Hi TheLogo,

Actually I don’t have any immediate answers for you but i’m just ruminating a bit myself! In fact, some of this may appear REALLY wooly and may grant an awful lot of license to the imagination…

It can only be a matter of speculation at present but I assume the possibility that ‘cost’ would be prohibitive and a potential obstacle for the poor in obeying the commandment for offering a living thing(‘nephesh chayyah’) meant that, even here, the Grace of God’s provision is evident. Namely, although the grain offering lacks the same atoning merit identified by God as that which a ‘nephesh’ creature inherently possesses (your hebrews 9: v22), does the emphasis switch to the Priest who will make atonement for him? Coupled with the notion that flour is the raw material of bread, in this way the offering re-visits the flight from Egypt and the Passover (‘unleavened bread’) whilst also pre-figuring that same Bread that will embody the ultimate Sacrifice…Actually, does verse 22 of that Hebrews quote actually allow for this exception to the rule by saying ‘…nearly everything…’?

…whaddaya think? Too much imaginative license :o) Probably - but if one’s poverty precludes one from partaking in the Tender Mercies of our God, then we really would be in a pickle!

I don’t think I have ANY disagreement about your first point - I think you make it well. The problem for some sensibilities, it would appear, is the grasping hold of the awful nature of Sin.