Is Yeshua/Jesus necessary?

yedida said:

Shir Chadash,
In your msg#37, your last question has me puzzled (that's not really too hard to do as of late...). I don't fully understand it.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I really was just referring to the notion of a once-for all sins-sacrifice, and the idea that that one sacrifice some 2000 years ago would cover the sins of people who came -- and sin/sinned -- after the sacrifice was given.

I repped your post -- thank you for entertaining my questions, Yedida.

I've got to wonder about the NT's stance of blood sacrifice at all. It seems that, since Hebrews states that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (10.4), it is taught in the NT that the blood of the sacrifices never served to atone for sins. Either that, or atonement doesn't mean "remission of sins" according to the NT perspective.

If the blood of bulls and goats (representative of all types of animals sacrifices) could not possibly take away sins, why would Jesus have had to come and to perfect the system? Who's to say that, if the blood of one cannot bring atonement (despite the fact that Lev 17.11 said that it could), the other could? The Torah describes only animal sacrifices (not human sacrifices) as useful for atonement. If these were not truly useful for atonement, what makes you think that the blood of a human being would be any better at appeasing the wrath of God?

Reminds me of the movie Moulin Rouge, where Christian's father preaches about his son's "ridiculous obsession with love!" Only this time, it's not an obsession with love, but an obsession with blood. Where does this come from?

What is representative [the sacrifice]..

Hebrews 8:5
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

of the other.. [Yeshua] is that which is what the representative fortold..

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

visionary said:

What is representative [the sacrifice]..

Hebrews 8:5
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

of the other.. [Yeshua] is that which is what the representative fortold..

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Click to expand...

I'm again left wondering about the relevance of your post to what I asked.

yonah_mishael said:

I've got to wonder about the NT's stance of blood sacrifice at all. It seems that, since Hebrews states that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (10.4), it is taught in the NT that the blood of the sacrifices never served to atone for sins. Either that, or atonement doesn't mean "remission of sins" according to the NT perspective.

If the blood of bulls and goats (representative of all types of animals sacrifices) could not possibly take away sins, why would Jesus have had to come and to perfect the system? Who's to say that, if the blood of one cannot bring atonement (despite the fact that Lev 17.11 said that it could), the other could? The Torah describes only animal sacrifices (not human sacrifices) as useful for atonement. If these were not truly useful for atonement, what makes you think that the blood of a human being would be any better at appeasing the wrath of God?

....

Click to expand...

I think this is a fantastic and very valid question. I'd like to see an answer.

Lulav said:

And then how do we substitute the goat of Yom Kippur?

What you have posted deals with individual sin, does it not?

But Yom Kippur was for national atonement.

Click to expand...

Anyone?

Shalom Lulav ,
I think I understand the concept of the national atonement of Yom Kippur (at least as much as anyone not raised in that view can have, I suppose), and I don't see that it's been "done away with" at all. I don't see that national atonement as being something beyond the life of the people within the nation, and isn't it but yearly anyway? Also, wasn't Yom Kippur primarily focused on the cleansing of the Temple/Tabernacle? Isn't one of the things promised in Jer.31 that each man will be responsible for himself? If that's the case, then there shouldn't be a problem at all - Yom Kippur for the nation of people to come together to receive cleansing of the "temple" of people corporately and receive another year of blessing and protection. Yom Kippur on an individual basis gives us the opportunity to review the past year and see where we may have failed toward our brethren (as well as toward Hashem) and affords us the opportunity to make things right. Without that day, we humans have a tendency to forget.
To take care of our individual sins we go to the foot of the cross (to use the best known term) to receive individual cleansing that according to the book of Hebrews is once for all.
Yeshua came for the lost sheep of all of Israel, but He also came for "whosoever will." Whosoever is not national, it's individual.
Yom Kippur and each individuals precious time before the cross go together perfectly, as far as I can see.
I hope I worded this so I don't sound like I'm rambling....

Psalm 32:1, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered."

Romans 3:24-25, Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood . . . for the remission [passing over] of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

Abraham got a visualization of this when asked to sacrifice his own son Isaac.

Why is atonement for sins needed?

Ezekiel 18:4, 20, . . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die [unless that sin is atoned, or covered].

Hebrews 9:22, . . . without shedding of blood [there] is no remission.

The Offering of our suffering Messiah Yeshua Once and For All Provided a Means of Atoning for Our Sins: which Old Testament Sacrifices symbolically represented.

Hebrews 9:11-12, 22, But Christ being come an high priest . . . . by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us . . . . without shedding of blood is no remission [of sins].

Hebrews 9:26-28, . . . but now once . . . hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself . . . . So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many . . . .

Hebrews 10:10, By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:18, Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

By This Atonement, Yeshua is now the Mediator of the New Covenant.

Hebrews 9:15, And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death . . . they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 10:16-17, This is the covenant that I will make with them . . . I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

ShirChadash said:

I think this is a fantastic and very valid question. I'd like to see an answer.

Click to expand...

I know it's been a while, but it sure would be nice to receive some kind of response from that post, don't you agree?

I tried to answer it in the last post I made.

Many say blood atonement was introduced by HaShem himself in the Garden. Shedding blood to cover the sin of Adam.

Ezekiel teaches us that each individual is responsible for his / her own sin. This is followed in the latter testament by Yeshua's teaching - that we are each responsible for our own sins.

A sacrifice is required - in the past it was of animals, in the latter testament Yeshua gave up his life on the cross as the final sacrifice by paying the price demanded by a G_d of justice and grace, just as he was in the earlier testament.

Heber said:

Ezekiel teaches us that each individual is responsible for his / her own sin. This is followed in the latter testament by Yeshua's teaching - that we are each responsible for our own sins.

A sacrifice is required - in the past it was of animals, in the latter testament Yeshua gave up his life on the cross as the final sacrifice by paying the price demanded by a G_d of justice and grace, just as he was in the earlier testament.

Click to expand...

I understand that this is coming both from your theology and from what's written in the Tanach (which tells us that animal sacrifices could procure atonement). But, what about the book of Hebrews, quoted above, where it says that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to atone for sin"? Isn't this intriguing in the slightest, since the Torah says the opposite?

yonah_mishael said:

I understand that this is coming both from your theology and from what's written in the Tanach (which tells us that animal sacrifices could procure atonement). But, what about the book of Hebrews, quoted above, where it says that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to atone for sin"? Isn't this intriguing in the slightest, since the Torah says the opposite?

Click to expand...

Trying to provoke discussion - what I wrote is the Christian position (more or less). The answer is in the text if it is taken in context within the whole passage.

Heber said:

Trying to provoke discussion - what I wrote is the Christian position (more or less). The answer is in the text if it is taken in context within the whole passage.

Click to expand...

Could you spell it out for me? What's the NT position on the efficacy of animal sacrifices as commanded in the Torah?

yonah_mishael said:

Could you spell it out for me? What's the NT position on the efficacy of animal sacrifices as commanded in the Torah?

Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious from the text but...

a) The logic is that if animal sacrifices could remove sins then why did it need to be done every year? Surely the fact that it was done every year disproves that theory. Now, one can drive the proverbial coach and horses through that, as I am sure you will see, if you wish to, but it must be balanced with that which was in the mind of the writer at the time...

b) Yeshua's once only sacrifice serves to cover all sin for each individual on an 'as needed' basis, for want of a better term. Therefore, for a Christian, provided that you have truly repented of your individual sin (which is a violation of G_d's law ), then the price for that sin has already been paid by Yeshua giving his body on the cross. G_d has provided his son to be a once only, final blood sacrifice. Grace is the name of the forgiveness that G_d gives because of Yeshua, as he wipes the sin from the book of your life (which is opened at judgement day - Revelation 20). However, very few Christians see the fact that grace only works in relation to unintentional violations of the Law. Grace with out the Law (prevenient grace) is a nonsense.

I'll leave it there at the moment.

Heber said:

I thought it was obvious from the text but...

a) The logic is that if animal sacrifices could remove sins then why did it need to be done every year? Surely the fact that it was done every year disproves that theory. Now, one can drive the proverbial coach and horses through that, as I am sure you will see, if you wish to, but it must be balanced with that which was in the mind of the writer at the time...

b) Yeshua's once only sacrifice serves to cover all sin for each individual on an 'as needed' basis, for want of a better term. Therefore, for a Christian, provided that you have truly repented of your individual sin (which is a violation of G_d's law ), then the price for that sin has already been paid by Yeshua giving his body on the cross. G_d has provided his son to be a once only, final blood sacrifice. Grace is the name of the forgiveness that G_d gives because of Yeshua, as he wipes the sin from the book of your life at judgement day (Revelation). However, very few Christians see the fact that grace only works in relation to unintentional violations the Law. Grace with out the Law (prevenient grace) is a nonsense.

I'll leave it there at the moment.

Click to expand...

OK. Thanks.

I think the problem is that the blood of animals serves to provide atonement for sins already committed. It wasn't intended to cover sins of the future. How can one seek atonement for something you haven't done. So, the difference is that Christians believe they have a once-for-all atonement. Why would the author of Hebrews argue that atonement through animal sacrifice was impossible based on this difference. It's obvious that it isn't impossible. It's just that the limitation is to those sins that have already been committed. Why is that a problem?

Do you see where I'm coming from?

yonah_mishael said:

OK. Thanks.

I think the problem is that the blood of animals serves to provide atonement for sins already committed. It wasn't intended to cover sins of the future. How can one seek atonement for something you haven't done. So, the difference is that Christians believe they have a once-for-all atonement. Why would the author of Hebrews argue that atonement through animal sacrifice was impossible based on this difference. It's obvious that it isn't impossible. It's just that the limitation is to those sins that have already been committed. Why is that a problem?

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. Yeshua's death was a once for all sacrifice for sin past and that which is yet to come but, and this is a very important 'but': an individual cannot claim blanket forgiveness of his/her sin(s) for the future, even though one part of the ET appears to allow that. Forgiveness for sin, as I said above, is on an as needed basis. You have to commit the sin and sincerely repent of it to G_d for grace to take action and that sin to be forgiven (but see Matthew 7:21-23). The always-on blanket forgiveness you refer to is prevenient grace which, as I said, is a nonsense for the same reason you have made above. Hebrews says that forgiveness of sins through animal sacrifice is no longer possible which is true, because another blood sacrifice has been made that will be effective forever - not forgiving sin in advance, but in the sense that no other sacrifice need be made, ever. It is the blood sacrifice of Yeshua that is in advance for all time - the appropriation of that for our past sin is through faith (trust) in his Lordship, birth, death and resurrection on an as needed basis.

It is a subject that confuses a lot people, largely through 2000 years of error on this matter by the church.

I believe where Yeshua's sacrifice makes the most headway will be in the court of Heaven. A place where no sacrifice of bulls or lambs has gone to make the atonement that really last an lasting effect. God, in His wisdom, knows that the only thing big enough to encompass His Universe and satisfy the penalty once and for all is the sacrifice of His body.

Hebrews 10:5
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;

Psalm 40:6 Some Hebrew Septuagint manuscripts have "but a body you have prepared for me"

Ps 40:7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll

Imagine God preparing a human body sacrifice acceptable to handle all the sins of the world in the atonement process..

visionary said:

Psalm 40:6 Some Hebrew Septuagint manuscripts have "but a body you have prepared for me"

Click to expand...

I've just checked Psalm 40:7 (for that's its numbering in the Hebrew Bible) in the BHS, and there is no variant listing in any Hebrew manuscript (let along "some") that have this reading. Could you provide the identification of just one such manuscript? Is it OK to just make these things up? Or, is a scholarly basis necessary to support the claims?

The only textual variant given in BHS is that where the MT has וחטאה, there are two manuscripts that have וחטאת. No other textual variant is given in this verse.

Moreover, it's hard to imagine a person misreading אזנים כרית לי ("ears you have cut out for me") for גוף הכנת לי ("a body you have prepared for me"). They just aren't the same at all. It could not have been an accidental reading. It must have been purposeful.