- This topic has 263 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Jodi…….exactly right , to say Israel done no violence and no sin, and, they were the “suffering servant” of God is “indeed a joke at best”.
Any true Jewish Rabbi would know that, they were all sinners and disobedient children right from the very start, even to this very day . Thank God there are some Messianic Jews who know the truth, that Jesus is the true “suffering servant” of God, they are blessed.
Good to see back Jodi.
peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
I am not seeing how this aligns with what you are saying.
“he” represents Israel you say,
Israel was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for Israel was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was Israel stricken. And Israel made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Israel; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make Israel’s soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
On one hand Israel is a transgressor and on the other hand he had done no violence and neither was there any deceit in Israel’s mouth?
Israel’s soul is an offering for sin?
Hi Jodi, Thanks for your reply to my post on Isaiah 53. Please have the proper translation of the Isaiah 53 from the Hebrew Bible.
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?
Please read Ps 44 to understand on how Jewish people were the lambs that were brought to the slaughter, remember this is not because of their sins;
11 You have made us like sheep for slaughter,
and have scattered us among the nations.
12 You have sold your people for a trifle,
demanding no high price for them.17 All this has come upon us,
yet we have not forgotten you,
or been false to your covenant.
18 Our heart has not turned back,
nor have our steps departed from your way,20 If we had forgotten the name of our God,
or spread out our hands to a strange god,
21 would not God discover this?
For he knows the secrets of the heart.
22 Because of you we are being killed all day long,
and accounted as sheep for the slaughter.Lol. Saying this doesn’t fit with Jesus is a joke.
If it quacks it’s a duck.
Of course not proof on its own, but certainly sounds like Jesus more than any other entity on planet earth in recorded history.
Your not very convincing gadam.
Just saying.
It also makes perfect sense that if God used the nation of Israel and then sent his messiah into the world, then both would have similar descriptions in that the world generally hates God, so both would get similar treatment. Just like Christians receive today in many places in the world.
Isaiah 53 doesn’t rule out Jesus. It supports him more than any other entity.
It is amazing how close it resembles his life.
You are simply starting with the idea that it is not Jesus and then objecting to everything. But if you ask people on the street who it is, they will tell you.
It also makes perfect sense that if God used the nation of Israel and then sent his messiah into the world, then both would have similar descriptions in that the world generally hates God, so both would get similar treatment. Just like Christians receive today in many places in the world.
Isaiah 53 doesn’t rule out Jesus. It supports him more than any other entity.
It is amazing how close it resembles his life.
You are simply starting with the idea that it is not Jesus and then objecting to everything. But if you ask people on the street who it is, they will tell you.
Hi Proclaimer, I don’t have any personal agenda on this subject. In fact I want to investigate the texts on Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.
If Isaiah 53 was so important fulfillment in Jesus’ life why the writers like Matthew who was so keen to quote Hebrew Prophets to support his ideas left out this chapter in his Gospel on Jesus’ death?
As I quoted earlier there was no such concept of dying Messiah at the time of Jesus which is clearly visible in the earliest traces of the NT. Please take the example of Peter’s negative statement on Jesus’ death (on the cross) and the disciples’ ignorance on the scriptures supporting dying Messiah in Luke 24.
Rest is the speculation of Christianity.
As I quoted earlier there was no such concept of dying Messiah at the time of Jesus which is clearly visible in the earliest traces of the NT. Please take the example of Peter’s negative statement on Jesus’ death (on the cross) and the disciples’ ignorance on the scriptures supporting dying Messiah in Luke 24.
So what. I understand today there are things that will happen that are not in the NT.
Further, there are lots of verses that Jesus fulfilled, but just because each biblical writer doesn’t mention all of them doesn’t negate them.
If I were to give an account of a football game for example it would be different to other people’s account. But the narrative would be the same. This team beat the other team. The score was…
Other details would be picked out but wouldn’t necessarily be the same details.
It’s amazing that I even need to point this out right.
When you have lived on planet earth for decades, you should know this basic stuff by now.
It’s amazing that I even need to point this out right.
So Isaiah 53 was not so important for the Jewish Christians of Jesus’ time?
Then why bother you and me now?
But I am not agreeing with your logics of the so called ‘first Law then Grace’. It was purely the interpretation of Paul then by his followers. Grace is always there in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible and is not a new invention or secret revelation by the NT writers. Please read the following;
The law condemns you gadam.
Up to you.
Ask yourself what is the purpose of the law.
Is it not to highlight sin.
So your a sinner.
Now what.
I trust in Jesus Christ.
What’s your plan?
So what if Matthew didn’t write about every prophetic fulfilment. Why does he have to?
I found this table of fulfilled prophecies. I haven’t read them all so I cannot verify how accurate this is. But I can see Matthew spoke about some, but not all. Again, big deal. Why does he have to mention everything? Isaiah 53 is only one instance of fulfilled scripture.
The law condemns you gadam.
Up to you.
Ask yourself what is the purpose of the law.
Is it not to highlight sin.
So your a sinner.
Now what.
I trust in Jesus Christ.
What’s your plan?
Hi Proclaimer, it is not Law as misinterpreted by Paul and Christianity but it is Torah and is full in itself as per the Hebrew Bible.
The word “Torah” in Hebrew is derived from the root ירה, which in the hif’il conjugation means ‘to guide’ or ‘to teach’ (cf. Lev 10:11). The meaning of the word is therefore “teaching”, “doctrine”, or “instruction”; the commonly accepted “law” gives a wrong impression. The Alexandrian Jews who translated the Septuagint used the Greek word nomos, meaning norm, standard, doctrine, and later “law”. Greek and Latin Bibles then began the custom of calling the Pentateuch (five books of Moses) The Law. Other translational contexts in the English language include custom, theory, guidance, or system
The term “Torah” is used in the general sense to include both Rabbinic Judaism’s written law and Oral Law, serving to encompass the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash and more, and the inaccurate rendering of “Torah” as “Law” may be an obstacle to understanding the ideal that is summed up in the term talmud torah (תלמוד תורה, “study of Torah”)
Please read Ps 19:
The Torah of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the decrees of the Lord are sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is clear,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring forever;
the ordinances of the Lord are true
and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey,
and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
12 But who can detect their errors?
Clear me from hidden faults.
13 Keep back your servant also from the insolent;[d]
do not let them have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable to you,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.So please stop this Paul’s way of misinterpreting the Torah and alleging it as obsolete.
Study and observe the Torah you will be enlightened by it my friend….Also meditate Ps 1 & 119 for blessings.
The law came from Moses and grace from Jesus Christ.
The law condemns you gadam as it does all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Have you broken the law?
What commandments have you broken?
Have you ever lied?
Have you coveted?
Have you failed to honour your parents at any point?
If you have broken the commandments of God, then what are you going to do about it?
Will you pray to God and hope for the best?
Or will take this into your own hands and shed the blood of a lamb to cover your sins?
If the soul that sins dies, then what is your plan if it doesn’t include Jesus Christ?
I’m curious.
The law condemns you gadam as it does all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Please stop this repeated emotional blackmail with which the NT is full….open your eyes to Torah.
It’s a simple question. If I embrace only the Old Testament like you are asking, then how do I deal with my sins?
This is why I am asking you this.
What is the plan?
It’s a simple question. If I embrace only the Old Testament like you are asking, then how do I deal with my sins?
This is why I am asking you this.
What is the plan?
Repent and turn away from your sins as it was clearly mentioned in Ezek 18. What else you need being a Gentile? Ezek 18:
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live.
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin.[c] 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live.
But if a soul sins it dies.
And yes we die.
Were we created to die?
If sin gives birth to death, then you are saying that repentance will wash away all our sins?
I don’t think that the OT teaches that.
It sets a standard in the law that we cannot achieve.
Or are you able to achieve it?
One of Christendom’s most central claims against its elder rival, Judaism: How can man expiate his sin without the shedding of blood? Missionaries argue that man’s sin can be cleansed only through a blood sacrifice. They contend that there can be no forgiveness of sin without a blood sacrifice.
Without the blood of Jesus, man is utterly hopeless, lost in a state of eternal sin. To prove this doctrine, the Church teaches that the Bible sets forth blood atonement alone to expiate sin. Moreover, evangelical Christians assert that for the past two millennia, since the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E., Jews lacked this essential and indispensable animal-sacrificial system for atonement. Consequently, they conclude, God must have provided a blood atonement in place of the animal sacrifices of the past. This sacrifice, they declare, is Jesus’ death on the Cross – man’s only hope for salvation.
To support this claim that atonement can only be achieved through the shedding of blood, missionaries cite a passage in the Torah which reads:
“This is because 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 atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11)
Christians quote Leviticus 17:11 to prove that blood-sacrifice alone atones for sin With this verse in hand, Christians conclude that only the blood of the Cross can cover man’s sins, and provide any hope of being forgiven by God for his sins.
Refutation I: There are three methods of atonement in the Bible – Blood Sacrifice is the weakest form of atonement.
Contrary to the missionary claim that blood-sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The sin sacrifice, repentance and charity. Moreover, the חַטָאת קָרבָּן (Korban chatat), the sin sacrifice, did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for transgressions committed intentionally. The rebellious sinner was barred from the Sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his deliberate intent to sin against God. The Torah declares this fundamental principle in the following manner:
“If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.” (Numbers 15:27-31)
Refutation II: Leviticus 17:11 does not suggest that atonement can only be achieved through the shedding of blood; rather, it explains the prohibition against consuming blood.
Contrary to the Christian claim that Leviticus 17:11 proves that man can atone for his iniquity only through the shedding of blood, this verse explains only the prohibition of eating blood outlined in the previous verse. Missionaries have conveniently severed this verse from its original context, effectively concealing and distorting its message.
In the immediate context of Leviticus 17:11, we find that the Torah is speaking of the prohibition of eating blood, not the subject of sin and atonement. The Torah discusses blood atonement in this verse only as a byproduct of its central theme. This crucial message is lost when missionaries quote Leviticus 17:11 alone, without the surrounding texts as its proper background. Leviticus 17:11 begins with the conjunctive Hebrew word כִּי (kee), meaning “This is because…” Whenever a verse begins with this conjunction, it is explaining what has just been related in the previous verse. The previous verse reads,
“And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”
(Leviticus 17:10)
Leviticus 17:11 then continues this message and expounds,“This is because 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 atonement for the soul.”
Thus, Leviticus 17:11 explains Leviticus 17:10 by revealing that consuming blood is forbidden because it may only be used in the act of sprinkling of an animal’s blood on the altar for an atonement. It is a grievous sin to use it for any other purpose.
Leviticus 17:10-11 is therefore outlining two fundamental principles about blood:
1) you may not eat it
2) among all the various rituals associated with the sin sacrifice, which include the laying of the hands on the animal, slaughtering, collecting, carrying, sprinkling, placing of the animal on the altar, it is only the rituals directly associated with blood that brings about the atonement. It is therefore forbidden to eat blood.
This verse does not state or imply that one cannot have atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice. Such a message would contradict all of the Jewish Scriptures which clearly highlight two other methods of atonement more efficacious and pleasing to God than a blood sacrifice: heartfelt repentance and charity.
Although the statement “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” is found nowhere in the Jewish Scriptures, it does appear in the Christian Scriptures. The author of the Book of Hebrews misquotes Leviticus 17:11 when he states:
“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)
Although this quote in Hebrews 9:22 is always cross referenced in a Christian study Bible with Leviticus 17:11, it is a deliberate misquote of the original passage in the Torah.
Furthermore, if missionaries seek to hold up Leviticus 17:11 to bolster their position that blood sacrifices are indispensable for procuring an atonement, they must use all of the verse, and not dispense with any part of it. Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed “upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can effect atonement only if it is placed on the altar. Jesus’ blood, however, was never placed on the altar. If the Church is going to take the “blood” part of the verse literally, they must also take the “altar” part literally as well. Jesus’ blood was never sprinkled on the altar, and therefore his death could not provide atonement for anyone.
Most importantly, the Torah repeatedly states that it is strictly forbidden to offer human sacrifices under any circumstances. There is not one place throughout the entire corpus of the Jewish Scriptures where the practice of human sacrifice is condoned. The Torah condemns this grotesque ritual as an abomination. Throughout the Book of Leviticus, only distinct species of animals are permitted for use in blood sacrifices.
Refutation III: The prophets openly pronounced that repentance and charity are more favorable to God than a blood sacrifice
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. They repeatedly warned the Jewish people not to rely on blood offerings. Other methods of atonement were more efficacious and would even replace animal sacrifices. For example, King David cries out to God:
“Rescue me from blood-guilt, O God, God of my salvation. 17My Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your praise. 18For You desire no offering, else I would give it, a burnt offering You do not favor. 19 The offerings of God are a broken spirit, a heart broken and crushed O God, that You will not despise. (Psalm 51:16-19)
King David declares:
“Sacrifice and burnt offering You have not desired; but my ears You have opened; burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.” (Psalm 40:7 – 40:6 in a Christian Bible)
These words of the Bible are not consistent with the Christian doctrine that sin can only be expiated through the shedding of blood. Because the Psalmist’s words were deeply offensive to the early Church, the author of the Book of Hebrews altered Psalm 40:7 to read instead:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure.” (Hebrews 10:5-6)
Notice how King David’s original words, “but my ears You have opened” have been removed entirely in the “quote” in the Book of Hebrews. Instead, this New Testament author replaced this expunged clause with the words “But a body you have prepared for Me.” This is a startling alteration of the Jewish Scriptures.
The notion that the sacrificial system is central to faith and atonement was condemned as heretical by the contemporary prophets Hosea and Micah.
“For I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
“With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good, what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:6-8)
In his Book of Proverbs, King Solomon explicitly states that giving charity is a more effective method to atone for sin than a sacrifice:
Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death. (Proverbs 11:4)
With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil. (Proverbs 16:6)
Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:3)
During the Babylonian exile, following the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, Daniel declared that charity atones for sin:
“Nevertheless, O king, let my advice be agreeable to you. Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that there will be an extension to your tranquility.” (Daniel 4:24)
Refutation IV: Hosea foretold that the Jewish people would be without a sacrificial system, and instructed us to replace animal offerings with prayer
In Hosea 3:4-5, the prophet foretold that the Nation of Israel would not have a sacrificial system during the last segment of Jewish history until the messianic age.
“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.” (Hosea 3:4-5)
In the words of the Bible, this period of time would last for many days. Yet, contrary to the Church’s claim that the crucifixion of Jesus serves as a sin sacrifice today, the words of Hosea were meticulously fulfilled.
Given the magnitude of this remarkable prophecy, Hosea was compelled to reveal how ecclesiastical temple functions would be replaced. In essence, if the prophet is testifying that the nation of Israel will indeed be without a sacrificial system during their long exile until the messianic age, what are we to use instead? How are the Jewish people to worship without blood sacrifices during their bitter exile? What about all the animal sacrifices prescribed in the Book of Leviticus? Can the Jewish people get along without animal offerings? Can the sacrificial system be replaced in exile? Missionaries claim they cannot. The Bible disagrees.
For this reason, the oracle in Hosea 14:2-3 is crucial. In these two verses, the prophet reveals to his beloved nation how they are to replace the sacrificial system during their protracted diaspora. Hosea declares that the Almighty wants us to “render for bulls the offering of our lips.” Prayer is to replace the sacrificial system.
Take words with you, and return to the Lord. Say to Him, “Take away all iniquity; receive us graciously, For we will render for bulls the offering of our lips.” (Hosea 14:2-3)
The Jewish people were never instructed to worship a crucified messiah or demigod. Nor does Scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked. Such a message is utterly antithetical to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. Rather, it is the lips of the sinner that is transformed into bulls of the sin offerings.
Refutation V: Ezekiel condemns the doctrine of vicarious atonement
The Book of Ezekiel forever condemned Christendom’s central doctrine of vicarious atonement, and slammed the notion that an innocent human being can die for the sins of the wicked.
Throughout his famed 18th chapter, Ezekiel warned his people that this erroneous teaching, i.e. that a righteous man could die for another man’s sins was contrary to the will of God. The way for the sinful man to come right by God is to turn away from his rebellious ways and repent. Only the sacred path of the penitent is assured complete forgiveness. Accordingly, throughout Ezekiel’s uplifting sermon on the forgiveness of sin, blood sacrifices are never mentioned.
The word of the Lord came to me, saying: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers eat sour grapes, and the sons’ teeth are set on edge?’ As I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to Me, the father as well as the son – they are Mine. Which ever soul sins, it shall die… Yet you ask: Why did the son not bear the sin of the father? But the son, justice and righteousness did he do, all My decrees did he safeguard and perform them. He shall surely live. The soul that sins, it shall die! The son shall not bear for the sin of the father, nor the father bear for the sin of the son. The righteousness of the righteous person shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon him. As for the wicked man, if he should turn away from all his sins which he did, and safeguard all My decrees, and do justice and righteousness; he shall surely live. He will not die. All his transgressions which he committed will not be remembered against him. For the righteousness which he did, he shall live. Do I desire at all the death of the wicked man – the words of my Lord, God – is it not rather his return from his ways, that he might live.” (Ezekiel 18:1-4, 19-23)
Refutation VI: If Jesus was the final sacrifice, why will the sacrificial system be restored in the messianic age?
Finally, the New Testament emphatically claims that the animal sacrificial system never could atone for sin in any permanent way. The only purpose of the animal sacrificial system, the Book of Hebrews claims, was a foreshadowing Jesus’ death on the cross.
The New Testament, therefore, repeatedly declares that Jesus was the final sacrifice for all time, and there would no longer be any future need for the return of the animal sacrificial system. In his most influential epistle, Paul states,
The death he died, he died to sin once for all… (Romans 6:10)
Paul’s claim is that Jesus’ death was once for all – in that a sacrifice for sin would never be repeated. The Greek adverb ἐφάπαξ (ephapax) in Romans 6:10 denotes “once only,” meaning that it will never be done again.
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:18)
This doctrine, however, completely contradicts the words of the prophets who clearly foretold that the animal sacrificial system would return in the messianic age.
In essence, if Jesus was the final sacrifice “once and for all,” as Paul vehemently argues, and the animal sacrificial system merely was a temporary “foreshadowing” of Calvary (Hebrews 9-10), why will animal sacrifices be fully restored in the messianic era?
Moreover, why would the messiah – named “The Prince” seventeen times at the end of the Book of Ezekiel – bring a sin sacrifice on behalf of himself and the nation!
On that day the Prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land. (Ezekiel 45:22)
According to Christian teachings it would be preposterous for Jesus to bring a sin offering for his own iniquity.
So please stop this unending emotional blackmail with so called Vicarious Atonement of Jesus for the sins for which there is no support in the Hebrew Bible.
Gadam
Refutation VI: If Jesus was the final sacrifice, why will the sacrificial system be restored in the messianic age?
It is WE WHO NEED TO BE RESTORED, NOT THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
