- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2009,17:43) 942767 wrote: Quote The scripture states that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Scripture also states Jesus is a man. I assume he is an exception to that scripture as are children before a certain stage of development though for a different reason.
Never the less his exceptions has nothing to do with how he was conceived. It is not hard to believe that due to technology we may have other children who are conceived without male gametes being used. It is called cloning. Do you think such children will be free from sin?
Hi Kerwin:He is an exception because He is the “Only Begotten Son” of God.
All men born of the sperm of man have sinned, therefore, none can boast that they are saved because of their own works of righteousness.
In lite of this, the virgin birth through the intervention of God is vital.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Oct. 20 2009,19:40) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2009,17:43) 942767 wrote: Quote The scripture states that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Scripture also states Jesus is a man. I assume he is an exception to that scripture as are children before a certain stage of development though for a different reason.
Never the less his exceptions has nothing to do with how he was conceived. It is not hard to believe that due to technology we may have other children who are conceived without male gametes being used. It is called cloning. Do you think such children will be free from sin?
Hi Kerwin:He is an exception because He is the “Only Begotten Son” of God.
All men born of the sperm of man have sinned, therefore, none can boast that they are saved because of their own works of righteousness.
In lite of this, the virgin birth through the intervention of God is vital.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Agreed!WJ
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 21 2009,11:04) Kerwin…………..Scripture say Jesus was the root and offspring of King DAVID. An inheritance can be passed to a daughter, As in the case you stated however there were (NO) Sons to inherit anything if there were the inheritance would have went to them and not the daughters, This is not the case with David, because he had many sons and so did Solomon that could have been Heirs of his and were of His offspring. How was the Messiah not also a direct decedent of David through Joseph as scripture shows. We are told He would be from the root of David and scripture only gives Josephs linage link to Jesus as source of His inheritance of the King linage, it does not give Marys as that link. Luk 1:27…> To a Maiden espoused to a man whose name was Joseph of the (HOUSE) of DAVID.
Luk 1:32….> He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord GOD shall give unto him the throne of His (FATHER) David.
Luk 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the SON of Joseph, the son son of Heil,——–the son of David……all the way to ADAM. Both Luke and Matthew accounts give Joseph as the Linage from King DAVID to JESUS.
There are not other links given to David other than through Joseph. Jesus' FATHER could not have been through MARY it is shown to be through Joseph not Mary. All linages are recorded through the Males no the females. Do you disagree with what was written in Showing His linage to DAVID then. So if the Messiah was of the HOUSE of DAVID His linage had to come through Joesph as it shows it did.
The whole immaculate conception may have been a addition to the original text, it certainly appears so. Because another reason is why is it not repeated anywhere else in New Testament scriptures, no where, not by Paul or any others If this account was true it would obviously been a big deal and all the apostles would have committed on it wouldn't you think?
I ideology of a Man GOD Creation is found in many ancient pagan teachings, the son of the gods, and seen that many false teachings have sprung from Pagan influences what would make the (Immaculate conception) any different from the rest. I would think differently if we had other scriptures that would support it, but there seem to be none that do. I agree with the article there is strong evidence the whole immaculate conception thing may have crept into the original text. IMO
gene
Hi brother Gene,
It is an amazing post of yours. Even I could not have put it the way you have brought out the flaws of virgin birth. The N.T writers contradict themselves in narrating the life story of Jesus. They were influenced by the pagan traditions that were prevalent among the Gentile Christians at that time. I hope brother Kerwin will realise this truth. He has rightly spelt out the insignificance of Virgin Birth for our salvation.I am thankful to you for such agreement on the inconsistencies of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Hope God will reveal more truths through you. Please gothrough that website fully. There are many interesting articles which agree with our views.http://www.torahofmessiah.com/
Love and peace to you
AdamThe Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:1-12 is the nation of Israel, not the Messiah! Rashi comments on this section of scripture, as Israel being the “Suffering Servant”
“Behold My servant shall prosper Behold, at the end of days, My servant, Jacob, the righteous among him, shall prosper…. As many wondered As many peoples wondered about them when they saw them in their humble state, and said to one another, How marred is his [Israel’s] appearance from that of a man! See how their features are darker than those of other people, so, as we see with our eyes”.
Isaiah 53 :
At JEWS FOR JUDAISM, we frequently encounter questions from Jews who are involved in or considering Christianity. Among the questions, one chapter of our Jewish Scriptures keeps coming up: Isaiah 53. Wasn't the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn't all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as “messianic”? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.
At JEWS FOR JUDAISM, we frequently encounter questions from Jews who are involved in or considering Christianity. Among the questions, one chapter of our Jewish Scriptures keeps coming up: Isaiah 53. Wasn't the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn't all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as “messianic”? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.Our Jewish sages teach that “whoever saves a single Jewish soul is considered as if he had saved an entire world.” How precious is the Jewish soul! Though the Bible study which follows is a lengthy one, we have prepared it in the belief that – as a Jewish soul – you are worthy of any method which may be required. We hope that you too will value your soul highly enough to prayerfully ponder that which follows. God's truth is not always easy to discern, but we are possessors of a Divine promise; “you will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul” (Deut. 4:29). As faithful Jews have attested for over 3500 years, it's worth the effort. And now – on with the search!
A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.” Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no “proof” at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims – why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God “remove this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36) – didn't he know that a “removal of the cup” would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?
And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this “Messiah” to get the benefits?
B. CONTEXT
Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you “tackle” Isaiah 53.Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's “Messages of Consolation”, which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as “oppressed without cause” (v.4) and “taken away” (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).
Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for God's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: “`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd.”
C. ISAIAH 53
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) – the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?
52:15 – 53:1 “So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?” Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the “servant of the L-rd,” and they will say “who would believe what we have heard?”. 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations' astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.
53:1 “And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?” In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God's “arm” refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).
53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.” While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).
53:3 “A man of pains and acquainted with disease.” Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness – see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.
53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains
he bore.” In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted.” See Jer. 30:17 – of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”
53:5 “But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities.” Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures – see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).
53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.” Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).
Regarding the claim that Jesus “did not open his mouth” when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.
53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.” Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since – by Jesus' own testimony – he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the “first coming.” See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living.”
53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as “cut off” and God promises to open its “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.
53:8 “From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them.” Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word “lamoh”, when used in our Scriptures, always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 – “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them.”
53:9 “And with the rich in his deaths.” Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).
53:9 “He had done no violence.” See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as “sons”, is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).
53:10 “He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?
53:11 “With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just.” Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not “justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations” which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).
53:12 “Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty.” If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people – who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) – who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/library….aiah-53
Leviticus 17:11
One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.”
If you are a Christian, or are a Jew who has been approached by Christian missionaries, you have probably heard many sermons on the topic of atonement, and have undoubtedly read many studies which support the contention that there is no atonement without blood. Of course you are also aware that this is a teaching which is not shared by traditional Jews. Have you ever wondered how they could reject what to others seems so clear? This study has been prepared to give you the opportunity to consider a different perspective on the vital issue of atonement.ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11
You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'”
What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.
Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.
In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls' – the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (ie. someone didn't know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).
Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?
“But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 5:11)
Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn't be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don't have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Macabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn't allow sacrifices?
Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).
Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.
“If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You…” (I Kings 8:46-50).
This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.
Christian dogma h
olds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach. However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won't fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls…”
Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus' crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament, but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandates.
There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.
Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus' death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case. The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such:
“But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs…in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.'” (John 19:33-36)
The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can't dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.
One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn't a help to other people in the family, and didn't serve as an atonement for the first born). A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people. It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.
The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me” (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).
In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:
“Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required” (Psalm 40:6).
The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:
“And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written,`The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob'.” (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)
However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.
“And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd.”
Isaiah didn't teach that the Messiah's purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?
One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!” (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).
“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).
“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).
“So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!” (Numbers 35:33).
Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to theL-rd” (Proverbs 17:15).
If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?
“Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” (Isaiah 56:7). “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings.” (Zephaniah 3:10)
“All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house.” (Isaiah 60:7)
“And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:26)
“And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them li
ke gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years.” (Malachi 3:3-4)“And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them.” (Zechariah 14:21) “And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations…to make atonement for the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 45:17)
The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. “Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.” (Micah 7:18; cf.Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don't seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:
“Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity…remembering that they were but flesh.” (Psalms 78:36-39)
“You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings…or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins…Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” (Isaiah 43:23-25)
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT
One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn't one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that's the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?“That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.” (Jeremiah 36:3).
“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon.” (Isaiah 55:7).
“I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd', and You did forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Psalm 32:5).
“And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (II Chronicles 7:14). “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live…When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life…Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).
“By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for…” (Proverbs 16:6).
“If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent…then you will delight in G-d…” (Job 22:23-27).
“Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever.” (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).
The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn't effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey…” (Isaiah 1:11-18).
“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd.” (Proverbs 15:8).
“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3). “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings.” (Hoseah 6:6).
“Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams.” (I Samuel 15:22).
“With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d.” (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).
Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don't have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d. This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn't come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d's response?
“When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (Jonah 3:10).
In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:
“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” (Daniel 4:27).
This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn't get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:
“Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'.” (Hoseah 14:1-2).
We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which
is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:“Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise.” (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).
“I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs.” (Psalm 69:30-31).
“For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications.” (Psalm 86:5-6).
“And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive.” (II Chronicles 6:21).
Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/library….us-1711
Gene wrote:
Quote Kerwin…………..Scripture say Jesus was the root and offspring of King DAVID. An inheritance can be passed to a daughter, As in the case you stated however there were (NO) Sons to inherit anything if there were the inheritance would have went to them and not the daughters, This is not the case with David, because he had many sons and so did Solomon that could have been Heirs of his and were of His offspring. How was the Messiah not also a direct decedent of David through Joseph as scripture shows. We are told He would be from the root of David and scripture only gives Josephs linage link to Jesus as source of His inheritance of the King linage, it does not give Marys as that link.
I will have to handle this in parts as I believe it can become confusing otherwise.
Let’s talk about Solomon’s line.
Scripture tells us this:
1 Kings 11:31-36(NIV) reads:
Quote Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon's hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon's father, did. ” 'But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon's hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who observed my commands and statutes. I will take the kingdom from his son's hands and give you ten tribes. I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.
God took the whole kingdom from Solomon’s line at this time though allowed it to retain one tribe for the sake of David. Yet later God would take even that one tribe from the hands of a stubborn and rebellious descendant of Solomon and make a promise his children would not sit on the throne. Even after all that his promise to David remained.
1 Kings 11:39(NIV) reads:
Quote I will humble David's descendants because of this, but not forever.' “
Please pay careful attention to God’s exact words as he stated “David’s” and not” Solomon’s” descendants.
So if Solomon’s line is deposed then who is next of David’s son’s that can take the throne? As far as I know it is whomever God decides it is. According to the writer of Luke God decided on Nathan’s line. If so then God also decided on each of the Nathan’s descendants that would inherit the promise in each generation. When it finally came to Mary’s generation the only competitors she might have is brothers and if they existed I admit they would have more standing being males. This would because she was inheriting the promise directly from her father and not from David who it originated with.
I could go through Joseph’s line but Joseph is disqualified as the Messiah’s father because he is a descendant of Jehoiachin whom God promised would not have a son to sit on David’s throne. Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is not Jesus' father.
Gene wrote:
Quote The whole immaculate conception may have been a addition to the original text, it certainly appears so.
I support a virgin conception but not an immaculate conception. The text of either Matthew or Luke do not support the idea of an immaculate conception.
Gene wrote:
Quote I ideology of a Man GOD Creation is found in many ancient pagan teachings, the son of the gods, and seen that many false teachings have sprung from Pagan influences what would make the (Immaculate conception) any different from the rest.
I do not support the idea of a Jesus being a man God. He was and is a man just like us except he is the archetype of those who live by the spirit.
Quote (942767 @ Oct. 21 2009,06:40) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2009,17:43) 942767 wrote: Quote The scripture states that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Scripture also states Jesus is a man. I assume he is an exception to that scripture as are children before a certain stage of development though for a different reason.
Never the less his exceptions has nothing to do with how he was conceived. It is not hard to believe that due to technology we may have other children who are conceived without male gametes being used. It is called cloning. Do you think such children will be free from sin?
Hi Kerwin:He is an exception because He is the “Only Begotten Son” of God.
All men born of the sperm of man have sinned, therefore, none can boast that they are saved because of their own works of righteousness.
In lite of this, the virgin birth through the intervention of God is vital.
Love in Christ,
Marty
According to your reasoning human beings sin because they are conceived of the sperm of man aka male gametes.Though it is a reasonable conclusion to be reached by scripture it is also nonsense. The reason it is nonsense is that we inherit the curse of Adam through our mother's line as well as through our father's even as we get genetic material from both sides. I assure you clones will not be immaculately conceived as they too will have a sinful nature.
The idea that Jesus did not have one is a cop out designed to excuse the sins we commit. That contradicts Jesus' actual purpose which is to save us from those sins. Jesus' weapon against that sinful nature was faith and as reward for that faith God gave him the Holy Spirit. That weapon we too can employ if we choose to obey all of Jesus' teachings.
I believe Jesus had total faith in God from the womb of Mary but this scripture only speaks of it being from his birth.
Psalms 22:8-10(NIV) reads:
Quote “He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.Gollamudi,
Leviticus 17:11 is not the one I would use. I also am not sure about the one from Hebrews as what I remember is that blood is necessary to seal a contract and I think that is in one of Paul’s letters. I will therefore look into the issue before making a comment.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 21 2009,19:26) Gollamudi, Leviticus 17:11 is not the one I would use. I also am not sure about the one from Hebrews as what I remember is that blood is necessary to seal a contract and I think that is in one of Paul’s letters. I will therefore look into the issue before making a comment.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Here is the required verse for you to comment taken from Heb 9:22“According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 21 2009,19:07) Scripture tells us this: 1 Kings 11:31-36(NIV) reads:
Quote Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon's hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon's father, did. ” 'But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon's hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who observed my commands and statutes. I will take the kingdom from his son's hands and give you ten tribes. I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.
God took the whole kingdom from Solomon’s line at this time though allowed it to retain one tribe for the sake of David. Yet later God would take even that one tribe from the hands of a stubborn and rebellious descendant of Solomon and make a promise his children would not sit on the throne. Even after all that his promise to David remained.
1 Kings 11:39(NIV) reads:
Quote I will humble David's descendants because of this, but not forever.' “
Please pay careful attention to God’s exact words as he stated “David’s” and not” Solomon’s” descendants.
So if Solomon’s line is deposed then who is next of David’s son’s that can take the throne? As far as I know it is whomever God decides it is. According to the writer of Luke God decided on Nathan’s line. If so then God also decided on each of the Nathan’s descendants that would inherit the promise in each generation. When it finally came to Mary’s generation the only competitors she might have is brothers and if they existed I admit they would have more standing being males. This would because she was inheriting the promise directly from her father and not from David who it originated with.
I could go through Joseph’s line but Joseph is disqualified as the Messiah’s father because he is a descendant of Jehoiachin whom God promised would not have a son to sit on David’s throne. Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is not Jesus' father.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Your arguments on Solomon being cut off from the lineage of Messiah are not correct. No where the scriptures says so. God allowed the minor kingdom through Rehoboam his(Solomon) son and further his descendents. It seems you are lenient towards Christian biased beliefs on this issue. If you want you can go through this lnk as I quoted earlier in one of my posts.Hi brother Kerwin,
Here is the passage you quoted from your source. I brought it here for our discussion.Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides, the Rambam) wrote:
“The anointed King (“HaMelekh HaMoshiach”) is destined to stand up and restore the Davidic Kingdom to its antiquity, to the first sovereignty. He will build the Temple in Jerusalem and gather the strayed ones of Israel together. All laws will return in his days as they were before: Sacrificial offerings are offered and the Sabbatical years and Jubilees are kept, according to all its precepts that are mentioned in the Torah. Whoever does not believe in him, or whoever does not wait for his coming, not only does he defy the other prophets, but also the Torah and our Rabbi Moses. For the Torah testifies about him, thus: “And the Lord Your God will return your returned ones and will show you mercy and will return and gather you… If your strayed one shall be at the edge of Heaven… And He shall bring you” etc. (Deuteronomy 30:3-5)”.
Here Moshe ben Maimon talks about the requirements for true Jewish Messiah. If you see clearly there is no direct fulfillment in the case of Jesus as Jewish Messiah unless a Christian interprets its in his favour to quote Jesus as the one who fulfilled all the above requirement. No Jew who is thorough with Jewish scriptures will agree with such interpretations. I mean Jesus has not fulfilled the basic requirements like;
1. The Jewish Messiah is supposed to return the Jews to the Holy Land, but Jesus lived while the Jews were still there before they were exiled by the Romans. How can he return them to their land if they were still living in it?
2. The Messiah is to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.
3. The Bible states that the Messiah will redeem Israel, but 30 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled by the Roman to suffer 1900 years of persecution, mostly by the followers of Jesus.
4.The true Messiah will reign as King of the Jews. Jesus' carrer as a wandering preacher and “faith healer” lasted only three years until he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal without any official postition or authority whatsoever.
5.One of the Messiah's main tasks is to bring world peace by ending wars and arms manufacturing (Isaiah 2:4). Yet, Christian nations are very war-like, and wars continue to be fought to this day.
6.The purpose of the Messiah is to bring us to the day when all the Jews will observe the Torah and to teach it to all humankind who will accept its truths. Nowhere in the Torah does it state that the Messiah will abolish it. The Torah is eternal.
7.If Jesus was the Messiah, why does the New Testiment admit that not one of the rabbis of the time accept his claim? Why did all the educated men and prominent men reject him?
8.If Jesus was the Messiah, why did most of his own people, the Jews of that time, reject him, including his own family? Why did his followers consist almost completely of a handful of poorly educated people?These are some of the arguments put forth by Jews that Jesus has not fulfilled the Messianic requiremnets. So what do you say on them?
Gollamudi,
Thank you for Heb 9:22.
I consider my argument about Solomon’s line being cut off to be strong but not conclusive. It is based on a number of factors including God’s words to Solomon as well as Jehoiachin and his children being banned from the throne.
If you would look at 11:35 you will see that God tells Jeroboam that he will take the kingdom from Solomon’s son’s hands. At that time Solomon’s line lost the whole kingdom because they did not meet the condition attached to the prophecy of the Messiah. Never the less for the sake of David Solomon’s line still retained one tribe until the time of Jehoiachin and his uncle Mattaniah.
Scripture does tell us of the Royal line after the Exile in 1 Chronicles 3 but I do not know if any sat on the throne in contradiction to prophecy. I have looked and evidence is they did not. In fact only the Hasmonean dynasty were rulers of Judah and they were Levites. The other brief independence after that was by Simon bar Kokhba who claimed to be a descendant of David. There is of course the present day Israel.
In other words God promise to Jehiuachin still stands and his descendants do not sit on the throne of Judah despite being called the royal line.
Gollamudi,
The Jews at one time believe in two Messiah's. The one Maimonides speaks of is the second one known as the Messiah, Son of David. The first one is Messiah, Son of Joseph who will die in Jerusalem and then be resurected. Jesus has already fulfilled the prophecy of the first Messiah and has yet to completely fulfill the prophecy of the second Messiah.
Do you believe Peter when he testifies that what is written in the gospels about Jesus being transfigured is true and that he witnessed it. He writes that confirmation in one of his letters.
He also vouches for Paul.
Mattherws account:
Matthew's genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.
Abraham to David:
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nashon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David,
David to Captivity:
David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah,
Release to Christ:
Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus Christ
Matthew and Luke showed that Joseph was a legal parent, but not a genetic parent to Jesus.
By virtue of being Mary's husband, Joseph was considered the father of Jesus.
Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir.
Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David.
NOTE: The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the “son of Heli” because this was in compliance with use of the word “son” at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son had scriptural precedent. Thus, Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli.
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.
God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed, Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Here is one of the excellent Christian explanation of Jesus genealogy through Solomon and Jehoiachin.Kerwin……….It does not matter what your quoting says, the linage given is through Joseph that can not be deputed. IMO
gene
Ct…….It could well be Jesus obtained it by way of being an adopted Son of Joseph, I thought of that before it could be right. But i do find it interesting non of the other apostles and letters talked about the berth of Jesus, except Luke and Matthew, and they give it through Joesph, Jesus father or adopted Father, no one else.
peace and love to you and your……………gene
Kerwin……….Read the Posted link by ADAM it shows that the Curse was indeed lifted, When he repented in captivity, He was told he would be childless, but after repentance, he had six or eight kids, and He also was restored to Power . God has said else where he would never withhold mercy from the house of David, don't know where it is at right now but i can find it. Kerwin read it and see what you think.
gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
