The Thin Red Line (1)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Leviticus 17:11 ESV
Blood – Christian apologists often claim that the blood of Christ shed on the cross is the reason for the forgiveness of sin. Prior to Leon Morris’ study of the concept of blood atonement,[1] some theologians referred to the idea that “life is in the blood” and therefore the cross represents atonement given through the life of Christ. But since Morris’ study, this position has been untenable. Morris has conclusively demonstrated that in both the Old Testament and the New, the term “blood” is most commonly used to describe “death by violence,” and this idea is paramount in its association with sacrifice. Morris shows that even the Leviticus passage so often used as a proof text (Leviticus 17:11) cannot be understood in the Hebraic worldview as a claim that life exists apart from physical blood. It is simply not possible to think of the sacrifice as presenting “life” on the altar. “Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh.”[2] Morris points out that in Hebraic thought there is no immaterial principle of life apart from the body. This is why the Hebraic worldview has no concept of an immortal soul but rather looks for the resurrection of the body at the Day of Judgment.[3]
Atonement is not accomplished by offering life but rather by giving up life, and this is the meaning of “blood” in the sacrificial system. A blood sacrifice is a death sacrifice. But a blood sacrifice is not the only means of atonement available in the Hebraic worldview. Atonement may be achieved by anointing with oil (Leviticus 14:18), by offering incense (Numbers 16:46), through the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:10) and other means. When atonement involves the termination of life, even here it does not always demand a blood sacrifice. Atonement may be accomplished by “blotting out” a name from the Book of Life (Exodus 32:30-32), by zealous execution (Numbers 25:13), by delivering up enemies for proper punishment (2 Samuel 21:3 ff) and by slaying the red heifer (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). None of these require a blood (death) sacrifice although every one of them involves death in some sense or another. Morris concludes, “In each case it is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones”[4] although the means by which death comes is quite different in each case. “[T]he evidence afforded by the use of dam [blood] in the Old Testament indicates that it signifies life taken violently rather than the continued presence of life available for some new function.”[5] Perhaps we must revise Heschel’s evaluation of the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Heschel pointed out that Judaism is a religion focused on life whereas Christianity is a religion focused on death. But Morris’ study demonstrates that the idea of death is not too far removed from the Hebraic worldview either.
Morris makes the observation that the use of blood in relation to Christ in the New Testament is predominately a circumlocution for the death of Yeshua. Morris notes, “[F]or a cross has no place in the sacrificial system, and stands only for a particularly unpleasant death.”[6] The conclusion:
“Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that there are some passages in which it is possible to interpret the blood as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is consistent with the wider biblical usage), if understood to mean ‘life given up in death’.”[7]
Consider the impact that Morris’ study has on theological claims like the ones by Ridderbos, “the propitiatory sacrifice enters in substitutionally between the holy God and sinful man, because the life given up in the sacrifice through the attendant shedding of blood covers sin before the face of God and in this way atones.”[8] If the blood refers not to giving up of life but rather to violent death, how are we to understand the idea of substitutionary atonement that is so much a part of Paul’s thinking?
Another question for another day. Perhaps it is enough just to ask, “Did I think that the blood was about life or about death?” Does this change your view about what is happening on the cross?
Topical Index: blood, dam, death, cross, life, Leviticus 17:11, atonement
[1] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955), see in particular Chapter III, “The Blood.”
[2] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 113.
[3] Cf. Morris, p. 113.
[4] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 115.
[5] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 117.
[6] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 119.
[7] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 122.
[8] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans, 1975), p. 188.
“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26-29)
“Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:48-59)
Melchizedek: “And Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine…” (Gen. 14:18)
Hmmm
The passages above make me think of my Catholic bacground
“Heschel pointed out that Judaism is a religion focused on life whereas Christianity is a religion focused on death.”
Hmmm
My experience with Catholicism in the 50’s was focused on Our Father who art in Heaven
And Holy Mary, Mother of God, which always seemed somewhat illogical, even as a child
For me the crucifix, small, dark, and typically off to the side was somewhat irrelevant
But the cross was certainly not a symbol of life
On the other hand, God was Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent
The glory of God was the light; the good, the true, and the beautiful
In college, I read the Bible and found Jesus to be a very interesting character
I especially liked Jesus in Mark, because he was full of life
A servant, a leader, and a teacher whose message was very simple
Align your actions with God, regardless of the consequences
The cross became for me a symbol of logic, a kind of binary opposition
It is either this or that, time or space, the yetzer hara or the yetzer tov
It is also a became a kind of Magic Quadrant
With for example four colors or four seasons
As well as “cross hairs” for troubleshooting
Michael,
Don’t forget Omnibenevolent. They tried to hide that one from us. Found it though. Oh, and let God be God. You can’t define Him. Let Him define Himself through His Word to you, if He chooses. You’ll know. It dosen’t come from a place in your head. Our Lord and Saviour said that His sheep will know His voice.
He IS the Potter. We are merely the clay.
Off to watch football!
Shalom
Michael,
Don’t forget Omnibenevolent. They tried to hide that one from us. Found it though. Oh,and let God be God. You can’t define Him. Let Him define Himself through His Word to you, if He chooses.
Hi Jeanette,
I believe in Omni bueno, but am not sure about Omni benevolent
Though I do agree we can’t define Him
And think we should let Him define Himself through His Word to us, as you say
But, in an ironic way, I think we can find a lot of the Hebrew worldview
In the movie called The GodFather
Like the family in the movie, we never want to “take sides against” Him
Because He is liable to “give us an offer we can’t refuse”
He can be, as they say, a “jealous God” 🙂
Regarding the clay, I can’t help but think of Harry Potter and his wizardry
And regarding the football game last night
I drove up to Berkeley with my dog Max to watch it
It is sort of a ritual for me to watch it with my friends Michelle and David
After the first half, I thought the game was going to end in a tragedy
But after the lights went out, the 49ers were able to redeem themselves
Last night, the Ravens were a better team
Shalom
Hi Michael!
when you think of clay, think of the prayer. ….IN earth, as it is in heaven. Find the original words of Yeshua’s prayer. IN earth. You, and by extension (or extraction rather) I, are created and made from the dust of the earth, back to which our earthly bodies must go. Our Father IS the only potter that matters. The Godfather is definitely a horse of a different color. I wouldn’t want to be caught reflecting that light, lol
Skip,
The friend that I mentioned in an earlier post that you remind me of was (he is dearly departed now) an attorney. I was his admin. asst. I developed a love for the law of the land. After struggling with him for quite a while to help him understand that I was not seeking validation, certification or even a pay raise – just wanted to be “vested”, didn’t want to be the weak link in the chain, he (I know who was really at work) gave me this “blessing” among many others:
To understand, know and be able to apply the difference between would, should, could, CAN, may, might, WILL. I may have left out a couple, but you get the drift. Funny – boils down to those two complete and incomplete actions, huh?
I already considered him a friend (but I will learn a lesson from Stephen, who asked: are you a friend or a foe?). Then I called him my mentor, right to his face.
I’ve never had to pay an attorney. I’m far too practical for that.
A work in progress,
me
I am not sure if I am getting this. If the blood is about violent death, and if atonement is accomplished by giving up life, and Yeshua gave his live up on the cross, is His death on the cross not an atonement?
It seems to me that in previous Word Studies you try to say that His death on the cross is not for atonement, because that was done before the foundation of the world, but rather to show His power of death.
This seems contradictory to me.
Yes, even my wife told me, “This is too confusing.” Tomorrow I will write more about this. The point, in a nutshell, is that the violent death on the cross isn’t proper atonement in any Hebraic sense. We commonly hear people talk about Yeshua’s blood atonement on the cross, but Morris’ makes it clear that “blood” is about death, not atonement, and that there is no place for the cross is atonement thinking in the Older Testament. The Christian use of the cross as a place of atonement requires re-conceptualizing the idea of “blood,” and I am not sure that fits very well with first century Jewish thought. More work to do here. Sorry it seems to confusing. Maybe I’m confused too.
Master of obfuscation? What on this green planet are we striving for here? Cloudiness and confusion or clarity and comprehensibility? Listen intently to these words: ~ Christ died for sinners ~ True or false?
Yes or no? Are you a sinner? (Yes or no) Do you “qualify” for salvation? (yes or no) Do we need a Savior? (yes or no). Is there a Heaven to be gained? (yes or no?) Is there a hell to be shunned? (yes or no) Did Christ promise to us “abundant life?” – as in “here and now.”- (yes or no) Does faith please God? (yes or no). Does faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God? (yes or no).
Is Israel the church? No. Israel is Israel. What then, is the church? It is the present body and future bride of Christ. Who is included in the Bride of Christ? “Whosoever will.” Does this include the Jew? Yes. Does this include the Gentile? Yes. Males? Yes. Females. Yes. -How is salvation accomplished? Through the finished, final, full, complete work of (the) Christ, accomplished, completed – one offering forever- at Calvary. (There is far too much to be said concerning the cross of the crucified Christ!, but confidently and assuredly, this motivated mission of the Messiah is paramount to our peace.)
Once again.. Christ died for sinners. Do you qualify? What are His words? ~ Ask, and you will receive.. ~ If, I need forgiveness for my sins- and if I ask for forgiveness- will He hear and answer this prayer? (Yes or no). If we confess our sins, is He faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? (Yes or no).
Sir, what must I (or any man) “DO” to be saved? What was the (exceedingly simple) answer of Paul to the Philiipian jailor? Was it ~ believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and you (sir or m’am) will be saved?
Is anything other than the blood of the Messiah necessary for salvation? What can we “add to” the blood of Christ? If Christ Himself said, “it is finished,”- what can we (sinners all) add to this? If salvation is the gift of God (yes, it is by grace, free, yet at unfathomable cost) what may we add to “help pay for it?”
Is (or is not) the blood of the Messiah “sufficient” for salvation? ~ Nothing in my hand I bring- simply to Thy cross I cling ~
Was Jesus a Jew? (yes or no) Is Jesus (still) a Jew? (yes or no) Did the Messiah rise up out of that tomb? (yes or no) Did He conquer death, sin, Satan and the grave? (yes or no).
Now.. is Christianity about life or death? Yes. It is. First the cross- then the crown. Verily, verily.. (truly, truly) I say unto you.. (Who is speaking here?- It is the LORD) ~ except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die (is there DEATH before life?)- it abides alone, but IF it die,- it will bring forth much fruit (NEW LIFE). As simple as a seed. Death, burial and resurrection. We see the same scene played out in the seasons. Winter-Spring-Summer-Fall. Death, burial and resurrection.
The stats on death are simple. One out of every one creatures will die. It is going to happen. Death is unavoidable. I am on my way to the grave. Yes, it could be today- I (simply) do not know. But this I do know..- it’s a good day to die. Why? because ~ to die is gain! ~ Because ~ He must increase, and “I” must decrease. ~ This is how we roll.. -more of Him.. less of me. Self must die. “I” die daily, so Christ (in me) may live.
When do I worship the LORD? On Saturday (the seventh day) or on Sunday, (the first day of the week?) lol!- Friends, (both Jew and Gentile)- I worship Him (only) on those days that end in “y!”- Yes, that’s right- I even worship Him on Monday! and on Tuesday!- I want be a 24/7 worshipper. Not just on Saturday, not just on Sunday, but on the day called “Today.”
Is He worthy? (yes or no). ~For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain ~ (Philippians 1.21)- for if we live, we live for the LORD, or if we die, we die for the LORD; therefore whether we live or die, we are the LORD’s ~ (Romans 14.8) And what do the scriptures say? ~ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us ~ (Romans 8.37)
One final question – When did He stop loving us?
I’m getting bogged down in the semantics on this. I’m missing the significance of difference in “offering life” as opposed to “giving up life” in the understanding of what atonement means. Don’t they both lead to the same bottom line? If Yeshua’s death is one where his life was “offered up” willingly and/or was willingly an instance of “giving up his life,” doesn’t it remain or result, both, as his sacrificial atoning act?
I am not willing, at this point, to yield and fall at the feet of simple misunderstanding. I want to fight through this mound of thought to a point of clear and concise understanding of what took place and it’s real significance. For far too long I have buckled at simply accepting the ‘clear and concise’ explanations I’ve been presented dogmatically and, yet, there still remains questions and foggy pictures of things. I understand the method of simply throwing out Bible verses and oft that is what has caused the confusion. The simple English verses sound contained, tight and ample to solve each of the issues emphatically. However, the English version of these Biblical statements are the soiled fruit, so to speak, of translators excising meaning through sieves of the Greek language on top of the Hebrew thought. It is not as simple as exegete of translated English words.
I do understand Abraham’s justification resulted from his turning from his personal, self(ish), fleshly desires of preserving his only son’s life to his God’s request to offer his son as a sacrifice to demonstrate his own hearts desire to yield his life to Hashem, the act of bringing the knife down towards his son’s flesh being the undisputed evidence of Abrahams heart intention. That act of faith, that is, not Abraham intellectually assenting that he WOULD kill his only son, but the clear and concise action of the knife in Abrahams hand in motion, is what put substance to Abrahams declaration of righteousness being reckoned to him by God.
That is what I understand to be ‘salvation by grace.’ God’s reckoning righteousness to him was a gift given after Abraham demonstrated his faith visibly, not conceptually virtually hidden within his mind somewhere. God SAW Abraham’s faith in a tangible way. I don’t get hung up on legalistic law but see clearly that Abrahams work of bringing that knife down was his faith working enough for God to recognize it just as any of us could see it conclusively. My point being that my typical Christian upbringing dances around this simple explanation of faith via their NT interpretation of faith verses works. It has also danced around James’ faith without works ideas with over simplified excusing explanations that always left me in question.
The challenge for me in this atonement/death issue is not to blindly defend the long standing tenets of Christianity regarding what atonement is or isn’t, but to dig and grind to the place of clearly understanding the true nature of all the elements of these marvelous events that we are so far removed from in both time, culture and intuitiveness. I think Skip is trying to dissect and uncover a larger picture and understanding of this mysterious thing called atonement. Presently, I would much prefer a questioning truth seeking stance as opposed to a dogmatic exercise of proof texting. The question or doubt isn’t that Yeshua has been and is the life sustaining force for our lives. That is a certainty. The question is one of sweating, laboring and dissecting his word, letter by letter so as not to miss something significant or simply assume we’ve got the whole enchilada wrapped up completely. I’ve known intimately the significance and practical ramifications of a modern automobile. I use one everyday. However, I could scant explain fully the inner workings of the multitudes of parts that make that modern miracle work reliably almost each and every day. That’s where I see myself in regards to this issue.
Atonement is certainly certain, but, at the same time still mysterious. I want to understand it the way those authors intended it as they wrote it, from a Hebrew worldview via the Greek language to my western flavored English speaking mind. A tough task considering my jumbled and scattered mindset!
Michael,
I have been pulling together data and researching “best practices” for a grant proposal, outcomes intended to break the cycle of child abuse.
The Exec. Dir. At our non-profit told me this would be my “baby”. I told her that I would either miscarry or give birth, but would not have an abortion.
Just this week I knew that it would be required of me to possibly “sacrifice” my heart child by “giving it up for adoption”, because another agency in town is better suited to bring about the desired outcomes. It is very important to me that it be done according to a “perfect plan” I have in mind. Our agency could not possibly provide all that would be required to bring about the outcomes.
It is more important to me that the plan be carried out en regle than it is that I get a paycheck. Those children need help.
When I say this “sacrifice” will be required of me, it is something I know in my spirit, because that’s where it came from. I am willing to make the sacrifice. Even if I have to go all the way to “giving birth to my heart child” and putting it up for adoption.
After coming to the conclusion of what I must do, I met with the other agency to share about the proposal and how they are the perfect agency to implement it AND get the outcomes.
Then I was “rewarded” with this insight: I still must give it up, but a transplant can be made from my heart to that of a surrogate mother. Win-Win. After the meeting I went back to the office to find SEVERAL other grant proposals that fit our agency perfectly.
I know this could only serve to confuse you more, but I pray that it gives you a little more insight.
I don’t know what will happen yet and won’t until week after next. Until then I will nurture my heart child and pray. Will you pray with me?
I’m sure Skip will get back with you on all that other stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4PQ30VkBk
Thanks, Jeanette.
Yes, I will pray with you.
Thanks for your story.
Michael,
REMEMBER there were those that kept not their first estate. Pray, Ask, Seek, Knock. Know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.
Oh, i don’t subscribe to any feminist stuff either. i just happen to be a girl and my story is true from a girl’s perspective. The only way i can relay it. i try not to offer too many opinions, but i sure do have some experiences to draw upon. and i like to play detective. Thank you Yah!!
I am relatively new to the formal investigation of the Hebrew paradigm. However, I have found that God has led me to some of these same truths as I seek Him. Reading all the comments today have made me think of my dad who died in August. For most of his life, my dad was agnostic. In 2009, I prayed with my dad for the first time. The Holy Spirit poured words through me that shared the Gospel with my dad. At the end of the prayer, my dad was crying and I truly sensed that he was saved. Over the next few years, there was some fruit but at the same time my dad still seemed agnostic. As I questioned the prayer time with my dad, the Lord told me that although my dad’s salvation was done, it was still not manifest. The night before my dad died, he said, “Are we going to pray?” (I was the one who had been initiating prayer since I had arrived several days earlier.) I prayed and he said at the end, “The road to heaven is paved with prayers and the road to hell with nails.” He died the next afternoon. My dad’s comment sealed the manifestation of his salvation. I cannot explain why I know through his comment my dad had surrender and he understood, but I know that he did.
Similarly, although atonement may have happened long before the cross, I think that it is being made manifest through Yeshua’s life, death, resurrection, and continued intimacy with us. After all, God is I AM. I almost wonder if we are trying to pick things apart that should remain together. It seems to me as if some of the sharing is going the way of the Greek, in analyzing instead of experiencing God and our journey with Him. My life with God is very rich in His revelation through His written word as well as through His personal word directly to me. They go together and cannot necessarily be separated. It is so my life, not just in reading, but in living. I try to follow the Lord’s leading of revelation, listening to what He would like me to read or what He desires to say to me and then we converse about those things and how they become part of my life. I don’t worry if something is not clear. Based upon my experience, He makes things clear through a variety of avenues in due time. He is Almighty so I figure He knows what He is doing and I need to trust Him with what I need to know when because I want to be living what He desires for me in the present.
God is bigger than our confusion. I want to live with Him now not get stuck even with Hebrew worldview. I read a book not too long ago about a woman’s journey with the Lord which I think exemplifies following God’s lead and continues in sharing immense intimacy and blessing with Him and others. It is called One Thousand Gifts. I think it is ultimately about knowing that we were created to be a blessing and that oneness with Him and His Bride is critical to being the image of God as He created us to be. Our focus even in studying the word should be for more fully living blessing and oneness.
Dear Mary,
See my comment to Michael C. Then perhaps you will understand why I don’t think you can attach the word “atonement” to the cross. I am just exploring here, trying to extract myself from the layers of Christian assumptions that brought us to the place where we accepted the view that death on the cross was about forgiving ME (the egoism of evangelism). I don’t think that’s what the text says. That does not mean that the cross isn’t one of the most important events and symbols of God’s entire message, but not for the reasons we commonly believe.
Let’s keep digging and see where we go.
And I apologize about how dense this one was. Oh, I am struggling with it too, so much, so much!
Ah, the beauty and COMPLEXITY of it all. Atonement is certain. But HOW it occurs is a great mystery, perhaps one that we will never fully understand. What seems clear to me now is that atonement for sin, that act of grace by which God restores relationship with Himself, does not occur on the cross. I say this because I believe Scripture teaches us that Abraham’s restored relationship occurs by the same mechanics as mine – or Paul’s. Salvation is God’s gift. It is the same for Abraham and for me. There is no WORKS vs. GIFT (LAW vs. GRACE) dichotomy in Scripture. I find this amplified by Rev. 13:8 and 1 Pet. 1:18-20 and various other oblique passages indicating that the sacrifice of the Lamb occurred before the foundation of the world. If by atonement we mean “restoring right standing before the Father,” then it occurs in the heavenly Temple at the heavenly altar by a priest not of the Levitical order. In other words, SALVATION is God’s work done His way in His place.
I find that the commonly held Christian belief that atonement for SIN (capital S) occurs on the cross does not account for significant facts of Scripture, not only those mentioned above but also the fact that atonement in the Levitical system could be accomplished in a large number of ways not all of which required blood sacrifice or even death.
All of this means that when Yeshua points us to Numbers 21:9 as an explanation of what is happening on the cross, it is not about forgiveness (atonement). It is about something else, something so essential and so powerful that it took the death of the Son to show it to us.
I believe that the issue God settles on the cross is the fundamental question of life, that is, DEATH. After all, even if I am forgiven, the consequences of my prior disobedience still apply. GUILT is removed, but not the prior consequences. I STILL DIE! And, since sin has entered the world, all creation is affected by these consequences. Everything is tainted by DEATH. So, if God forgives me and restores my relationship with Him but I still suffer death, what was the point of it all. In order for God to show me that His offer of restoration also OVERCOMES THE CONSEQUENCES, I must see that death is NOT THE END.
Now, no power of earth, no kingdom, no king, not even Satan, can overcome this final fact of all existence. But God MUST if His creation is to be restored. This is why the death on the cross is not about MY SIN PROBLEM. It is about THE SIN PROBLEM, the problem that affects everything created. God must overcome the final enemy, the one thing that Satan threatens all creation with, the one thing that every pagan kingdom threatens in order to gain ultimate compliance. And God uses the symbol of this power, the power of death, to demonstrate that HE and HE ALONE has the answer. Death isn’t the END!
More to come. Tomorrow maybe.
My understanding is that the other atonements in the Old Testament were foreshadows of Yeshua and that they had to be continually repeated whereas the cross was final. The work of the cross covered sin once and for all and made possible the restoration of God’s original design not just for me but for all creation. I think of the passages in Hebrews about the testament being put into effect through the death of Christ like a will going into effect upon the death of will maker. I am confused by what you are writing in light of Hebrews 9 and 10. What do these passages mean if they are not talking about atonement among other things?
As far as works vs. gift and law vs. grace, I do not see a dichotomy either, but for some reason Hebrews seems to suggest that the sacrifices prior to Christ were not the very form as Christ is Himself.
Skip, I do understand what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure I can explain it in any clearer terms. The difficulty comes largely because many of us have not studied in depth what the Torah teaches about sacrifices, offerings and atonement. This is assumed knowledge on behalf of the apostles – knowledge which we have missed out on.
Therefore, our theological house is built on sand; we don’t have the same foundation that the prophets and apostles of the Bible had.
[With the caveat that I can’t exactly remember your comments on Matthew 7 from the excellent series on Matthew (will have to go back and listen again), when Yeshua speaks in Matt 22 about the two houses, one built on sand and one built on rock, I no longer think that the version that we were taught in Sunday School (“The wise man built his house upon the rock…”) where the rock is “Jesus” is necessarily the primary intention of the parable. In the context, I think it much more likely that Yeshua is speaking of Torah as the foundation (especially given the words immediately preceding that parable).]
To add to the confusion, many of us mix up the terms salvation, redemption, sanctification and justification and lump them all into the basket labelled “the cross”. I submit that those words (or rather, the words behind them) all had distinct meanings to the first century believers and that they are all pictured for us in the story of the exodus from Egypt.
Finally, a comment directed to all of the readers of Today’s Word. Skip has said several times in the past, but maybe it needs to be reiterated, that “Today’s Word” began as (and still is) a record of his personal journey with God; a record of the things he’s learning along the way and an opportunity for us to share in that journey with him. We are not expected to agree with everything, or blindly accept every word he writes as gospel. Skip has always encouraged open, frank and honest (but respectful) dialogue, and I for one am blessed to see that we can discuss, challenge and even disagree as we learn together. The key words are learn together. Study for yourself. Search the scriptures. If you find something that doesn’t line up, speak up and ask why. We’re all human, we all make mistakes and we all have much to learn. Shalom.
Well said Rodney.
This actually clears up a lot of the confusion for me. Knowing some of the reasons why you think ‘something is amiss’ in our theology — really helps define what you are getting at.
Hi Michael,
I love this community! So many neat personalities, eh? I think we should all meet in Haiti next winter and build something.
I agree totally with your sentiment:
“I am not willing, at this point, to yield and fall at the feet of simple misunderstanding. I want to fight through this mound of thought to a point of clear and concise understanding of what took place and it’s real significance. For far too long I have buckled at simply accepting the ‘clear and concise’ explanations I’ve been presented…”
It reminds me of this past weekend. The two guys I’m spending a lot of time with right now have all the “right” answers to questions like “What is faith?” but when I ask them if all the Jews would have converted to Christianity had Jesus been recognized as Messiah, one said “yes!” and one said “no!” What they agreed on was that we (ie. the Gentiles) would have been out of luck 🙂
The question that has stumped everyone in my circle so far is,
“Why is Christianity so different from Judaism?”
Ahhhh… God is sooooo good 🙂
We’ll let that one percolate a while.
perhaps the answer to the question, “Why is Christianity so different than Judaism?” isn’t really a theological answer. Perhaps it is simply an historical inquiry. Christianity is different because early Gentile Greek-philosophy based believers WANTED to make it different. The history of the church between 135 AD and 350 AD shows that a group of intellectuals helped to redefine the church in anti-semitic terms, converting Jewish ideas into Christian ones in an effort to provide Christianity with its own, non-Jewish, self-definition. The history of doctrine follows pretty much the same path. Since that time, after the formation of Christianity as a separate religion, doctrine has steadily guided Christian believers away from Judaism while Judaism reacted on its own to move away from the church that persecuted it. History, history, history.
Exactly. The more I look into these things, Skip, (I discovered your site about 6 months ago), the more I check your references the more I discover that you’re spot-on. I am very greatful for what the Lord is doing through you and that this day has come… Light into the world!
I am excited to see the interest of those in my circle of influence. No one is exactly “on board” yet, but that doesn’t concern me. The questions I pose are a non-threatening way to get people thinking and engaged in dialogue and ultimately growth.
Blessings.
Hello? That was like trying to understand the explanation of page 743 of a 900 page book I didn’t know I was to be reading!? Are there Cliffs Notes for this Today’s Word? Thanks for any help! I’ll wait for part 2 and hope there is a summary of part 1.
Well, it’s now a few days later. Do you have any further insight into the first 742 pages?
Thanks for asking – The fog is slowly lifting, not yet to the place where I could repeat it to someone, but then again there are few in my sphere who could (would choose to) handle the first 5 pages of the book! It is a rewarding journey on a path less traveled. Thank you for clearing the brush ahead.