Jesus Fulfilled The Sacrificial System

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Again, I'm not arguing the Bible does not argue for a standard, prudent, measurement your of behaviour. I am however arguing that if we are to take that term seriously, then we need to do away with our traditional definition of what that means, and find the Biblical outline. I personally do not see the connection, how, in the light of the Gospel taught, that Leviticus and Deuteronomy hold creed on this matter after Christs death.

It is my opinion, that Christs view is, that self-control, and proper behaviour are important, but that those things will never overpower the love of the Father, and anyone who takes those as holding any merit to their salvation, which is Grace through Jesus Christ, and his death and resurrection as the forgiveness for our sins; threatens to fall back into the same regrettable hole that the Jewish leaders had fallen into:

Matthew 23:13-33 NASB
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. [14] [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.] [15] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. [16] "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' [17] You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? [18] And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.' [19] You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? [20] Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. [21] And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. [22] And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. [23] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! [25] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. [26] You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. [27] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. [28] So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [29] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, [30] and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' [31] So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. [32] Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. [33] You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

You are equating Biblical morality with a "hole the Jewish leaders fell in"???

 

[mdamon0501]

You misunderstand. Which 5 books of the Old Testament where the Jewish Leaders following when they overstretched their bounds and abused God's Law?

The Laws you all are putting above the sacrifice of our Lord in importance are the same Laws which were previously abused. That Abuse is counteracted by the Gospel.

I also would be careful to equate Law with Morality. if you do so you must say that there has never been an immoral law ever written. Law and Morality are separate things. Morality would be the thread which ties a Law together, not the Law itself.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You misunderstand. Which 5 books of the Old Testament where the Jewish Leaders following when they overstretched their bounds and abused God's Law?

The Laws you all are putting above the sacrifice of our Lord in importance are the same Laws which were previously abused. That Abuse is counteracted by the Gospel.

No one is putting The Lord's sacrifice above anything, but grace is not a license to sin...and sexual immorality is sin.

 

[mdamon0501]

Well define for me what is the consequence of sin?

I haven't argued that people should ignore the merits of their behaviour at all, but that our "sins" are forgiven for a reason. The more we focus on them the closer we creep to that same edge.

 

[1 John 4:1]

The problem I have with this interpretation, is that we are not under the Law, we are under Grace. Therefore the Laws of Leviticus do not hold standing in Christs New Covenant. This is precisely why the veil of the temple was torn in two on his death. Regardless, study the Laws that are spoken in Leviticus and ask yourself if any of those things are things that you yourself would want to happen to you personally, if the answer is no, then Christs assertion that the foundation of all of it is the aforementioned principle.

His condemnation of the Jews adulterous use of the Law is seen in the Gospel too:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Also, lets not confuse the Biblical definition of Adultery. Because Adultery in the Bible is not the definition which has been applied to it in the modern age. Adultery in the Biblical sense is an abuse on the behalf of an individual who takes advantage of the world. This is seen especially in the description of the Adulterous Woman in Proverbs:

My son, pay attention to my wisdom, turn your ear to my words of insight, that you may maintain discretion and your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. Now then, my sons, listen to me; do not turn aside from what I say. Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house, lest you lose your honor to others and your dignity to one who is cruel, lest strangers feast on your wealth and your toil enrich the house of another. At the end of your life you will groan when your flesh and body are spent. You will say, "How I hated discipline! How my heart spurned for correction! I would not obey my teachers or turn my ear to my instructors. And I was soon in serious trouble in the assembly of God's people."

This passage is a clear illustration of the adulterous woman who is seen also in the Prophets. The adulterous woman is a parable, or a metaphor, for the sort of temptation that the Bible calls on us to avoid. You are right in asserting that we are called to have self control, but it is my opinion that when God commands us not to commit adultery, that this is the type of adultery that he is referring to. A lack of self control. This section of proverbs also falls onto the principle, because we have all seen people doing things which we consider to be in the midst of a lack of self control, and cant imagine ourselves doing the same. If we hold that position, and then do the same, then we are hypocrites.

The reason prostitution would be frowned upon by the Old Testament is easy to explain. Paying for the services of a prostitute is an act of lust, which is desire of the flesh, not of the spirit. I don't believe Christ would have judged the prostitutes, (and I'm not referencing the story of the Adulterous woman, because I have seen good evidence it was not originally in the Gospel) rather, he would have had issue with the men who took advantage of their services, creating an atmosphere where such a profession was even tenable. Would those same men want their daughters to be in the prostitutes position? If the answer is no, and they do it anyways, then they are in the error. This is far different than putting the blame on the women who are prostitutes, many of whom (especially in the era we are talking about) would have probably have been slaves. Hosea is the book to read about that idea. Which in that case would be doubly wrong on the part of the man who's bondservant the woman was.

"The problem I have with this interpretation, is that we are not under the Law, we are under Grace. Therefore the Laws of Leviticus do not hold standing in Christs New Covenant."
Where is 1 Peter 1:16 quoting from? Why does he quote this if it now holds no standing?

I think you are mistaking what "under the law" means. Without law there is no grace . . . grace from a transgression of what then? I agree we aren't saved by the law and that's the point Paul made:

"works of the law" are a reference to an Essene teaching about maintaining purity by keeping certain laws which kept the Israelites separate/distinguishable ("holy nation" basically means "separate nation") by God from other nations which maintained the covenant with God https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/docum...70/paul_jewish_law_and_early_christianity.pdf (see last article "Paul, “Works of the Law” and MMT") hence maintaining their salvation. I'm not saying that this was correct just that this is the way they looked at it. Paul is in fact challenging this notion saying that being in Christ is what keeps the covenant and hence leads to salvation. For more info see the work of E. P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" (although I don't agree with all of his conclusions about Paul)

However, through the law we died to the law that we might live for God. Galatians 2:19 That is we are made aware of our sins through the law, the law kills our idea of being self righteous (part of dying to self) so that we are no longer self righteous jerks trying to use the law to save us: that's basically what "under the law" means. Once we die to self, we can accept a savior outside of ourselves and this paradoxically gives us a heart to live more in line with the law through grace: Titus 2:11-14 (also since we are no longer being righteous in a self serving way) The law is essentially summed up in the love of people outside you: God and neighbor, hence self righteousness is incompatible. What does living for God mean in Galatians 2:19? Do you live for God by doing things that he considers "abominations?" (in Leviticus 18).
Compare the following: This is all about not RELYING on the law (EDIT: probably better to say "works") for salvation:

Gal 2
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Rom 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[1 John 4:1]

Just realized Galatians 2:17 can be confusing so compare: Galatians 2:16-21, Romans 7:7-14 and Romans 3:19-20. Galatians 2:17 is a reductio ad absurdum Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia to the position of “works of the law” that “if seeking to be declared righteous in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners” is saying that if we have Christ but we need works of the law then Christ has mislead us and caused us to sin.

 

[mdamon0501]

"The problem I have with this interpretation, is that we are not under the Law, we are under Grace. Therefore the Laws of Leviticus do not hold standing in Christs New Covenant."
Where is 1 Peter 1:16 quoting from? Why does he quote this if it now holds no standing?

I think you are mistaking what "under the law" means. Without law there is no grace . . . grace from a transgression of what then? I agree we aren't saved by the law and that's the point Paul made:

"works of the law" are a reference to an Essene teaching about maintaining purity by keeping certain laws which kept the Israelites separate/distinguishable ("holy nation" basically means "separate nation") by God from other nations which maintained the covenant with God https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/docum...70/paul_jewish_law_and_early_christianity.pdf (see last article "Paul, “Works of the Law” and MMT") hence maintaining their salvation. I'm not saying that this was correct just that this is the way they looked at it. Paul is in fact challenging this notion saying that being in Christ is what keeps the covenant and hence leads to salvation. For more info see the work of E. P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" (although I don't agree with all of his conclusions about Paul)

However, through the law we died to the law that we might live for God. Galatians 2:19 That is we are made aware of our sins through the law, the law kills our idea of being self righteous (part of dying to self) so that we are no longer self righteous jerks trying to use the law to save us: that's what "under the law means" Once we die to self, we can accept a savior outside of ourselves and this paradoxically gives us a heart to live more in line with the law through grace: Titus 2:11-14 (also since we are no longer being righteous in a self serving way) The law is essentially summed up in the love of people outside you: God and neighbor, hence self righteousness is incompatible. What does living for God mean in Galatians 2:19? Do you live for God by doing things that he considers "abominations?" (in Leviticus 18).
Compare the following: This is all about not RELYING on the law for salvation:

Gal 2
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Rom 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is an excellent post. Because it points out exactly what I'm trying to get across. As I said above, I am in no way saying that the ignoring the context of the law is something we should be engaged in. Rather, the Law is not necessary for salvation. Submission to his will implies that we try our best, and we never at any time rely on our own judgement to justify ourselves, or to enact undue judgement on others. Since a central part of the Gospel is that we are all dead in sin. There is not one righteous, no, not one. As Paul says. Therefore what right do we as mere mortal men have to say what God's judgement will be, especially after he has eternally sacrificed his only begotten son?

This is where my aforementioned defense of the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself comes in. Christ has outlined this guideline as the foundation upon which all our behaviour is to be managed. If we keep this in mind, and understand that Love of God and his entire creation is central, then when we go back into the OT to understand the Law, then we can see clearly where the Jewish leaders err in their understanding.

God points out in the OT that when the Jew's left Egypt that he called in them to do specific things. He points out especially Moses and Aaron's error at the spring of Meribah, and punishes the two of them and the tribes accordingly when they gave up their faith in him for a faith in themselves. This is also a message which the Gospel, the Early Fathers, and other texts all point out repeatedly. That we are to steward our brothers in sisters in Love towards obedience to God, not judgement.

 

[HypnoToad]

The earliest Greek copy of Hebrews is dated 300CE and has no known author. So making the claim that "Jesus said" just cannot be validated.

Yeah, see, Jesus saying He brought a new covenant... that's in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:20). So, just how much of the New Testament would you like to throw out?

 

[Shek]

Yeah, see, Jesus saying He brought a new covenant... that's in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:20). So, just how much of the New Testament would you like to throw out?

Luke didn't even know Jesus and he didn't provide his sources, so unless you can provide supporting texts that back everything in Luke's gospel, it cannot be verified as being genuine testimony. Paul didn't know Jesus either....

Luke was Paul's travelling companion and didn't even come into the picture until at least 70 years after Jesus' resurrection.

But beyond these facts, the earliest Greek copy of Luke's gospel is dated 175 - 250CE.

 

[HypnoToad]

Luke didn't even know Jesus and he didn't provide his sources, so unless you can provide supporting texts that back everything in Luke's gospel, it cannot be verified as being genuine testimony. Paul didn't know Jesus either....

Luke was Paul's travelling companion and didn't even come into the picture until at least 70 years after Jesus' resurrection.

But beyond these facts, the earliest Greek copy of Luke's gospel is dated 175 - 250CE.

Right. Well, I'm only concerned here with people who actually accept the Bible as God's Word. Thanks for sharing, you have a good day now.

 

[Shek]

Right. Well, I'm only concerned here with people who actually accept the Bible as God's Word. Thanks for sharing, you have a good day now.

In that case then, you should be reading and studying the Torah; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

This is the ONLY text that Yahweh authored himself and is supposed to have dictated to Moses on Mt. Sinai during the Exodus.

Jesus never authored a single word in the NT. His apostles recorded a small portion of it, roughly 30%. The other 70% of the NT was recorded by 3 authors that never knew Jesus; Paul, Luke & Mark.

Another 20% or so that was recorded is non-eyewitness testimony recorded by Jesus' apostles. So if you wanna dig down and get into the heart of the validity of quoting Jesus....less than 10% can be corroborated.

Don't feel like you're in the dark, a lot of people are because Church leaders fail to tell everyone the truth about the origin of the NT and just how much of it is hearsay, outright contradictions and non-eyewitness testimony. It's a tough pill to swallow when you discover the truth for yourself....

Peace.

 

[HypnoToad]

Amazing how some people can claim to be Christians while insisting we can't trust a word of the New Testament. And *they* bring up the idea of "contradiction"?? LOL!!

I also love the implication that one can only accept the New Testament out of ignorance. Like no one could ever possibly study its origins and reach the conclusion that it's authentic. Oh, no, that's just not possible. Lmao.

 

[Shek]

Amazing how some people can claim to be Christians while insisting we can't trust a word of the New Testament. And *they* bring up the idea of "contradiction"?? LOL!!

It all depends on what the believer considers to be a follower of Jesus' teaching.

Jesus was not a Roman Catholic, he was a Jew and he practiced Judaic law.

So imo, if you're going to follow Jesus then do as he did....that includes believing what he believed.

 

[HypnoToad]

It all depends on what the believer considers to be a follower of Jesus' teaching.

Jesus was not a Roman Catholic, he was a Jew and he practiced Judaic law.

So imo, if you're going to follow Jesus then do as he did....that includes believing what he believed.

How do you know what Jesus taught and believed? Remember, can't use that pesky lie-filled New Testament.

And what the heck does Roman Catholicism have to do with this??

 

[Shek]

How do you know what Jesus taught and believed?

I study his faith.

Judaism 101

 

[HypnoToad]

I study his faith.

So every Israelite in the history of Israel faithfully taught & believed Judaism? Really?

Kinda sounds like you have no possible reliable way of knowing what Jesus taught & believed.

 

[Shek]

So every Israelite in the history of Israel faithfully taught & believed Judaism? Really?

Kinda sounds like you have no possible reliable way of knowing what Jesus taught & believed.

Your reply isn't surprising...

So here comes the obvious.

What faith did Jesus of Nazareth practice if not Judaism?

 

[HypnoToad]

Your reply isn't surprising...
So here comes the obvious.
What faith did Jesus of Nazareth practice if not Judaism?

How would I know? There's apparently no reliable record of what Jesus taught & believed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Luke didn't even know Jesus and he didn't provide his sources, so unless you can provide supporting texts that back everything in Luke's gospel, it cannot be verified as being genuine testimony. Paul didn't know Jesus either....

Luke was Paul's travelling companion and didn't even come into the picture until at least 70 years after Jesus' resurrection.

But beyond these facts, the earliest Greek copy of Luke's gospel is dated 175 - 250CE.

Luke knew many of the witnesses and certainly Paul was well acquainted with them. The entire New Testament was most likely written between 60 and 70 AD. Jesus ascended around 33AD, it wasn't 70 years but it was certainly long enough for word to get around about what happened. From Israel, to Israel, across Galatia and Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Rome. Luke represented a living witness.

 

[Shek]

The entire New Testament was most likely written between 60 and 70 AD.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

Scroll down to table IV.

Left side dates are speculation as to when the original texts MAY have been authored, but nobody knows for sure since there are no original texts in existence. We haven't even found copies written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The far right side dates are the earliest known papyri, which range from 125 - 400 years AFTER Jesus.

What most people don't stop to consider is the sheer amount of time between the speculative dates and the earliest known papyrus for each book. All of those far right side dates are what all NT's are founded on.

Every single word in the NT is a Greek copy of another copy of unknown origin, written by an unidentified copywriter....hundreds of years later.

There's a fragment of John that's the earliest known at 125 - 160CE.

Taking all of this into consideration, we have no idea just how many copies exist, who wrote them or even how accurate they are to the original texts...none of which have ever been found.

Let's face it, these weren't trained Sofer...they were everyday normal people copying these texts and it's why there are so many contradictions found in the NT.

I'm not saying that the entire NT is inaccurate, but corroborating texts are absolutely needed not only to support their validity but also to support their accuracy.

And if anyone is making the claim of "Jesus said" publicly, then that passage had better be coming from one of Jesus 12 apostles and was actually an eyewitness of the event.

Not doing so would be irresponsible.