The Servant of God: One Thread from Genesis to Revelation

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

This was posted on another site- hopefully all will consider this important invitation from the LORD

We love our categories. "That's Old Covenant." "This is New Covenant." And the distinction has its place. But I've been struck lately by how often we sort the Bible into boxes so quickly that we miss what God is saying through the whole of it, a single, unbroken theme He never abandons. "For I am the LORD, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Consider the word servant. It runs like a golden thread from one end of Scripture to the other. Abraham is called God's servant (Genesis 26:24). Moses, "my servant Moses... faithful in all My house" (Numbers 12:7). David, the prophets, "His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7), all bear the name. Israel itself is called "My servant" (Isaiah 41:8). The title is God's mark on those who belong to Him and walk with Him.

Then listen to the invitation in Isaiah. "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters" (Isaiah 55:1). It's wide open, everyone. And in the very next breath God tells us what coming looks like: "the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him... everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant, even them I will bring to My holy mountain" (Isaiah 56:6-7). Notice, this is not Jew or Gentile, insider or outsider. It is whoever responds. The foreigner becomes a servant of God on the same terms as anyone else: come, join, hold fast.

And here is what moved me: that same word follows the theme to the very end. In Isaiah 65, God divides humanity not by ancestry but by response, "My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry... My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow" (Isaiah 65:13-14). The line is drawn between those who answered His call and those who would not.

Then turn to Revelation, and the thread is still there, unbroken. Before the winds of judgment are loosed, the command goes out: "Do not harm the earth... till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads" (Revelation 7:3). The servants of our God, the same name, the same people, marked as His. And John's whole book is given "to show His servants" what must come to pass (Revelation 1:1). At the end, "His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face" (Revelation 22:3-4).

Do you see it? From Abraham to the sealed multitude of Revelation, it is one story about one kind of people: the servants of God, gathered from every nation, who hear His call and hold fast. The covenant He invites us into is called "everlasting" (Isaiah 55:3; 61:8; Hebrews 13:20) which is the same as in Isa 56:6, not Old, not New, but one covenant of grace running through the whole, deepening in revelation, never changing in its God.

And here is a thought to sit with. If we gladly accept His invitation to "come to the waters", the invitation given to everyone, why would we hesitate at the rest of what the same God, in the same breath, lovingly asks? "Join yourselves to Me; serve Me; keep My Sabbath; hold fast My covenant." It is one invitation from one unchanging God. The same voice that says come also says abide with Me, and both are spoken in love.

So before we reach for our labels, let's not miss the invitation underneath them. "Come to the waters." It is still open. It is for everyone. And the God who calls has not changed.

"Let the one who is thirsty come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17).

" saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Rev 14:7 which echo's For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

Absolutely! It's the idea of being grafted in. Salvation wasn't just for the Jews, it came to the Jews so they would spread the gospel. That was the intention. They were supposed to teach the world what God wanted. Instead, they misunderstood and hoarded it. Then, God brought it to the gentiles to teach. And in the last days, we help save Israel. They helped us, we helped them, it all comes full circle so that no one can boast. It's also why myself and other fellow Messianics believe the 144,000 remnant in Revelation are God's people from all over the world. Not just some small section in Israel only, but everyone who is His because we are grafted in, which means we are also grafted into a tribe. This goes back to Exodus and Leviticus where commandments were made of accepting foreigners into their tribes as natural born. It's why Messianic's do Bar/Bat Mitzvah's stating their tribes.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
Absolutely! It's the idea of being grafted in. Salvation wasn't just for the Jews, it came to the Jews so they would spread the gospel. That was the intention. They were supposed to teach the world what God wanted. Instead, they misunderstood and hoarded it. Then, God brought it to the gentiles to teach. And in the last days, we help save Israel. They helped us, we helped them, it all comes full circle so that no one can boast. It's also why myself and other fellow Messianics believe the 144,000 remnant in Revelation are God's people from all over the world. Not just some small section in Israel only, but everyone who is His because we are grafted in, which means we are also grafted into a tribe. This goes back to Exodus and Leviticus where commandments were made of accepting foreigners into their tribes as natural born. It's why Messianic's do Bar/Bat Mitzvah's stating their tribes.

I have been doing a deep study in Isaiah and the trajectory is undeniable and how salvation is for everyone who responds to God's call, sadly just like the people before us, many do not like His terms - its sad so many dismiss Isaiah as "Old Covenant" as its so rich given directly by the LORD and it shows up in the "New Covenant" as still the Word of God and its fulfillment of many predictions that some in Isaiah have yet to come.

Blessings friend!

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
I have been doing a deep study in Isaiah and the trajectory is undeniable and how salvation is for everyone who responds to God's call, sadly just like the people before us, many do not like His terms - its sad so many dismiss Isaiah as "Old Covenant" as its so rich given directly by the LORD and it shows up in the "New Covenant" as still the Word of God and its fulfillment of many predictions that some in Isaiah have yet to come.

Blessings friend!

The "old" testament is quoted CONSTANTLY in the "new". If the old was done away with, why would people in the new constantly quote it? Why does Jesus constantly reference it? It's easy to dismiss if you haven't studied the old testament because it just sounds like regular speech. I asked AI to give me a list. Just from Jesus alone, he quoted the old testament 96 times. For something that is supposedly irrelevant, that's a lot of quoting.

So it doesn't surprise me honestly that people would think salvation is limited or really come to a lot of false conclusions about a lot of topics because the old testament is never studied.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
Absolutely! It's the idea of being grafted in. Salvation wasn't just for the Jews, it came to the Jews so they would spread the gospel. That was the intention. They were supposed to teach the world what God wanted. Instead, they misunderstood and hoarded it. Then, God brought it to the gentiles to teach.

This is exactly what was predicted in Isaiah and we see fulfilled in the NT

What Paul is quoting from the Prophet Isaiah Isa 49:6

Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Acts 13:42 [n]So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:

‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Just a Jesus quotes from Isaiah- on the Sabbath His house of prayer will be for All Nations Isa 56:6-7 and see the fulfillment

Acts 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

And its full fulfillment in Isa 66:22-23

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
This is exactly what was predicted in Isaiah and we see fulfilled in the NT

What Paul is quoting from the Prophet Isaiah Isa 49:6

Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Acts 13:42 [n]So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:

‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Just a Jesus quotes from Isaiah- on the Sabbath His house of prayer would be for All Nations Isa 56:6-7 and see the fulfillment

Acts 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

And its full fulfillment in Isa 66:22-23

Amen! Perfect example of both! I think it honestly just comes down to how open people are. It seems to be that people who stick with the new and claim the old is done away with, are scared of the old. Because the old testament is filled with rules, laws, and judgements. It's a lot easier to say "I don't have to do that because it's irrelevant" than to actually sit down and study and find out you're wrong. The bible gets extremely fascinating when you actually study it. There's so much truth that is by-passed on surface level and the old isn't scary at all... I just think it's misunderstood.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
Amen! Perfect example of both! I think it honestly just comes down to how open people are. It seems to be that people who stick with the new and claim the old is done away with, are scared of the old. Because the old testament is filled with rules, laws, and judgements. It's a lot easier to say "I don't have to do that because it's irrelevant" than to actually sit down and study and find out you're wrong. The bible gets extremely fascinating when you actually study it. There's so much truth that is by-passed on surface level and the old isn't scary at all... I just think it's misunderstood.

There are some things that changed i.e. animal sacrifices, but I think people misunderstand the reason for them in the first place and what it was trying to teach. What does not change is doing God's justice and righteousness Psa 89:14 Rev22:11 and being a servant to the LORD- that is consistent throughout the entire Bible and a good way to correct ourselves in our understanding of God's Word if we allow His Word to. 2Tim3:16

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
There are some things that changed i.e. animal sacrifices, but I think people misunderstand the reason for them in the first place and what it was trying to teach. What does not change is doing God's justice and righteousness Psa 89:14 Rev22:11 and being a servant to the LORD- that is consistent throughout the entire Bible and a good way to correct ourselves in our understanding of God's Word if we allow His Word to. 2Tim3:16

I don't think people understand the sacrifices themselves because I think it's taught incorrectly. Sacrifices were gifts. This is why scripture says:

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. - Hebrews 10:4

So why is it taught in churches that the point of sacrifice was to absolve you of your sins? To teach that would be in error. God teaches through actions. So many times he's had prophets do weird things in order to teach and be an example. The sacrifice system is no different.

There were different types:

Burnt offerings → total devotion to God
Peace offerings → fellowship/thanksgiving
Grain offerings → dedication and gratitude
Sin/guilt offerings → ritual cleansing after wrongdoing

So essentially it's saying, "Everything I have comes from You, and I'm returning a portion to honor You." That’s why prophets later rebuked people who treated them like transactions. The ritual/sin cleansing was a means to teach us righteousness and how the wages of sin = death. But taking away sins is only something God grants.

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” - Mark 2:7

So I don't even believe animal sacrifices have changed. I don't know if you've gone through Ezekiel 40-48 yet but its the biggest argument that during the millennial reign, there are still sacrifices. Because that vision of the Temple that he saw, was never built.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
I don't think people understand the sacrifices themselves because I think it's taught incorrectly. Sacrifices were gifts. This is why scripture says:

So why is it taught in churches that the point of sacrifice was to absolve you of your sins? To teach that would be in error. God teaches through actions. So many times he's had prophets do weird things in order to teach and be an example. The sacrifice system is no different.

There were different types:

Burnt offerings → total devotion to God

Peace offerings → fellowship/thanksgiving

Grain offerings → dedication and gratitude

Sin/guilt offerings → ritual cleansing after wrongdoing

So essentially it's saying, "Everything I have comes from You, and I'm returning a portion to honor You." That’s why prophets later rebuked people who treated them like transactions. The ritual/sin cleansing was a means to teach us righteousness and how the wages of sin = death. But taking away sins is only something God grants.

So I don't even believe animal sacrifices have changed. I don't know if you've gone through Ezekiel 40-48 yet but its the biggest argument that during the millennial reign, there are still sacrifices. Because that vision of the Temple that he saw, was never built.

Can you clarify what you mean about animal sacrifices not changing? I do not want to assume anything, but are you saying we should continue animal sacrifices?

I see sacrifices as a placeholder for Jesus Heb10:1-10, whose blood can take away our sins and the earthy sanctuary system and earthy priests was just to show a picture of what Jesus does in His Heavenly Sanctuary working as our High Priest Heb8:1-5 Heb9:23-24 until probation closes where ones mind can no longer be swayed one way or the other Rev22:11

I have read Ezekiel many times but not the way I just studied Isaiah. I just finished Isaiah and my plan is to do a deep dive in Ezekiel next and can't wait! I will pay special attention to Eze 40-48 but its probably going to take me a bit, I was in Isaiah for over two months and still could have gone deeper. I can't believe how much I missed previously, one thing I noticed which didn't before, where Jesus says He gives us rest in the NT and how this echo's what He said in Isaiah and how in Isaiah it definitely does not show the meaning in a change to the Sabbath commandment. He speaks of both in the same breath. I may try to create a thread on this later.

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Can you clarify what you mean about animal sacrifices not changing? I do not want to assume anything, but are you saying we should continue animal sacrifices?

Changing meaning, God never ordered a stop to it. The destruction of the first and 2nd temple was due to the sins of Israel as a judgement, not a means to alter God's own sacrificial ruling. If God intended for it to stop, Christ would have preached on it instead of letting sacrifices continue for decades after his death and resurrection. He also warned of it's destruction due to rejecting Him and disobedience (Luke 19:41-44, Luke 21:20-24, Deuteronomy 28, Matthew 21:33-34) and doesn't give a reason that Gods rules altered.

So technically, we should still be sacrificing. Specially since none of it has anything to do with actually absolving you of sins. But there's no system in place to do this so... I think for the time being, God is giving us grace. But once that Temple is erected, specially during the millennial reign, I believe the entire system comes back.

SabbathBlessings said:
I see sacrifices as a placeholder and the earthy sanctuary system and earthy priests was just to show a picture of what Jesus does in Heavenly Sanctuary working as our High Priest Heb8:1-5 Heb9:23-24.

It's funny you say that, because I have a whole personal study I did on that I think the "garden of eden" story is actually a high symbolic story and not literally a garden or literally a talking snake, etc. That man was created in Heaven and that is where Eden is. And the "garden" is actually God's temple. I don't find it ironic that the Torah is regarded as the tree of life and that is what God protects in the garden. Essentially, the job God gave Adam and Eve were priests in his Temple, just like was His intention later on when he gave the priest system to Moses to teach the Israelite's. So the 3rd temple with all the sacrifices will have Jesus as the high priest.

SabbathBlessings said:
I have read Ezekiel many times but not the way I just studied Isaiah. I just finished Isaiah and my plan is to do a deep dive in Ezekiel next and can't wait!

Awesome! Enjoy!

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
Changing meaning, God never ordered a stop to it. The destruction of the first and 2nd temple was due to the sins of Israel as a judgement, not a means to alter God's own sacrificial ruling. If God intended for it to stop, Christ would have preached on it instead of letting sacrifices continue for decades after his death and resurrection. He also warned of it's destruction due to rejecting Him and disobedience (Luke 19:41-44, Luke 21:20-24, Deuteronomy 28, Matthew 21:33-34) and doesn't give a reason that Gods rules altered.

So technically, we should still be sacrificing. Specially since none of it has anything to do with actually absolving you of sins. But there's no system in place to do this so... I think for the time being, God is giving us grace. But once that Temple is erected, specially during the millennial reign, I believe the entire system comes back.

It's funny you say that, because I have a whole personal study I did on that I think the "garden of eden" story is actually a high symbolic story and not literally a garden or literally a talking snake, etc. That man was created in Heaven and that is where Eden is. And the "garden" is actually God's temple. I don't find it ironic that the Torah is regarded as the tree of life and that is what God protects in the garden. Essentially, the job God gave Adam and Eve were priests in his Temple, just like was His intention later on when he gave the priest system to Moses to teach the Israelite's. So the 3rd temple with all the sacrifices will have Jesus as the high priest.

Awesome! Enjoy!

We will probably have to agree to disagree on animal sacrifices I see those ending at the Cross taking away the first to establish the second Col2:14 Heb10:1-10 by Jesus becoming our Sacrificial Lamb. We agree on so many other things, which is refreshing.

I see sacrifices today, not with the old leaven, but with new 1 Cor5:8 more as a spiritual sacrifices of our lives dedicated to God. Rom12:1, 1 Peter 2:5, Heb13:15

I'll circle back around after my deeper study on Ezekiel to see if there is a change in my understanding.

God bless!

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
We will probably have to agree to disagree on animal sacrifices I see those ending at the Cross taking away the first to establish the second Col2:14 Heb10:1-10 by Jesus becoming our Sacrificial Lamb.

That's fine

Let me just make 1 more point though in order to distinguish between Jesus and the regular sacrifices. The sacrifices themselves having nothing to do with absolving sin, was also used as symbolism to point to Christ being the sacrificial lamb. Since the entry of sin (equaling death), death was required as a sentence for sinning (using court terms). So from the dawn of time, Christ knew that the only way for people to be reconciled back to the Father, was to be the sacrifice. Animals could never equate to the law requirement of penalty for sin since it's God's system. Only Jesus could fulfill that. Which goes back to God walking the coals Himself after putting Abraham to sleep. So when the new testament mentions being an heir to the covenant of Abraham (Galatians 3:29), it's that covenant that also had animal sacrifices in two rows. That symbolism would have to stick if the covenant continues. So this doesn't negate Colossians or Hebrews or the other verses you posted, Christ was always the intended sacrifice but I think understanding it from God's view point in how the sacrifices themselves factor in, helps explain the point of them and how it doesn't override Christ or visa-versa since it was always grace and always Christ from the beginning when it comes to sin.

Also dedicating your life to God was also always a thing in the old testament, that's why you had Solomon being dedicated to God as an example. I don't see the concept being new when you go into the new testament, it's just that the new testament uses Christ to explain what the Jews already knew and in a way that they would understand it. Not that something starts, then stops, then alters to something else.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever"

If his Word stands forever, then everything he taught stands forever and cannot be temporary. Just a thought.

I look forward to your assessment after reading Ezekiel!

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
That's fine Let me just make 1 more point though in order to distinguish between Jesus and the regular sacrifices. The sacrifices themselves having nothing to do with absolving sin, was also used as symbolism to point to Christ being the sacrificial lamb.

I agree, they could not take away sins, but they were for sin offerings in the OT the animal sacrifices were a placeholder because they could never take away sins, it always pointed forward to the Cross and Christ Great Sacrifice for us, why He had to die, because without His Sacrifice all those animal sacrifices that pointed forward to Him would be in vain. I do not think it was God's intention to sacrifice any animal for any reason, that came as a result of sin and something He predicted to end.

Dan 9:27
Then he shall confirm a [a]covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the [b]desolate.”

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once [a]purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, [b]O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been [c]sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Delvianna said:
Since the entry of sin (equaling death), death was required as a sentence for sinning (using court terms). So from the dawn of time, Christ knew that the only way for people to be reconciled back to the Father, was to be the sacrifice. Animals could never equate to the law requirement of penalty for sin since it's God's system. Only Jesus could fulfill that. Which goes back to God walking the coals Himself after putting Abraham to sleep. So when the new testament mentions being an heir to the covenant of Abraham (Galatians 3:29), it's that covenant that also had animal sacrifices in two rows. That symbolism would have to stick if the covenant continues. So this doesn't negate Colossians or Hebrews or the other verses you posted, Christ was always the intended sacrifice but I think understanding it from God's view point in how the sacrifices themselves factor in, helps explain the point of them and how it doesn't override Christ or visa-versa since it was always grace and always Christ from the beginning when it comes to sin.

Which is why these were the shadows that pointed to Jesus as what He does as our High Priest in His heavenly Temple. The 7 feasts were in a particular order that are fulfilled in Jesus, the day of atonement has not happened yet, when all the sins of the people and the blood that covered their sins would once a year go in the Most Holy and the high priest would make atonement for them sprinkling blood for sin on God's mercy seat, which holds the Ten Commandments Exo25:21. This is showing what God does in heaven Rev15:5 Heb8:1-5 Heb9:23-24 Rev 11:18-19 as our High Priest, but instead of animal sacrifices for our sins - its our prayers asking for forgiveness and cleansing and His help in forsaking and turning from Pro28:13 1John1:9 John8:11

Rev 8:3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

The OT just showed a picture of what Jesus does as our High Priest in heaven

Leviticus 4:2–3 If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD's commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them... let him offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering.

Leviticus 4:35 Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev 16:15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Delvianna said:
Also dedicating your life to God was also always a thing in the old testament, that's why you had Solomon being dedicated to God as an example. I don't see the concept being new when you go into the new testament, it's just that the new testament uses Christ to explain what the Jews already knew and in a way that they would understand it. Not that something starts, then stops, then alters to something else.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever"

If his Word stands forever, then everything he taught stands forever and cannot be temporary. Just a thought.

I agree, spiritual sacrifices and animal sacrifices were both OT but in the NT, I see Christ Sacrifice on the Cross once and for all and putting an end to animal sacrifices and offerings Dan 9:27 that could never take away our sins but the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of all sin and unrighteousness 1 John1:9 Heb10:1-10 Amen!

Delvianna said:
I look forward to your assessment after reading Ezekiel!

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
What are your thoughts on these verses:

Leviticus 4:2–3 If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD's commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them... let him offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering.

This chapter is given instruction to the high priest Lev 4:3-12, the whole congregation Lev 4:13-21, leaders Lev 4:22-26 and an individual Lev 4:27-35 and the repeated purpose is for atonement of sin

Leviticus 4:35 Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev 16:15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Okay, dealing with sin offerings. I think the idea runs into a problem when people see the word "atonement" and automatically equate it to Christ's atonement and say that it means we are forgiven for sins. People go backwards. They understand Christ saving us from our sins, there for, reverting backwards, they see the word atonement and assume that absolves you of sin for a sacrifice. We can't do that. God's way of teaching is progressive revelation. So we have to start in the old, and work our way towards the new in order to understand what's going on.

The word atonement in this context of Leviticus (kāp̄ar) means "to appease" or "make reconciliation". Here's an example in context:
‘Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.’” For he said, “I will appease (atone/kāp̄ar) him with the gift that goes ahead of me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me.” - Genesis 32:20

That has nothing to do with sin at all. So the word can't automatically mean "forgiveness of sin". Otherwise that verse makes no sense. You'd be saying Jacob is absolving Esau of their sins. I know people tend to see a word and expect it to hold the same meaning, but it doesn't when you start translating from other languages. Our translation might translate it to the same word in english, but that doesn't mean that the language it came from holds the same meaning.

Now let's go to Jesus.

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. - Romans 5:11

Some translations say "atonement" instead of reconciliation but the meaning is the same. So the word translated "atonement" refers to reconciliation/restored relationship, not the act of forgiving sins itself. Only God forgives sins starting from the dawn of time, onto forever. What the sacrifices did, was restore favor by obedience and offering gifts. Jesus, restored our favor with the Father, by offering Himself while also taking on the sins of the world so that our court sentence didn't = death.

So the idea is as a concept:
sacrifices = temporary favor restored until you sin again
Jesus = Long term favor restored because our court sentence is accounted for

But Jesus doesn't negate the former, by fulfilling the latter.

It's a relationship. Sacrifices try to restore your relationship with God when you do something wrong, OR you just want to give him praise and gifts on a personal level. This has nothing to do with the requirement with salvation. All you're doing, is trying to make your mess up right with God on a relationship level.

Jesus made it possible for our relationship to be permanent, so when judgement comes later, our debt is paid. This level is God's ruling/court system and can only be paid via Jesus. So I think how the church uses the word "atonement" is actually inaccurate and it muddies concepts that make it harder to understand the purpose of the sacrificial system.

So I got to here and saw you edited but I'll keep my response as I think it still answers your questions. But I want to add that I don't see the system of sacrifice = Christ because God allowed birds (doves/pigeons) instead of sheep, while also including cows, rams and goats too. If it was only sheep, I'd say there's an argument. I do however see the holiday of Passover as 100% = Christ and a symbolic measure of what was to come but theres too many alterations, rules and concepts in the sacrifice system to say it in totality is symbolic or a precursor to Christ. Specially when Christ was crucified on a cross and not in a ritual of sorts. There's also no symbolism of a cross in the temple either. The only thing that symbolizes Christ on a cross was in the old testament of a snake on a pole (numbers 21) which is a stand-alone thing, just like Passover.

So I guess to sum up, I'm arguing for a separation of the sacrifices vs what Christ did because the word choices and explanations in the NT only are used to help explain what Christ actually did on the cross and was never meant to replace anything. Fulfillment of the law was taking our punishment, not doing away with instructions that God gave us.

Edit: 1 more thing. Since Passover and the pole was a stand-alone thing, it makes sense that Christs sacrifice was a 1 and done. If you equate it to the temple practices, that creates a problem with the idea of 1 and done. Specially since they did daily sacrifices as the event keeps reoccurring.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
Okay, dealing with sin offerings. I think the idea runs into a problem when people see the word "atonement" and automatically equate it to Christ's atonement and say that it means we are forgiven for sins. People go backwards. They understand Christ saving us from our sins, there for, reverting backwards, they see the word atonement and assume that absolves you of sin for a sacrifice. We can't do that. God's way of teaching is progressive revelation. So we have to start in the old, and work our way towards the new in order to understand what's going on.

The word atonement in this context of Leviticus (kāp̄ar) means "to appease" or "make reconciliation". Here's an example in context:
‘Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.’” For he said, “I will appease (atone/kāp̄ar) him with the gift that goes ahead of me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me.” - Genesis 32:20

That has nothing to do with sin at all. So the word can't automatically mean "forgiveness of sin". Otherwise that verse makes no sense. You'd be saying Jacob is absolving Esau of their sins. I know people tend to see a word and expect it to hold the same meaning, but it doesn't when you start translating from other languages. Our translation might translate it to the same word in english, but that doesn't mean that the language it came from holds the same meaning.

Now let's go to Jesus.

Some translations say "atonement" instead of reconciliation but the meaning is the same. So the word translated "atonement" refers to reconciliation/restored relationship, not the act of forgiving sins itself. Only God forgives sins starting from the dawn of time, onto forever. What the sacrifices did, was restore favor by obedience and offering gifts. Jesus, restored our favor with the Father, by offering Himself while also taking on the sins of the world so that our court sentence didn't = death.

So the idea is as a concept:
sacrifices = temporary favor restored until you sin again
Jesus = Long term favor restored because our court sentence is accounted for

But Jesus doesn't negate the former, by fulfilling the latter.

It's a relationship. Sacrifices try to restore your relationship with God when you do something wrong, OR you just want to give him praise and gifts on a personal level. This has nothing to do with the requirement with salvation. All you're doing, is trying to make your mess up right with God on a relationship level.

Jesus made it possible for our relationship to be permanent, so when judgement comes later, our debt is paid. This level is God's ruling/court system and can only be paid via Jesus. So I think how the church uses the word "atonement" is actually inaccurate and it muddies concepts that make it harder to understand the purpose of the sacrificial system.

So I got to here and saw you edited but I'll keep my response as I think it still answers your questions. But I want to add that I don't see the system of sacrifice = Christ because God allowed birds (doves/pigeons) instead of sheep, while also including cows, rams and goats too. If it was only sheep, I'd say there's an argument. I do however see the holiday of Passover as 100% = Christ and a symbolic measure of what was to come but theres too many alterations, rules and concepts in the sacrifice system to say it in totality is symbolic or a precursor to Christ. Specially when Christ was crucified on a cross and not in a ritual of sorts. There's also no symbolism of a cross in the temple either. The only thing that symbolizes Christ on a cross was in the old testament of a snake on a pole (numbers 21) which is a stand-alone thing, just like Passover.

So I guess to sum up, I'm arguing for a separation of the sacrifices vs what Christ did because the word choices and explanations in the NT only are used to help explain what Christ actually did on the cross and was never meant to replace anything. Fulfillment of the law was taking our punishment, not doing away with instructions that God gave us.

Edit: 1 more thing. Since Passover and the pole was a stand-alone thing, it makes sense that Christs sacrifice was a 1 and done. If you equate it to the temple practices, that creates a problem with the idea of 1 and done. Specially since they did daily sacrifices as the event keeps reoccurring.

I agree that kaphar (atonement) does not always mean exactly the same thing in every context. Genesis 32:20 shows it can mean to appease or reconcile. But the question is not what the word can mean in every context; the question is what it means in the sacrificial laws of Leviticus.

In Leviticus, the text repeatedly connects atonement with both sin and forgiveness.

Lev 4:35:
"And the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev 5:10:
"And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev5:16:
"The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev 5:18:
"The priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake that he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven."

The pattern is consistent: sin - sacrifice - atonement - forgiveness.

So while God is always the One who forgives, the sacrifices were the God-ordained means by which atonement and forgiveness were granted under the law of Moses.

Lev 17:11 explicitly says:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls."

The text itself ties blood sacrifice to atonement.

The New Testament does not merely borrow sacrificial language as an illustration. It explicitly says the sacrifices pointed forward to Christ.

Hebrews 9:22:
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 10:1:
"The law has but a shadow of the good things to come."

Hebrews 10:4:
"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Hebrews is not separating Christ from the sacrificial system. He is saying the sacrificial system was a shadow and Christ is the reality.

Sacrifices involved bulls, goats, rams, lambs, doves, and pigeons does not argue against typology. Hebrews specifically mentions "bulls and goats" when explaining Christ's work.

Likewise, the New Testament repeatedly identifies Jesus with sacrificial imagery:

Behold, the Lamb of God John 1:29
Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed 1 Cor 5:7
"He entered once for all into the holy places... by means of his own blood Heb 9:12
"Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God Eph 5:2

So I agree that atonement includes reconciliation, but Scripture does not separate reconciliation from the sacrificial dealing with sin. In Leviticus, atonement is repeatedly made "for sin" and results in forgiveness. In Hebrews, those sacrifices are presented as shadows that ultimately point to Christ's once in for all sacrifice Heb10:10 fulfilling the prediction to end sacrifices and offerings

Dan 9:27
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
In Leviticus, the text repeatedly connects atonement with both sin and forgiveness.

Leviticus 4:35:
"And the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

Leviticus 5:10:
"And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

Leviticus 5:16:
"The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven."

Leviticus 5:18:
"The priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake that he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven."

The pattern is consistent: sin - sacrifice - atonement - forgiveness.

The text never says the sacrifice itself removes sin, it only states the result of forgiveness after the priest performs the rite. Like an if this, then that. If you take out the trash, I will give you a hug. Same concept. If you do this, I will forgive you. Not that the thing itself, by itself holds any sway or power.

You also say that God alone forgives sin, but if that's true, then how can the sacrifice itself be what absolves sin? It can't be both. If the sacrifice itself absolves sin, then there are two sources of forgiveness: God and the sacrifice. But Scripture presents only one source...God. The people offered the sacrifice in obedience, and God promised that their sins would be forgiven. The forgiveness came from God, not from the animal itself.

Otherwise, Hebrews 10:4 would be false: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

If you then argue that those sacrifices were a shadow of Christ in the sense that the sacrifices themselves removed sin, you're carrying that same definition into Christ. In other words, you're saying the animal sacrifices themselves took away sin because Christ's sacrifice took away sin. But Hebrews explicitly denies that the blood of animals ever took away sins.

So you're left with two options: either God alone forgives sins and the sacrifices never possessed the power to remove them, or the sacrifices themselves removed sin alongside God. There isn't a consistent middle position if the sacrifice itself is said to be the source of forgiveness.

SabbathBlessings said:
The New Testament does not merely borrow sacrificial language as an illustration. It explicitly says the sacrifices pointed forward to Christ.

Hebrews 9:22:
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 10:1:
"The law has but a shadow of the good things to come."

Hebrews 10:4:
"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Hebrews is not separating Christ from the sacrificial system. He is saying the sacrificial system was a shadow and Christ is the reality.

Sacrifices involved bulls, goats, rams, lambs, doves, and pigeons does not argue against typology. Hebrews specifically mentions "bulls and goats" when explaining Christ's work.

First I need to mention that the writer of Hebrews comes AFTER Christ. So it would be odd for him to say "of things to come" in reference TO Christ on the cross and what he did.
Hebrews 10 is trying to get them to understand that sacrifices don't save them, Jesus did. He's trying to equate for understanding, but none of Hebrews 10 is arguing typology. There's direct statements like:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all." v10
If there was a symbolic analogy he wouldn't use "once and for all". There would be equation language, but there isnt.

Also:

“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”-- V 14

Look at the requirement statement made here. The sacrifice is ONLY for them that are "sanctified". If you are made holy via sacrifices and its a typology of Christ, how are you then made holy via Christ? It would have to work both ways if it's a typology or symbolic reference.
Christ's sacrifice = Atonement for sins
Sacrificial law =/= Atonement for sins in the same manner Christ's does (hebrews 10:4)
There for, Sacrificial law cannot be a shadow of Christs sacrifice. Because otherwise you'd have to say that the sacrifices DID atone for your sins in the same manner but that contradicts Hebrews 10:4.
The rest of it goes back to my first response above.

SabbathBlessings said:
Likewise, the New Testament repeatedly identifies Jesus with sacrificial imagery:

"Behold, the Lamb of God" (John 1:29)
"Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7)
"He entered once for all into the holy places... by means of his own blood" (Hebrews 9:12)
"Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Ephesians 5:2)

So I agree that atonement includes reconciliation, but Scripture does not separate reconciliation from the sacrificial dealing with sin. In Leviticus, atonement is repeatedly made "for sin" and results in forgiveness. In Hebrews, those sacrifices are presented as shadows that ultimately point to Christ's once in for all sacrifice Heb10:10 fulfilling the prediction to end sacrifices and offerings

Dan 9:27
Then he shall confirm a [a]covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the [b]desolate.”

Again, passover. Not relating to the rituals of the temple, but specifically passover. Don't merge the two, they aren't the same.
Rest of it, Yes, Christ was a sacrifice, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing against is the conflation of sacrificial law and Christ because it's not a complete picture, there are holes in it which means it cannot be a shadow of Christ and what he did on the cross. It fits in some places and has gaping holes in a bunch of other areas. We can't ignore the holes and just lay a claim that since it fits in some areas, it automatically means thats what it is.

SabbathBlessings · Jun 18, 2026

Delvianna said:
The text never says the sacrifice itself removes sin, it only states the result of forgiveness after the priest performs the rite. Like an if this, then that. If you take out the trash, I will give you a hug. Same concept. If you do this, I will forgive you. Not that the thing itself, by itself holds any sway or power.

You also say that God alone forgives sin, but if that's true, then how can the sacrifice itself be what absolves sin? It can't be both. If the sacrifice itself absolves sin, then there are two sources of forgiveness: God and the sacrifice. But Scripture presents only one source...God. The people offered the sacrifice in obedience, and God promised that their sins would be forgiven. The forgiveness came from God, not from the animal itself.

Otherwise, Hebrews 10:4 would be false: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

If you then argue that those sacrifices were a shadow of Christ in the sense that the sacrifices themselves removed sin, you're carrying that same definition into Christ. In other words, you're saying the animal sacrifices themselves took away sin because Christ's sacrifice took away sin. But Hebrews explicitly denies that the blood of animals ever took away sins.

So you're left with two options: either God alone forgives sins and the sacrifices never possessed the power to remove them, or the sacrifices themselves removed sin alongside God. There isn't a consistent middle position if the sacrifice itself is said to be the source of forgiveness.

First I need to mention that the writer of Hebrews comes AFTER Christ. So it would be odd for him to say "of things to come" in reference TO Christ on the cross and what he did.
Hebrews 10 is trying to get them to understand that sacrifices don't save them, Jesus did. He's trying to equate for understanding, but none of Hebrews 10 is arguing typology. There's direct statements like:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all." v10
If there was a symbolic analogy he wouldn't use "once and for all". There would be equation language, but there isnt.

Also:

Look at the requirement statement made here. The sacrifice is ONLY for them that are "sanctified". If you are made holy via sacrifices and its a typology of Christ, how are you then made holy via Christ? It would have to work both ways if it's a typology or symbolic reference.
Christ's sacrifice = Atonement for sins
Sacrificial law =/= Atonement for sins in the same manner Christ's does (hebrews 10:4)
There for, Sacrificial law cannot be a shadow of Christs sacrifice. Because otherwise you'd have to say that the sacrifices DID atone for your sins in the same manner but that contradicts Hebrews 10:4.
The rest of it goes back to my first response above.

Again, passover. Not relating to the rituals of the temple, but specifically passover. Don't merge the two, they aren't the same.
Rest of it, Yes, Christ was a sacrifice, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing against is the conflation of sacrificial law and Christ because it's not a complete picture, there are holes in it which means it cannot be a shadow of Christ and what he did on the cross. It fits in some places and has gaping holes in a bunch of other areas. We can't ignore the holes and just lay a claim that since it fits in some areas, it automatically means thats what it is.

The OT did have a sacrificial system for sin and all of it pointed to Christ - it was showing a picture of what Christ does in His heavenly sanctuary for our sins Heb8:1-5 Heb9:23-24 as our High Priest. All those animal sacrifices pointed to the blood of Jesus who can take away sins, however had those sins not been given on the day of the atonement they would have never pointed forward to Christ's blood, which can forgive those sin. Just like what He does now for our sins, but instead of animal sacrifices, we can pray to have our sins forgiven when we are truly sorry, confess, repent 1 John1:9, which means have a change of mind, and a change in our direction. God never desired sacrifices or offerings, He desired obedience, but gave a way to reconcile man back to Him. Final atonement has not happened yet and the picture of the OT is what He is doing now as our High Priest. Why we want our sins covered by His mercy and grace on final atonement, just like the OT, sadly when people remove God's laws that His mercy covers, they are removing what His blood covers 1John1:9 Exo20:6 Pro28:13 Exo25:21 Rev11:18-19

Hebrews was written after the Cross but it doesn't mean it can't speak of what was done at the Cross.

Anyway, we may be too far apart on this topic and a bit off the OP, which is my bad for bringing up sacrifices in the first place.

I am going to leave it as agree to disagree on this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Delvianna · Jun 18, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
The OT did have a sacrificial system for sin and all of it pointed to Christ - it was showing a picture of what Christ does in His heavenly sanctuary for our sins Heb8:1-5 Heb9:23-24 as our High Priest. All those animal sacrifices pointed to the blood of Jesus who can take away sins, however had those sins not been given on the day of the atonement they would have never pointed forward to Christ's blood, which covers those sins and can take those sins. Just like what He does now for our sins, but instead of animal sacrifices, we can pray to have our sins forgiven when we are truly sorry, which means have a change of mind, and a change in our direction. God never desired sacrifices or offerings, He desired obedience, but gave a way to reconcile man back to Him. Final atonement has not happened yet and the picture of the OT is what He is doing now. We want our sins covered by His mercy and grace on final atonement, sadly when people remove God's laws, they are removing what His blood covers Exo20:6 Pro28:13 Exo25:21.

Hebrews was written after the Cross but it doesn't mean it can't speak of what was done at the Cross.

Anyway, we may be too far apart on this topic and a bit off the OP, which is my bad for bringing up sacrifices in the first place.

I am going to leave it as agree to disagree on this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

No worries

It just seems like we don't agree on the same scripture readings. I do appreciate your thoughts too

The Servant of God: One Thread from Genesis to Revelation

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads