The Invalidity of a Critic's Denial of Christian Atonement Theology - By Wildcat

8/4/2019 The Invalidity of a Critic's Denial of Christian Atonement Theology - By Wildcat

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-invalidity-of-a-critics-denial-of-christian-atonement-theology-by 1/22

Responses to Bismikaallahuma

The Invalidity of a Critic's Denial of Christian Atonement Theology

Wildcat

Introduction

On MENJ’s site we find the article, The Invalidity of the Crucifixion of Jesus As AnAtonement for Sin , attributed to a retired physicist and practicing Jew, named Dr. JosephG.The author attempts to show that Christ’s sacr ifice on the cross allegedly is not valid from thepoint-of-view of the Old Testament. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize, in light of theBiblical data, the claims of the author. Dr. JosephG begins:

Here is a partial list of reasons for why the death of Jesus on the cross couldn't possibly haveserved as a valid sacrifice - any one of these would render a sacrifice as unacceptable for thepurpose of expiation of sins.

GIVEN that, at the time of Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was still standing i n Jerusalemand the Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force, here are some of the reasons why the deathof Jesus on the cross cannot be a valid sacrificial offering:

RESPONSE:

Notice, first of all, that the author’s foundation for the objections that follo w is based on thesacrificial system established in the Torah. The author goes on to list ten reasons that Christ’s

sacrifice on the cross is invalid, according to this paradigm. Since Sam Shamoun has alreadyprovided detailed refutations to points 7, 9, and 10, we will focus on points 1-6 and 8 to finishoff the set. Before continuing with our response, you may first want to read Sam Shamoun’sanswers to the aforementioned points in the article, Judaism and Human Sacrifice as a Meansof Atonement .

We also highly recommend that the reader consider the material from the link below, whichexpounds valuable information regarding ancient Jewish exegetical procedures, since it maybe relevant to this issue: www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html .

Before we delve into the author’s objections specifically, it is important that we first discuss

some relevant Biblical data regarding animal sacrifices, as well as the New Covenant and theMessiah’s role in it. This will help to demonstrate the author’s fallacies and establish the trueBiblical paradigm from which we will be responding to his objections. Consider, first of all,the first few arguments utilized by the author:

FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (seeLeviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus wascrucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkledby the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/wildcat/contact.html


http://bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/levictus.htm




http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/atonement1.htm




http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html











THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects orblemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus wasbeaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31;Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus wascircumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the

covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal5:12).

FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offeredon an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – accordingto the N ew Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind(Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

RESPONSE:

When we take a more in- depth look into some of the relevant Biblical passages, the author’sfallacious arguments become more apparent. First of all, we need to determine the proper rolethat the Levitical priesthood played in regards to foreshadowing the Messiah’s sacrifice. Inorder to do that, we will consider the New Testament’s exposition of Christ’s ministry, andthe corres ponding Old Testament data upon which it is built, but first we’ll consider a few of the Old Testament sacrifices that were NOT made according to the Levitical ordinances, thereason for which will become clear as we continue. Scripture quotations will be from theNIV, unless otherwise noted.

Sacrifices Made "Outside the System"

The first acceptable sacrifice explicitly reported in the Bible was performed by Abel,obviously well before the Levitical priesthood was established:

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with

favor on Abel and his offering , but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor."(Genesis 4:3-5)

Next, consider the sacrifices made by Job:

"When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early

in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps mychildren have sinned an d cursed God in their hearts.’ This was Job's regular custom." (Job1:5)

Although Job was not an Israelite, and in fact, probably lived prior to the establishment of theIsraelite theocracy, and thus also the Levitical priesthood, we see that he made sacrificialofferings on behalf of his children, worrying that they may have sinned.

Next, we turn to the Passover sacrifice:

"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month,

the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of thismonth each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is



too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having takeninto account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb neededin accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-oldmales without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of themuntil the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must

slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides andtops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eatthe meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do noteat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire-head, legs and inner parts. Donot leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how youare to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff inyour hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. "On that same night I will pass throughEgypt and strike down every firstborn-both men and animals - and I will bring judgment onall the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses whereyou are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch youwhen I strike Egypt. "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come youshall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD - a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eatbread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoevereats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off fromIsrael. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do nowork at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat-that is all you may do."Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought yourdivisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenthday until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in yourhouses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live,you must eat unleavened bread." "Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said tothem, "Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on thetop and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his houseuntil morning. When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he willsee the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and hewill not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down." "Obey theseinstructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. When you enter the landthat the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your childrenask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice

to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homeswhen he struck down the Egyptians.' Then the people bowed down and worshiped. TheIsraelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. At midnight the LORDstruck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, tothe firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock aswell. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there wasloud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead." (Exodus 12:1-30)

While the Passover festival was to become the premiere feast of each year for the Israelites,commemorating their freedom from bondage under the Egyptians, the first Passoversacrifices were performed before the Levitical priesthood was established, and is hence

another sacrifice made "outside the system." This becomes all the more pertinent when we



consider (later) that Christ’s sacrifice served as the ant i-typical fulfillment of the PaschalLamb.

So, it is clear that animal sacrifices were made that were acceptable to God prior to theestablishment of the Levitical priesthood. However, there were also sacrifices made "outside

the Levitical system", even when this system was currently in effect. Consider first thecontest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal:

"‘Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring thefour hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat atJezebel's table.’ So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets onMount Carmel. Elijah went before the people and said, ‘How long will you waver betweentwo opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.’ But the

people said nothing. Then Elijah said to them, ‘I am the only one of the LORD's prophetsleft, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let them choose onefor themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Iwill prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on thename of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire-heis God.’ Then all the people said, ‘What you say is good.’ Elijah said to the prophets of Baal,‘Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the nameof your god, but do not light the fire.’ So they took the bull given the m and prepared it. Thenthey called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. ‘O Baal, answer us!’ they shouted.But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they hadmade. At noon Elijah began to taunt them. ‘Shout louder!’ he said. ‘Surely he is a god!Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must beawakened.’ So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as wastheir custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their franticprophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no oneanswered, no one paid attention. Then Elijah said to all the people, ‘Come here to me.’ Theycame to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. Elijah took twelvestones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD hadcome, saying, ‘Your name shall be Israel.’ With the stones he built an altar in the name of theLORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. He arranged thewood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, ‘Fill four large

jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.’ ‘Do it again,’ he sai d, and theydid it again. ‘Do it a third time,’ he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water randown around the altar and even filled the trench. At the time of sacrifice, the prophet

Elijah stepped forward and prayed: ‘O LORD, God of Abraham, Is aac and Israel, let itbe known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done allthese things at your command. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people willknow that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their he arts back again.’Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and thesoil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they fell

prostrate and cried, ‘The LORD - he is God! The LORD - he i s God!’" (I Kings 18:19 -39)

King David was also commanded by the Lord to make sacrifices, on an altar that he wascommanded to build on a threshing floor of a Jebusite named Araunah. This was done inorder to stay a plague that had fallen upon Israel.



"On that day Gad went to David and said to him, ‘Go up and build an altar to the LORD onthe threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.’ So David went up, as the LORD hadcommanded through Gad. When Araunah looked and saw the king and his men comingtoward him, he went out and bowed down before the king with his face to the ground.Araunah said, ‘Why has my lord the king come to his servant?’ ’To buy your threshing floor,’

David answered, ‘so I can build an altar to the LORD , that the plague on the people may be stopped.’ Araunah said to David, "Let my lord the king take whatever pleases him and offer itup. Here are oxen for the burnt offering, and here are threshing sledges and ox yokes for thewood. O king, Araunah gives all this to the king.’ Araunah also said to him, ‘May the LORDyour God accept you.’ But the king replied to Araunah, ‘No, I insist on paying you for it. Iwill not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.’ So Davidbought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them. Davidbuilt an altar to the LORD there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings .Then the LORD answered prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was stopped."(II Samuel 24:18-25)

So, we see from these examples that God was quite willing to work outside the Leviticalsystem both before, and even after, it was established. Thus, already we find that Dr.JosephG’s insistence that Christ’s sacrifice conform perfectly to that of the Levitical systemquestionable.

Biblical Data on the Messiah’s Work

It is the Christian contention that Christ’s ministry serves as the fulfillment of the Torah, andthat all of the animal sacrifices and associated rituals outlined therein were symbols pointingto the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. In this case, the priest’s sprinkling of theblood on the altar was a symbol (i.e. type) of the ultimate High Priest to come, mediating aNew Covenant on the basis of the ultimate Sacrifice (i.e. anti-type). This New Covenant wasforetold by Jeremiah the prophet:

"The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the houseof Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with theirforefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke mycovenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ’This is the covenant I willmake with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longerwill a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they

will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD . ‘For I willforgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’" (Jeremiah 31:31 -34)

The Old Testament also predicts that the Messiah would have a priestly ministry:

"The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool foryour feet. The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty,from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. The LORD has swornand will not change his mind: " You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. " TheLord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the

nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head.’" (Psalm 110:1 -7)



We notice here that David states that "The LORD says to my Lord," indicating that God (the"LORD", or "Yahweh") would allow the second "Lord" ("Adoni") to sit at His right hand and

be the ruler of Zion, before whom all kings will be crushed on the day of God’s wrath. ThatDavid refers to this future "ruler of Zion" as "Lord" (although a different Hebrew word isused in reference to the ruler than when David referred to God as "LORD", i.e. Yahweh)

indicates that he is even higher in authority than King David himself! Keeping in mind aswell that David is a prototype of the Messiah (see e.g. Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Isaiah 11:1-11), itbecomes clear that this is a Messianic prophecy, as was recognized in many early Jewish andChristian sources. As we can see, however, from what is in bold, this Messiah-king is also apriest.

Interestingly, there is some Old Testament data indicating that King David himself was a"priestly king." Recall the passage quoted above where David was commanded by the Lordto build an altar and make sacrifices (II Samuel 24:18-25). However, sacrifices werefunctions to be performed virtually exclusively by priests.

Michael Brown notes, in regards to this:

"It is important to remember that King Saul, David’s predecessor, got into big trouble byoffering a sacrifice without priestly authorization (see 1 Sam. 13:14), while a later, godlyking like Uzziah was stricken by God for daring to infringe on priestly ministry (in his case,burning incense in the Temple; see 2 Chron. 26:16-26) [Michael Brown, Answering JewishObjections to Jesus , Vol. 1, pg. 226, n. 34]

However, it wasn’t only David that made sacrifices to the Lord, but also his most prominentson, King Solomon:

"Three times a year Solomon sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the altarhe had built for the LORD, burning incense before the LORD along with them, and sofulfilled the temple obligations." (I Kings 9:25)

One pushback that we should note here is that Elijah, as demonstrated earlier, also performeda sacrificial ritual that was accepted by God (even though the Levitical priesthood was ineffect at the time), though he MAY not have been a Levite. Regardless, it is still interesting topoint out that both David and Solomon, precursors to the priestly-king Messiah, were amongthe rare exceptions in regards to being allowed to perform duties generally only reserved forLevitical priests.

We also see from the Old Testament that David was allowed to eat the showbread (i.e.hallowed bread), reserved typically for priests:

"David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, andasked, ‘Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?’ David answered Ahimelech the priest,‘The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, 'No one is to know anything aboutyour mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certainplace. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever youcan find.’ But the priest answered David, I don't have any ordinary bread on hand;however, there is some consecrated bread here - provided the men have kept themselves

from women . David replied, ‘ Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I setout. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!’



So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except thebread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced byhot bread on the day it was taken away ." (I Samuel 21:1-6)

Interestingly, the exception that was made for David is alluded to by none other than Jesus

himself in the New Testament:"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they

began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doingwhat is unlawful on the Sabbath?’ He answered, ‘ Have you never read what David didwhen he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the highpriest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful onlyfor priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions .’ Then he said to them, ‘TheSabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of theSabbath.’" (Mark 2:23 -28; for the question of why Jesus referred to Abiathar when Davidspoke to Abimelech, see here )

Perhaps most intriguingly, there is a place in Scripture where David’s sons are called priests!Consider the following:

"Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army, and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder,

and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiahwas secretary, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites,and David’s sons were priests ." (II Samuel 8:16-18, ESV; 8:15-17 in some Jewishtranslations)

We can see in the last verse that David’s sons were called priests. Other English versionsbesides the ESV that render "kohanim" as "priests" include the MSG, NLT (it is renderedhere as "priestly leaders"), and the CEV. Most translations, however, render the word"kohanim" differently in II Samuel 8:18. For instance, the NIV renders "kohanim" as "royaladvisers" while the NASB renders the word "chief ministers." The LXX renders the worddifferently as well. However, it is much more likely that "kohanim" should be translated as"priests." Consider the following:

"The noun occurs 440 times in the singular and 310 times in the plural and always means‘priest’— without exception; the Rabbinic commentators to 2 Samuel 8:17 struggle with theobvious meaning, which is confirmed by the fact that kohanim also occurs in the previous

verse (2 Sam. 8:16), and the meaning there is indisputably ‘priests.’ It is impossible to think that the same word is used two very different ways in the space of two verses in the samecontext, especially when it is never used in any sense except ‘priest’ throughout the Bible.That the Spirit of God was hinting at something important in this verse is confirmed when werealize that the later parallel passages to 2 Samuel 8 (viz., 1 Chronicles 18) states that David’ssons were ‘chief officials’ (v. 17; ri’shonim ). Thus, the special, intentional statement made in2 Samuel 8:17 is clear: David’s role as a priestly king is seen in the fact that some of his sonswere also called priests." [Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus , Vol. 1, n.35, pg. 226]

Remember also the Scripture quoted above which indicates that Solomon made sacrifices to

the Lord, on an altar that he himself built (I Kings 9:25). This is compatible with theScriptural claim that David’s sons were priests .

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby.html








This passage is a very potent Messianic prophecy, for a number of reasons, but what concernsus here are the portions in bold. Note that this is a prophecy of an "Anointed One" that is tocome. Thus, by the end of "seventy sevens" (which takes us up to sometime between 30-70A.D.; on this see the link below), there will be atonement made for wickedness, the bringingin of everlasting righteousness, and perhaps most interestingly, the anointing of the most

holy. Clearly, this is speaking of sacrificial/priestly work, and it is connected with the comingof this "Anointed One," which is none other than the Messiah. We won’t go into anymoredepth here on this verse, but for a more thorough exposition, as well as answers to commonobjections, please see the material in the following link:www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#fourteen .

Finally, there are also a couple of relevant texts from Zechariah indicating that the Messiahwould be a priest:

"‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolicof things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. See, the stone I have set infront of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription onit,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and I will rem ove the sin of this land in a single day. In thatday each of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and fig tree,’ declares the LORDAlmighty." (Zechariah 3:8-10)

The word of the LORD came to me: "Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijahand Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the highpriest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almigh ty says: ‘Hereis the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and buildthe temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will beclothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on histhrone. And there will be harmony between the two.’ The crown will be given to Heldai,Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the LORD. Thosewho are far away will come and help to build the temple of the LORD, and you will knowthat the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey theLORD your God." (Zechariah 6:9-15)

Hebrew scholar Michael Brown comments on these passages:

"Let’s focus in on Zechariah 3:8, ‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated

before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, theBranch.’ The Targum renders this closing phrase as, ‘Behold I will bring my servant theMessiah.’ The Branch— understood to be the Branch of David —is the Messiah…."

"Why was Joshua the high priest, along with his companions, singled out immediately beforereference was made to the Branch? Why not single out Zerubbabel, the Davidic governor,rather than single out the high priest? Many interpreters believe that Zechariah 4:14 points toZerubbabel and Joshua as the two anointed ones who will serve in this world, but noreference is made to the Branch in this passage. Zechariah 6:9-15, however, is explicit:Joshua the high priest is to be crowned --remember that only kings were crowned — and it ishe who symbolizes the Branch: ‘Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the

head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almightysays: "Here is the man whose name is the Branch [once again, the Targum calls him the

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#fourteen





Messiah], and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord’" (Zech.6:11-12). So, it is Joshua, not Zerubbabel, who is called the Branch, the high priest, wearingthe crown, representing the Davidic Messiah…."

"What makes this all the more interesting is that this man Joshua is normally known by a

shortened name in the Tanakh, just as someone named Michael could be called Mike. Andwhat is that shortened name? Yeshua! And so, the one and only man directly singled out inthe Bible as a symbol of the Messiah was called Yeshua . The Lord knew exactly what he wasdoing when he laid this all out in advance, giving enough clues along the way that, oncediscovered, the evi dence would be indisputable…." [Michael Brown, Answering JewishObjections to Jesus , Vol. 3, pp. 144-145]

The shortened name for "Joshua", to which Michael Brown alludes, is used in three places inthe book of Ezra, referring to the very same priest that was crowned, according to Zechariah:

"When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the peopleassembled as one man in Jerusalem. Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests andZerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel tosacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses theman of God…." (Ezra 3:1 -2)

"In the second month of the second year after their arrival at the house of God in Jerusalem,Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Jeshua son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers (the priestsand the Levites and all who had returned from the captivity to Jerusalem) began the work,appointing Levites twenty years of age and older to supervise the building of the house of theLORD. Jeshua and his sons and brothers and Kadmiel and his sons (descendants of Hodaviah) and the sons of Henadad and their sons and brothers-all Levites-joined together insupervising those working on the house of God…." (Ezra 3:8-9)

"Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the houseof God in Jerusalem. And the prophets of God were with them, helping them." (Ezra 5:2)

So, the evidence from the Old Testament demonstrates conclusively that the Messiah wouldbe our high priest, forever after the order of Melchizedek.

On the surface, this seems to be at odds with other Messianic prophecies, such as Isaiah 53and Psalm 22, which indicate that the Messiah is to suffer and die to atone for sins (on this,

see the links below). Thus, paradoxically, we are told that the Messiah would serve as boththe Sacrifice AND the Priest, not to mention the King! So, how exactly is all of this possible?When we consider the ministry of Jesus, the matter becomes elucidated for us. We note firstthat he was crucified, serving as the perfect antitype to the various Old Testament sacrifices,associated rituals, and types. However, on the 3 rd day, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead!Forty days later, he ascended into heaven to serve as our High Priest and King, sitting at theright hand of God until God consummates his Kingship in the great eschatological event tocome. This exalted role for the one that suffers is also hinted at in Isaiah 52-53:

"See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Justas there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured

beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness - so will hesprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they



were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand …Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken byGod, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushedfor our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds weare healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and

the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all…. He was assigned a grave with the wicked,and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in hismouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though theLORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, andthe will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will seethe light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, andhe will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, andwas numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and madeintercession for the transgressors. " (Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:4-6; 9-12)

Note from the portions in bold that this suffering servant, despite dying as a guilt offering,will "prolong his days", a verse implying the resurrection, or at least some kind of vindicationafter death, and that he will be highly exalted, clearly on an international level (see the linksbelow for more detail).

Consider now the following passages from the New Testament:

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his deathhe might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who alltheir lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, butAbraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, inorder that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that hemight make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he wastempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Hebrews 2:14-18)

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus theSon of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who isunable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in everyway, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace withconfidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."(Hebrews 4:14-16)

The 7 th chapter of Hebrews is rich in describing the necessity of the change of priesthood, aswell as the Old Testament foundation upon which it is based; so rich indeed that we willquote the whole chapter:

"This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abrahamreturning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everythin g. First, his name means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means‘king of peace.’ Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Eventhe patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants

of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--eventhough their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his



descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had thepromises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. In the one case, thetenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. If

perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it thelaw was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in theorder of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of thepriesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are saidbelonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it isclear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothingabout priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but onthe basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: ‘Y ou are a priest forever, inthe order of Melchizedek.’ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near toGod. Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when Godsaid to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'‘Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Now there havebeen many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; butbecause Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to savecompletely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede forthem. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart fromsinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offersacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. Hesacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as highpriests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, whohas been made perfect forever." (Hebrews 7)

Although this chapter should be self- explanatory, let’s summarize the important data gleanedfrom this passage:

1. Jesus Christ is compared to Melchizedek, the priest- king that ruled in Abraham’s day,and to whom Abraham paid tithes. (Note: See Genesis 14:18-20 for the relevantpassage on Melchizedek.)

2. Another priest was predicted to come because perfection could not be attainedthrough the Levitical priesthood.

3.

Since the Messiah was to come through David’s lineage (cf. e.g. Isaiah 11:1 -12;Jeremiah 23:5-6), and also to be High Priest (Psalm 110:4), this new priest would befrom David’s tribe, the tribe of Judah.

4. In contrast to those that became priests without an oath under the old covenant, Godmade an oath to the Messiah, and because of this oath, Jesus is the priest of a bettercovenant.

5. Unlike other priests, Jesus is eternal, pure, sinless, and exalted. Furthermore, thesacrifice of Christ, unlike those sacrifices made under the old covenant, did not needto be repeated day after day. Rather, Christ was "sacrificed for their sins once for all."

Thus, Christ is our High Priest. In fact, the book of Hebrews tells us that Christ, as our High

Priest, is already at work in a tabernacle established not by man, but by God Himself:



"The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at theright hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the truetabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both giftsand sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he wereon earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by

the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is whyMos es was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you makeeverything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’ But the ministry Jesus hasreceived is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the oldone, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that firstcovenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the peopleand said : ‘The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with thehouse of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with theirforefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did notremain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is thecovenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put mylaws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be mypeople. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know theLord," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgivetheir wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’ By calling this covenant ‘new,’ hehas made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews8)

And,

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through thegreater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of thiscreation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the MostHoly Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially uncleansanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse ourconsciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reasonChrist is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promisedeternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sinscom mitted under the first covenant….This is why even the first covenant was not put intoeffect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the

people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop,and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant, whichGod has commanded you to keep.’ In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both thetabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearlyeverything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with thesesacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ didnot enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself,now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again andagain, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not hisown. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But

now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:9-15; 18-26)



Thus, under the New Covenant, we have 1) an ultimate, once and for-all Sacrifice; 2) aneternal High Priest in our risen Lord and King Jesus Christ; 3) a ministry by our High Priestin the Temple made without human hands.

We have demonstrated that, theologically, Christ’s sacrifice is clearly not in discord with Old

Testament promises; in fact, it is perfectly in harmony with it. Some may wish to questionour understanding of some of the Old Testament prophecies to which we have madereference, as well as whether or not we are on good historical ground for asserting theresurrection of Jesus Christ. While these issues are beyond our scope for this article, thereader can see more extensive treatments of these matters in the following articles:

www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html www.heartofisrael.org/chazak/articles/proph-response.html www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/hisjesus.htm

With the true Biblical paradigm for the Messiah’s sacrifice and priesthood now established,we turn to a discussion of the author’s specific objections:

The author first notes:

FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (seeLeviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus wascrucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).

RESPONSE:

It should be noted here that Jesus is our high priest, and so it would be inappropriate for apriest ordained according to the Old Covenant to administer the blood of Christ. However, itis interesting to note that, even if the author’s criterion for fulfillment was valid, Jesusactually did meet this criterion. When the soldiers came to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, theytook him to the high priest (cf. e.g. Mark 14:53). At the end of Christ’s trial, detailed insubsequent passages, we are told that it was indeed the decision of the high priest that Jesus

be condemned to die:

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Are you not going to answer?What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?’ But Jesus re mained silentand gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of theBlessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right handof the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The h igh priest tore his clothes.‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What doyou think?’ They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him;they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards took him and beat him." (Mark 14:60-65)

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html


http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak/articles/proph-response.html


http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html


http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html


http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm


http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html


http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/hisjesus.htm











Jesus was turned over subsequently to Pontius Pilate, who gave the final authorization forChrist’s crucifixion to take place. However, it was ultimately the decision of the priestly council to condemn Jesus. Without their admonitions, Pilate would not have crucified Christ.In fact, Pilate could not find any evil in Jesus, and would have turned him loose had thecouncil not been so vehement about condemning him:

"Do you want me to re lease to you the king of the Jews?’ asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up thecrowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. ‘What shall I do, then, with the one you c allthe king of the Jews?’ Pilate asked them. ‘Crucify him!’ they shouted. ’Why? What crime hashe committed? asked Pilate.’ But they shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’ Wanting tosatisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed himover to be crucified." (Mark 15:9-15)

In addition, it is interesting to note that Gentile involvement in the execution of Christ is perhaps even more appropriate than what it may appear at first glance, given that Christ’sdeath served as an atonement not only for Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (Cf. these threearticles *, *, *.)

This takes us to the second objection:

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkledby the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

RESPONSE:

This argument is invalid since the Bible indicates, once again, that it is the Messiah that is ourhigh priest, and thus it would be inappropriate for an Old Covenant priest to administer theblood of Jesus. Moreover, the Bible indicates that Christ works in a "Temple made withouthands," not the Temple where sacrifices were made in accordance with the Old Covenant. Infact, a miracle occurred when Christ was crucified, which signified that the Old Covenant,along with the earthly Temple, had been rendered obsolete, now that the ultimate sacrificehad been made:

"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from topto bottom." (Mark 15:37-38; c.f. also Matthew 27:50-51 and Luke 23:45)

Once a year, on the Day of Atonement (i.e.Yom Kippur), the high priest would enter into themost holy place, which was behind the curtain, and sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat onthe mercy seat. This was in order to atone for the sins of Israel of that previous year. Thesupernatural tearing of this curtain at the time of Christ’s crucifixion symbolized thatatonement would no longer have to be made by a Levitical high priest going behind thecurtain of the earthly Temple. Rather, now that Christ’s sacrifice had been made, sinnerscould receive atonement through the blood of Christ, as it is he that now serves as our eternalhigh priest, working in the "Temple made without hands." For an interesting quote from theTalmud, corroborating the historicity of this event, consider the following from Glenn Miller:

"Quoted from JCNT:84, re: Mt 27.51:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/israel.html



http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/gentiles.html



http://www.christian-thinktank.com/musly2.html#4jewsonly








‘The parokhet in the Temple. Exodus 26:31-35 describes this curtain as it existed in thedesert Tabernacle. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the cohenhagadol was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies; and that he could do onlyonce a year, on Yom-Kippur , to make an atonement sacrifice for his sins and for the sins of the Jewish people. When it was ripped in two from top to bottom it symbolized the fact that

God was giving everyone access to the most holy place of all in heaven, as taught explicitlyat MJ 9:3-9, 10:19-22 [that's "Hebrews" for us goyim , ;>)].’

‘The Talmud bears an amazing witness to the work of Yeshua in altering the system of atonement. The background is that on Yom-Kippur , when the cohen hagadol sacrificed a bull(Leviticus 16), a piece of scarlet cloth was tied between its horns. If it later turned white, itmeant that God had forgiven Israel's sin in accordance with Isaiah 1:18, "Though your sins beas scarlet, they will be white as snow.’

‘Our Rabbis taught that throughout the forty years that Shim'on the Tzaddik served,... thescarlet cloth would become white. From then on it would sometimes become white andsometimes not.... Throughout the last forty years before the Temple was destroyed... thescarlet cloth never turned white." (Yoma 39a- 39b)’

‘Thus in the days of Shim'on Tzaddik the sacrificial system established by God in the Tanakh was observed, and it was effective. But afterwards Israel's spirituality declined, so that thesacrificial system was effective only sometimes. Finally, after Yeshua's death, forty yearsbefore the destruction of the Temple, it was never effective. The Talmud does not say it, butwhat had become effective for forgiving Israel's sin was the sacrificial death of Yeshua theMessiah.’" (Source )

Next, the author claims:

THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects orblemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus wasbeaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31;Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus wascircumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of thecovenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal5:12).

RESPONSE:

The two NT verses listed are, in context, saying that physical circumcision is no longernecessary, as those under Christ are of the "true circumcision." See Philippians 3:3. Whateverone wishes to make of Paul’s comments regarding mutilation, it is obvious that the mereremoval of the foreskin from the penis does not constitute "mutilation" as we commonlydefine it today. Furthermore, even relevant Old Testament passages implicitly contradict theauthor’s claim th at circumcision counts as a "blemish." Obviously, the Levitical priests,living under the Jewish law, would have been circumcised, yet God commands that they arealso to be without blemish:

"Say to Aaron: ‘ For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect

may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near :no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dveil.html






who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or runningsores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to comenear to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not comenear to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as theholy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and

so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy." (Leviticus 21:17-23)

If circumcision actually counted as a blemish, then it would obviously have been impossiblefor any Levitical priest to fulfill this role as required by God, since all priests were to becircumcised. On the other hand, if God considered circumcision to actually count as ablemish , then, in light of this requirement for priests to be unblemished, we’d expect to seesomething in the Torah that exempted priests from having to be circumcised. We find no suchcommand, nor indication that circumcision was considered to be a blemish. Therefore, theauthor’s statement about circumcision being a blemish is even contradictory to what is foundin the Hebrew Bible.

As for Christ being beaten, whipped, and crucified, it is important to note that this occurredAFTER Jesus was placed in front of the Jewish high priest, just as the sacrificial animalswere not killed until after being presented to the priests.

All of that stated, it is important to emphasize that the necessity of an unblemished sacrificefinds its relevant anti-typical fulfillment in the sinless life of Jesus Christ. Just like with thepriesthood and the Temple, there exists a deeper, spiritual meaning underlying the physicalrequirements found in the Torah. Consider the following passage from Hebrews:

"The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who areceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much then will theblood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanseour consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For thisreason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive thepromised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sinscommitted under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:13-15)

We see here that the blood of goats and bulls, which was useful for "outward cleansing," iscontrasted with the blood of the unblemished Christ, whose sacrifice made it possible to"cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death," which is, of course, sin. In otherwords, Christ’s sacrifice provided a spiritual, "inward" cleansing that the blood of animal

sacrifices could not provide. Now consider the following NT passages affirming that Christwas without sin:

"We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin tobe sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (II Corinthians 5:20-21)

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but wehave one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us thenapproach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to

help us in our time of need." (Hebrews 4:15-16)



"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you wereredeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with theprecious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before thecreation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." (I Peter 1:18-20)

"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you

should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made nothreats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in hisbody on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds youhave been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to theShepherd and Overseer of your souls." (I Peter 2:21-25)

Notice that in the latter passage, the author of I Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:5-9 in order toconfirm the theological significance of Christ’s sinless life. Below is the relevant excerptfrom Isaiah 53:

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken byGod, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushedfor our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds weare healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; andthe LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he didnot open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before hershearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was takenaway. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living;for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked,and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in hismouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though theLORD makes his life a guilt offering , he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and thewill of the LORD will prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:4-10)

Thus, in Isaiah 53, we see that a righteous individual is to suffer for the sins of others, and incontext, it appears that this individual is to be "unblemished" in a moral sense (notice theportion in bold). This chapter gives us ample Old Testament evidence corroborating the NewTestament authors’ appeals to Christ’s sinless life as the anti -typical fulfillment of a lamb thatis without blemish.

FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offeredon an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – accordingto the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind(Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

RESPONSE:

While it is true that the Passover sacrifices were made on a per-household basis, it wasnecessary that all that were to escape the tenth plague participate in the Passover ritual. Thosethat followed the Lord’s instructions, participating in the Passover sacrifice and ritual,

became exempt from the wrath of God’s death angel. Any that would not have done so werenot exempt. This comports perfectly with Christian theology. Whether or not we escape



God’s wrath on sinners is dependent upon our acceptance or rejection of the sacrifice thatChrist provided on our behalf. It is an individual decision, not a national one, and that is verypossibly why God instituted this ritual on a per-household basis rather than as a singlesacrifice that was to "cover" all of the Israelites. See below as we discuss more Passoverobjections.

FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removalof sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under "Fourth" above and "Sixth"below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Dayof Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).

RESPONSE:

The New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb is actually the perfect way toconvey the importance of Christ’s sacrifice. It was only the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb thatprevented the death angel from claiming the lives of the firstborn sons of each family.Furthermore, it was the event of the Passover that led to the Israelites’ freedom from captivityunder the Egyptians. Just as the Israelites obtained their freedom from physical bondage (i.e.slavery), the slaying of the anti-typical Paschal Lamb (i.e. Jesus) made it possible for sinnersto obtain freedom from the consequences of their sins, namely death (see e.g. Romans 6:23).Consider the following comments from the 19 th century Jewish Christian theologian AlfredEdersheim:

"Such views and feelings, which, no doubt, all truly spiritual Israelites shared, gave itsmeaning to the Paschal feast at which Jesus sat down with His disciples, and which Hetransformed into the Lord’s Supper by linking it t o His Person and Work. Every sacrifice,indeed, had prefigured His Work; but none other could so suitably commemorate His death,nor yet the great deliverance connected with it, and the great union and fellowship flowingfrom it. For other reasons also it was specially suited to be typical of Christ. It was a sacrifice,and yet quite out of the order of all Levitical sacrifices. For it had been instituted andobserved before Levitical sacrifices existed; before the Law was given; nay, before theCovenant was ratified by blood (Exod. 24). In a sense, it may be said to have been the causeof all the later sacrifices of the Law, and of the Covenant itself. Lastly, it belonged neither toone nor to another class of sacrifices; it was neither exactly a sin-offering nor a peace-offering, but combined them both. And yet in many respects it quite differed from them. Inshort, just as the priesthood of Christ was a real Old Testament priesthood, yet not after the

order of Aaron, but after the earlier, prophetic, and royal order of Melchisedek, so thesacrifice also of Christ was a real Old Testament sacrifice, yet not after the order of Leviticalsacrifices, but after that of the earlier prophetic Passover sacrifice, by which Israel hadbecome a royal nation." [Alfred Edersheim, The Temple , pp. 183-184]

Edersheim also notes the importance that the date of the Passover has, according to Jewishtraditions:

Jewish tradition has this curious conceit: that the most important events in Israel’s historywere connected with the Paschal season. Thus it is said to have been on the present Paschalnight that, after his sacrifice, the ‘horror of great darkness’ fell u pon Abraham when God

revealed to him the future of his race (Gen. 15). Similarly, it is supposed to have been atPassover time that the patriarch entertained his heavenly guests, that Sodom was destroyed



and Lot escaped, and that the walls of Jericho fell before the Lord. More than that —the ‘cakeof barley bread’ seen in the dream, which led to the destruction of Midian’s host, had beenprepared from the Omer, presented on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread; just asat a later period alike the captains of Sennacherib and the King of Assyria, who tarried atNob, were overtaken by the hand of God at the Passover season. It was at the Paschal time

also that the mysterious handwriting appeared on the wall to declare Babylon’s doom, andagain at the Passover that Esther and the Jews fasted, and that wicked Haman perished. Andso also in the last days it would be the Paschal night when the final judgments should comeupon ‘Edom,’ and the glorious deliverance of Israel take place. Hence to this day, in everyJewish home, at a certain part of the Paschal service —just after the ‘third cup,’ or the ‘cup of

blessing,’ has been drunk— the door is opened to admit Elijah the prophet as forerunner of theMessiah, while appropriate passages are at the same time read which foretell the destructionof all heathen nations (Ps. 79:6; 69:25; Lam. 3:66). It is a remarkable coincidence that, ininstituting His own Supper, the Lord Jesus connected the symbol, not of judgment, but of Hisdying love, with the ‘third cup.’ Bu t, in general, it may be interesting to know that no otherservice contains within the same space the like ardent aspirations after a return to Jerusalemand the rebuilding of the Temple, nor so many allusions to the Messianic hope, as the liturgyfor the night of the Passover now in use among the Jews." [Ibid., pp. 180-181]

Of course, it is important to re-emphasize that all sacrifices, feasts, and associated ritualsprefigured the work of the Messiah in some manner. This would include Yom Kippur (i.e. theDay of Atonement). The author states that this feast would have been a more appropriate timefor Christ’s death, yet it is important to note that the Day of Atonement ritual places greatemphasis on the duties of the priest. The high priest was to choose two goats and a bullock assacrificial animals for this ritual. The bullock served as a sacrifice to atone for the priesthimself, as well as for his house. Of the two goats, by casting lots, one was chosen to besacrificed in order to atone for all of Isr ael’s sins, while the other was chosen to be thescapegoat, upon which all of the sins of Israel were to be confessed, and which wouldsubsequently be led away into the wilderness. This was the one day of the year in which thepriest was allowed to enter within the veil, into the most holy place, and sprinkle blood uponthe mercy seat in order to make atonement for all of the Israelites. See Leviticus 16 for moredetail.

As discussed earlier, the Messiah serves also as our eternal high priest, and as such, he fulfillsthe anti-typical role of the priest of Yom Kippur. Of course, since Christ was sinless, unlikeAaron and the other priests, he did not have to make an atonement for himself to "enterwithin the veil," but the ultimate sacrifice that he also served as provided the means through

which he could carry out his role as our eternal and faithful high priest. Consider once againthe relevant passages in Hebrews 9:9-15; 18- 26 (quoted above), where Christ’s priestlyministry in heaven, within the "tabernacle made without hands," as well as his entrance intothe Most Holy Place (just as the Levitical priest did one time per year on Yom Kippur in theearthly Temple), is expounded. Thus, the Day of Atonement served as the type for Christ’spriestly ministry, but the Passover for his sacrifice, making it possible for sinners to bedelivered from the bondage of sin.

SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted andeaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side -posts and lintel of the doors (Exod12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be

suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).



RESPONSE:

The consumption of the Paschal Lamb was a physical ritual intended to convey a deeperspiritual meaning. Indeed, what better way is there to indicate that it was the Paschal Lamband its blood that saved one from death other than to consume the meat and put its blood on

the door, over which the death angel had to pass? Simil arly, it is only through Christ’s shed blood and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners that they may be saved fromdeath. Interestingly, Jesus actually does institute an ordinance similar to the consumption of the Paschal Lamb the night before his crucifixion, established in order for his followers tobring into remembrance his great sacrifice on behalf of sinners:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to hisdisciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered itto them, and they all drank from it. ’This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,’ he said to them. ‘I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine untiltha t day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.’" (Mark 14:22 -25)

The placing of the blood on the door symbolized the importance of the lamb’s shed blood,and the consumption of the lamb itself was a type of the imputation of Christ’s righteousnessonto sinners. Physical meets spiritual, once again. The Lord’s Supper ordinance, whileperformed in order to remember the once-and-for-all monumental sacrifice of Christ,demonstrates the importance of his shed blood and imputed righteousness perfectly.

EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior tothe offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after thesacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after thesacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for thesins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people whowere born after he died.

RESPONSE:

This objection is a result, once again, of the author’s not taking into account the full scope of Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood. In Hebrews 7:20 -28 (quoted above), we find that Chr ist’spriesthood is eternal, contrary to that of the Levitical priests who suffered death. With Christalways alive, he is there to always provide intercession for those of the past, present, and

future. The reason that the other sacrifices had to be continually offered was because theywere only of limited adequacy, and in fact, were merely pointers toward the ultimate sacrificethat was still to come, which would have the power to atone for all sins of all times. WhileChrist entered space and time nearly 2,000 years ago and provided us with that ultimatesacrifice, he can continue to administer righteousness, through his own shed blood, to sinnersthat accept it, for as long as time remains. In other words, the reason that Christ’s sacrificewas, to use the word of the author, a "super-sacrifice", is because it only needed to occur onetime, unlike the "non-super-sacrifices" of the Levitical priesthood. On the basis of thatsacrifice, and Christ’s role as our eternal high priest, he has the power to impart righteousnessto those living before, during, and after the actual sacrifice had taken place.



Conclusion

This concludes our look at the Jewish author’s claims of how Christ’s sacrifice supposedly isout of harmony with the sacrificial system established in the Torah. However, in light of several relevant Old Testament passages and prophecies, and their New Testament

counterparts, as well as a proper understanding of Jewish exegetical procedures (see onceagain the relevant article by Glenn Miller), we see that the author’s conclusions are based onsuperficial scholarship and mere proof-texting. We also remind the reader that Sam Shamounhas answered objections 7, 9, and 10 (which we didn’t touch upon here for that reason) in thearticle, Judaism and Human Sacrifice as a Means of Atonement .

The author concludes his article with the following statement:

It is simply astonishing that so many people believe what their preachers "feed" them, as wellas how the New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

RESPONSE:

What is truly astonishing is how some people think they’ve actually proven true disharmonybetween the sacrificial system of the Torah and that outlined in the New Testament by suchsuperficial and misguided approaches.









Documents

The Invalidity of a Critic's Denial of Christian Atonement Theology - By Wildcat