result of the evil things that slip from the mouth of the mother during child birth due to the pains of labor, however, Mary did not experience pains according to 1st century writings, and the church fathers who say Isaiah 66:7 say saying such.

 



Does the 5th (6th) commandment specify murder?

I got in a short debate with a Baptist over the word used in Exodus 20:13 (12) as to whether the word used there specifically and exclusively means "murder"?

לֹא תִרְצָח--Exodus 30:13 (12)

Thou shalt not murder/kill (תִרְצָח tir'tzach) -Exodus 20:13 (12)

 Though in the 10 commandments its most reasonable to assume it is talking about murder, since that is a capital offense.  We see from this lexicon meanings of the word H7523 רָצַח:

1) to murder, slay, kill

a) (Qal) to murder, slay

1) premeditated

2) accidental

3) as avenger

4) slayer (intentional) (participle)

b) (Niphal) to be slain

c) (Piel)

1) to murder, assassinate

2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)

d) (Pual) to be killed

 The word does not only refer to murder as we see in Deuteronomy 19:3-4 (forgive bad punctuation its not easy to copy and paste a whole paragraph of Hebrew, the word "kill" or "murder" רֹצֵחַ rotzeach.)   

תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ אֶת-גְּבוּל אַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר יַנְחִילְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָיָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה כָּל-רֹצֵח

You shall measure the distances and divide into three parts the area of the land that the Lord your God gives you as a possession, so that any manslayer [rotzeach רֹצֵח ] can flee to them.-Deuteronomy 19:3

 וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ, אֲשֶׁר-יָנוּס שָׁמָּה וָחָי: אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּה אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי-דַעַת, וְהוּא לֹא-שֹׂנֵא לוֹ מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם 
“This is the provision for the manslayer [הָרֹצֵחַ harotzeach] , who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past-"-Deuteronomy 19:4
 

 Verse 4 is significant since it speaks of the killer as a rotzeach as "unintentionally"/"without knowledge" ( בִּבְלִי-דַעַת  biv'li da'at) killing his neighbor! Is this murder? Certainly not, since it was done accidently and with no hatred! However, the word rotzeach is still used! Deuteronomy 19 continues on and give an example of killing someone by accident (the split of an axe) that flies and whacks--fatally wounding someone. This is called "manslaughter" in some translation, even though the word is "rotzeach."

We can go on to Numbers 35 for more examples of rotzeach being used for accidently killing someone, not murder.  Numbers 35:11 says

וְהִקְרִיתֶם לָכֶם עָרִים, עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה לָכֶם; וְנָס שָׁמָּה רֹצֵחַ, מַכֵּה-נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה

then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer [רֹצֵחַ rotzeach] that killeth any person through error may flee thither.

 "Through error" show that that "rotzeach" did the crime by accident! Not murder. The word rotzeach is also used in this chapter from verses 25-31 for BOTH murder and accidental homocide.

Conclusion: The word used in the 5th or 6th commandment can depending on the context (not the word itself) refers to murder OR accidently killing someone.

Calvinist Commentary to Jesus Loves the Little Children song

Jesus loves the little children

Jesus loves the little children....these children He loves, as they have been arbitrarily predestined to be loveable, other children are loathed as they are "vessels of wrath" that were made unlovable so God can smite them as to as show His Glory. See the "Jesus loathes the little children" hymn to see his view of reprobate children, who he predestined before the foundation of the world to wrath (also known as Arminian children).

little...he does not love big children--only little children, and only elect little children. Thus proving doctrine of "sola littla" (not to be confused with solO littla, the distinctive between which only we Calvinists can pretend to understand)

All the children of the world

All children...that is all kinds of children, as the next verse proves, certainly not all as all are not the elect. 

of the world...world in context is the elect.

Black and yellow, red and white

Black and yellow, red and white...again these are kinds of children, Note colors like blue, purple, brown children are omitted, proving he does not literally love all children. This too disproves freewill since no one can choose to be black, yellow, red or white. 

red and white...that is Swiss Calvinist children, as red and white are the colors of the Swiss flag, the country that the Prophet Calvin, peace be upon him, sought refuge from non-Calvinist heretics. Likewise, the doctrine of preservation of the saints, they are loved because He MADE them yellow, red, black or white, not based on the content of their character or their hearts, therefore, since they cannot change their lovable color, there are made permanent lovable regardless of future sin, thus even if they tried to change their skin color, they will be lovable because He has cloaked them with His own lovable yellow, red, black or white garment, only seeing the skin of His Son.

They're all precious in His sight

precious in His sight...they are only precious because of an alien imputed righteousness that was transferred on them by irresistible grace. Because of this imputation their total depravity is hidden. They were ordained in advanced to be "precious in His sight," not by works, but by an arbitrary holy Decree.   

precious...A legal term. Archaeological evidence has uncovered ancient tax receipts which are stamped at the bottom "precious" which carries the meaning "paid in full."

They're all precious in His sight...For the Jesus loathes the little children hymn switch these words to "They're all totally depraved in His sight"

Jesus loves the little children of the world

Jesus loves the little children....see note on verse 1. This is repeated to show his hatred to the non elect, reprobate, tall children of the world 

little children...they are little because they were ordained to be such in advance, thus disproving freewill since no one can cause himself to be tall by free will.

of the world...world in context is the elect.