Guilt or Consequences
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried. Isaiah 53:4 NASB
Griefs – Once more into the battle, my friends. Unfortunately, this one will have to be complicated. We are dealing with translation differences, midrash and motivation. It will be a bit technical. But I promise, in the end, it will be worth it.
Peter translates this passage from Isaiah as hos tas hamartias hemon autos anenenken (“He Himself bore our sins”). You will immediately see that Peter changes Isaiah’s word, hola-yenu (our griefs, our sicknesses) to hamartias hemon (our sins). The context and meaning in Isaiah is crucial here. The usual translation of Isaiah’s proclamation is “sicknesses,” derived from the verb hala (to become sick, weak, diseased, grieved). What we must notice is that hola-yenu is not about the guilt of our disobedience. It is about the consequences of our disobedience. The servant in Isaiah bears the consequences of sin. Isaiah does not use any of the usual Hebrew words for sin. His focus is not on disobedience but rather on the results of disobedience. Just as sickness is not the cause but rather the symptom, so the consequences of sin are not the cause but the symptom. The consequence of sin is death, but death is not the cause of sin. Isaiah’s suffering servant bears the consequences in this prophetic description of the cross.
In my opinion, John and Peter both suggest that the guilt that results in these consequences was dealt with before the foundation of the world. The symptom of death still had to be dealt with – and that is accomplished on the cross. The fact that Peter reaches back to the Isaiah passage makes it clear that Peter has the consequences in mind, not the guilt that caused those consequences. In other words, Peter is saying that Yeshua bore the hola-yenu on the cross, perfectly in line with his own declaration that the guilt sacrifice, not the consequence correction, occurred before God formed the world.
But if this is the case, why does Peter use the word hamartias (sins) rather than the proper Greek word for grief, penthos. A quick examination of the meaning of penthos provides the answer. In classical Greek as well as New Testament Greek, penthos is an emotional state typically associated with mourning the dead. It is used in the LXX for prophecies of disaster and judgment. Its closer translation would be “lament” associated with shame and unrepentant sin. As we see, most of these contexts are extremely negative, more in line with funeral dirges than restoration from forgiveness. In fact, even the positive use of penthountes (Matthew 5:4) is eschatological, recovering joy after present suffering. Clearly Peter does not wish to portray his exhortation for endurance as though it were connected to feelings at a funeral. Peter wants his readers to see the triumph and perseverance that produces glory. Therefore, he is forced linguistically to follow the LXX translation of Isaiah 53:4 (hotos tas hamartias hemon). There is no doubt that Peter’s motivation is to provide the paradigm case of unjust suffering as exhortation to his current readers, but since those readers include Greek-speaking Gentiles, this paradigm is enhanced by pointing to the most humiliating and shameful execution known in the Roman Empire. It is significant that neither the MT or the LXX contain the words “on the tree.” This is Peter’s addition in order to make the midrash applicable to his purpose – enduring suffering that leads to glorification.
What conclusion can we draw about Peter’s declaration that Yeshua bore our sins on the cross? Deeper analysis shows that Peter’s motivation is not soteriological and neither are his references to the Tanakh. “On the cross” is a paradigm event-locator, not necessarily a theological statement about the place of atonement.
But, since we cannot ask Peter to explain his thinking, we are left with only alternatives; speculative at best. We must read Peter within the larger context of other New Testament and Old Testament passages. And that means that this verse in Peter, perhaps the strongest case against an understanding of the sacrificial atonement before the foundation of the world, isn’t quite as strong as we first thought. Maybe Peter added the words, “on the cross” because they enhanced his purpose, not because they told his reader where forgiveness occurred.
If we believe that atonement takes place “before the foundation of the world,” and not on the cross, what doesn’t change? Yeshua is still our sacrificial, substitutionary atonement. God still deals with sin in His plan of restoration. Death is still overcome. We are still redeemed. Unjust suffering still brings glory to God. We are still called to follow Yeshua. Sin is still forgiven.
What does change? Only the claim that the crucifixion was the place of atonement.
Why is this so crucial? Because if atonement occurs on the cross, then it is possible to claim that followers of YHWH prior to the cross were “saved” by some other means no longer applicable. If atonement occurs on the cross, then there is motivation for drawing a division between Jew and Christian. If atonement occurs on the cross, then the sacrificial system has ended and holy days like Yom Kippur are obsolete If atonement occurs on the cross, then the Tabernacle and Temple are merely “shadows” of a different, replacement reality. And, of course, if the cross is the place of atonement, then the Church has a new symbol of forgiveness, one that is antithetical to everything God did with Israel.
Topical Index: cross, xylon, griefs, hola-yenu, penthos, 1 Peter 2:24, Isaiah 53:4
Well Skip you have reached and touched the heart of the matter. It is good, very good. Now to bring everything else into focus and correct even more of our false thinking and reasoning. I’m not sure I can clean all this leaven out before Passover though. It’s a wonderful road to travel this path of TRUTH. Shalom my brother I so appreciate this correction to our thinking. I somehow feel there is so much more here. How I long for that day when we see HIM face to face and KNOW fully.
Thank you for your recent posts. You’ve given me so much to chew on. I appreciate your thoughts even if there is no definite conclusion…yet, at least not for me. I’m ok with that though…the journey is an absolute blessings by itself. Thank you once again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
We will have a lot more to investigate on this topic. It is, of course, quite controversial because of the assumption that forgiveness occurred with the death of Yeshua on the cross. There is much to learn here, and hopefully it will all bring us into a close walk with the King. We will certainly find that His purposes have been operating for a long time.
Trying to understand what you said.- by taking your last paragraph and applying opposites.
If atonement takes place “before the foundation of the world,” and not on the cross,
1) Followers of YHWH prior to the cross were “saved”.
2) There would be no division between Jew and Christian.
3) The sacrificial system is not ended and holy days like Yom Kippur are not obsolete.
4) The Tabernacle and Temple are still “shadows” of reality
5) The Church agrees with everything God did with Israel.
Is that it, if not, Sorry for muddying it all up, but I need a less complex explanation.
I am not sure what you mean by #5, but the rest seems right to me. Of course, #3 and #4 are held in abeyance since there is no Temple on earth at the present.
#1 Followers of YHWH have always been redeemed by His actions. Abraham is our model.
#2 There is no division in the Kingdom, but that does not mean there is no ethnic distinction or Torah difference.
Thanks Skip, #5) If the church would not have insisted that atonement was accomplished at the cross, all of the other points you made would be understood without dogmatic obstruction. So the church would not have strayed so far from it’s roots, and would see that we are one body of ‘believers’ -both blind in different areas, but able to learn and grow out of respect and love for God and each other.
I am really encouraged, and it opens up a whole new window of love, acceptance, tolerance, and growth for these grafted in branches. Haleluyah!
About 600 years before Jesus appeared among men, Isaiah wrote;
Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land:
But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.
Isaiah 1
I find comfort in this from Psalm 40 of David.
Blessed is that man that makes the LORD his trust, and respects not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.
Many, O LORD my God, are your wonderful works which you have done, and your thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto you: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened opened: burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.
There is much discussion of the forgiveness of sin in different sections of the Old Testament.
GEN 4:7
If you are well disposed, ought you not lift up your head?
But if you are ill disposed, is not sin at the door hungering for you like a couching beast
Which you must master?
PSALM 40
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened
Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.
ISAIAH 1:11
What are your endless sacrifices to me?
Says Yahweh
HI Ray,
Seems to me that Jesus would have taken the three verses above very seriously
IMO Jesus was not focused on sacrificing himself to save us
Rather his primary purpose was to show mankind the way to live
How to learn to master sin and live a life aligned with his Father’s will
But Jesus was speaking primarily to Jews about the Hebrew God
Thanks, Michael for causing me to revisit Genesis 4. The wording is somewhat different in the King James version.
If you do well, shall you not be accepted? and if you do not well, sin lies at the door. And to you shall be his desire, and you shall rule over him.
We are our own master over sin. The Devil can’t make us do it.
Continuing with Genesis 4,
[14] Behold, you have driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from your face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that finds me shall slay me.
It would appear Cain was afraid of Capital Punishment.
[15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him…….
I don’t think this can be misinterpreted. From the beginning, God did not approve Capital punishment.
[23] And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
[24] If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
People give it no thought anymore, but we now have a Global arms industry, the US being the biggest arms merchant the world has produced, devoted to maximizing the killing and slaying of people.
And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in you; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in you; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in you;
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in you; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in you: for your merchants were the great men of the earth; for by your sorceries were ALL NATIONS deceived.
And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EARTH.
Revelation 18
Will we ever beat our swords into plow shares and our spears into pruning hooks so that the Nations no longer learn war anymore? The Bible says that will happen, but will it be before or after the destruction?
“causing me to revisit Genesis 4.”
“If you do well, shall you not be accepted?”
Hi Ray,
I agree it’s always fun to revisit Genesis, but I prefer the translation in my Bible 🙂
To “do well” to me means things “turn out well” and others, and God, accept you
But to be well disposed in my mind means to reflect inherent qualities of “character”
Whether others accept you and regardless of whether things turn out well or not
If we do the right thing we can hold up our heads up to God
But I agree, “We are our own master over sin. The Devil can’t make us do it.”
Regarding the military budget and capital punishment I tend to agree as well
But I don’t think the ancient Jews would tolerate even a young person
Who was so rebellious that he was a threat to the safety of the tribe
As I recall they would stone him to death
The legislation for stoning a rebellious child is in place, but as far as I know there is no case where it was ever executed. The idea is that it demonstrates the severity of the offense.
This specific instruction seems to be an example of irony within the text. After all, the implication is that the child is still under the authority of his parents, so how would he be a “glutton” and a “drunkard” if he is below the age of accountability?
This seems to have been given for parents to use as a reminder for their children to stress the seriousness of rebellion, without any intention that it would actually be carried out.
Michael, ‘turn out well’ is fine with me. There are nuances in words. My KJV was printed in 1855 and there are words with just a shade of difference or nuance not found in recent translations.
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.
1Corinthians 2
As I move forward, dying to my old selfish self daily, resurrecting in the newness of Christ daily, I have found the Bible verse above is True in my experience with big and little things.
As I recall they would stone him to death
Hmmm
I don’t remember where this event occurred, or if it actually occurred
But I clearly remember Rabbi Gorelik discussing this point regarding a story
And my recollection is that the young person might have been 18
And the kid was too rebellious to maintain
In Freudian terms, the kid had too much “id” and not enough “superego” to be of value
To the tribe
“Then ye shall sacrifice one “k id” of the goats for a sin offering,
and two “l am bs” of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings”
Leviticus 23:19
Hmmm
I am wondering if their is some relationship
between kid and hara
and lamb and tov 🙂
And Psalm 23
A psalm of David
1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
Call me wooden headed, but I still do not get it. If the atonement was on the cross or before the foundation of the world, the means of applying the atonement does not change, ie, by grace through faith. If those who came before the cross believed in that which was to come and those who came after the cross believe in that which had come both achieving the same purpose, salvation by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is a free gift due to the faithfulness of YHVH in sending His son, Yeshua, why would there be a separation? One faith, one LORD, one body.
You’re letting your reformed view of the cross influence your interpretation. Would any Jew in the first century think that the CROSS was the place of atonement? If Jews and Gentiles experience grace and atonement in the same way, then why do Christian theologians claim that Jesus set aside the Law with his death on the cross? Why do they claim that Jews attempted to be save by “works”, i.e. the Law before the cross? And why do Christians claim to be under grace if we are ALL under grace?
If atonement occurs before the foundation of the world, all of these differences melt away, but then so does replacement theology.
That makes some sense; however, I believe that all those claims by Christians are false regardless. That is man’s interpretation of God. It is absolutely rediculous to claim that Jews were saved by keeping the law when you consider all the time they spent in the wilderness and all the disciplines they received for breaking the law and idolatry. How could anyone ever have been saved that way? None could. That is a most obviously ludicrous position. The wisdom of man is foolishness with God. Perhaps Jews do not see it that way, but many did not see Yeshua as the Messiah when He stood face to face with them. I think people are people wherever you go. Some believe, even some of our Jewish brothers, and some dont. I do not for one minute agree with all those Christian doctrines that you mentioned. Jury is still out on the cross. Thanks. Will keep digging. What were she sacrifices about if not pointing to/symbolic of Messiah’s death and atonement?
I have also been thinking that we’ve fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between repentance, sacrifice, forgiveness and restitution.
Forgiveness comes as a result of repentance – it is purely by the grace of God. The offering is like a pecuniary penalty; it is only acceptable as a sacrifice if it costs the giver something and in the case of the sin offering or guilt offering, it is brought to make restitution for the deed – it is the penalty that is paid for the act. The sacrifice substitutes for the life of the sinner – it is the price of redemption – and the price varies depending on the affluence of the one bringing the offering. Incidentally, we also learn from this that the value of the gift is determined by the giver, not the receiver.
The other offerings (11 out of the 13 different types) have nothing to do with sin at all – they are free will offerings brought for specific purposes.
Thanks Rodney. I still struggle with this not being done once for all at the cross. Will have to wait and see where this is going I guess. I am not suggesting that none were forgiven before the cross, but it is still difficult to think that Yeshua did not take our sin and pay the penalty at the cross.
The problem is your mixture of “once and for all” and “the cross.” I believe this atonement for deliberate sin was accomplished once and for all. I just don’t think it happened on the cross. I think the cross is the sign that some other crucial event has occurred “once and for all,” that is, the setting aside of the consequence of sin, namely, death. The combination of the sacrifice on the heavenly alter before the foundation of the world AND the removal of the consequences of sin in the punishment of death completes God’s victory and established “once and for all” the eternal Kingdom which nothing, not even death, can defeat.
excellent point and on that is completely overlooked in the myopic focus on the “sin” offering of Yeshua.
The Reformed view does not set aside the law because of the atonement. In fact, the atonement confirms the law, since the penalty of the law is satisfied in their theory of the atonement. If God could merely set aside the law at his discretion, then the atonement becomes unnecessary.
The problem in Reformed theology is its attempt to classify the Torah into moral, judicial and ceremonial categories, then suggesting the moral law remains valid, the ceremonial laws are “fulfilled” in Christ and no long to be practiced, while only the “general equity” of the judicial laws remains. A reading of the Reformed catechisms on the Ten Commandments finds an interesting mixture of Torah commands still valid today, such as the prohibition on usury. Not that anyone practices laws such as this; they are a mere historical curiosity, an anachronism in an age of lawlessness.
Trying to unravel this tripartite theory is a nightmare. All laws are moral laws – even the ceremonial and judicial, so the categories are practically useless for the purposes which the reformed people try to use them.
The Christian church historically has been unclear on the Torah. Was it God’s plan ‘A’ that failed? Is it simply a different administration of the one covenant, yet an administration “of works” whereas now it is an administration “of grace”? When law and grace are juxtaposed, rather than law and lawlessness, both law and grace disappear into a muddled confusion.
A right understanding of atonement and law, is certainly critical to a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Thanks for the challenging comments.
Hi Skip, I have a question misdrash it isn’t the word of God? misdrash is just the interpretation of some jajamim isn’t it?
A midrash is usually an elaboration of a text and explains or added to its essential meaning. All of the New Testament authors use this technique with passages from the Tanakh, even Yeshua. At one point, I cited 23 examples in Matthew where Matthew alters the text in order to explain what it meant in his argument. Sometimes all he did was change the tense, but in other occurrences he added words or subtracted words from the original text. It seems to me that Peter could be doing the same thing, added some words to the Isaiah concept in order to make his point about suffering.
Since we accept what the gospel authors do to the text as inspired, what prevents us from doing the same with this text in Peter’s letter?
hi Skip
I don’t know if you already discussed Hebr 10:12 :
..But this one, after he had offered for all times a single sacrifice for sin, sat down at the right hand of God, from then on to wait until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet(ps110:1)
seems to me the sacrifice for sin took place just before He sat down at the right hand of God – and when was that?
And Heb 9:25 – 28 ….26..he would have had to suffer deaths many times – from the founding of the universe on…..
This is taken from the book, Israel’s Messiah – In the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls pp.51-54, and was edited by Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R.. This particular book was taken from papers delivered at the second annual biblical studies conference hosted by the Denver Seminary in Feb. 2001. The book was published in 2003. The chapter I quoted from is written by Daniel I. Block.
“Although Isaiah and Zechariah share the image of a suffering messiah, Isaiah’s portrayal of the messiah as a substitute sacrifice for the people is quite exceptional in the Old Testament* and has long been a source of puzzlement. What are the biblical antecedents for this motif?* The guilt offering (ᵓāšām) provides the most likely answer on three counts. First, Isa. 53:10 specifically declares the servant to be an acceptable ᵓāšām to Yahweh. Second, in the Mosaic regulation the ᵓāšām was the only type of regular offering that required a ram (Lev. 5:14-26 [Eng.5:14-6:7]), that is, a male sheep. Third, the fact that ᵓayil, the Hebrew word for “ram,” was often used of rulers* facilitates the adaption of the Hebrew ᵓāšām ritual to a royal substitutionary ritual.
“The second argument derives from outside the Old Testament. John Walton has recently drawn attention to a potentially significant ancient Mesopotamian analog to the experience of the servant in Isa. 53, namely, the ritual of the substitute king.* According to the Assyrian ritual, in response to an omen (such as an eclipse of the sun or moon) that threatened the life of the king, diviners would choose a man from the population (in some texts one of high standing, in others a common man, or even a half-wit) to serve as a substitute king and take the curse of the omens upon himself. He would be dressed in the king’s robes and given the insignias of royalty (crown, weapon, scepter), as well as a queen who would share his fate. Playing the role of the king, the substitute would not only sit on the throne, but also present offerings before the altar and offer incense on the incense altar. During this time (which varied, apparently depending upon the length of the omen threat), the true king would perform various purifying rituals. Meanwhile, the substitute would take upon himself the evils that threatened the king by reciting omen litanies, having them transcribed, and keeping them in a fold in the hem of his robe. The ritual reached its climax with the execution of the substitute king for the sake of the true king and his prince, thereby achieving their redemption. The king or his agents would prepare a tomb for the man and give him a royal funeral. They would burn the royal garments and accoutrements of office, perform elaborate apotropaic rituals, and recite penitential psalms and litanies to ensure that the evils would descend to the netherworld with the substitute king and never return. This ritual was thought to effect the purification of the king and his land and to ward off the omens. Presumably, the substitution allowed the gods to do what they intended – act against someone- not by fooling them, but by providing them with a victim on whom to achieve their aims.*
Of course, it is impossible to establish a direct connection between Isa. 53 and this Mesopotamian ritual, but the fact that the ritual of the substitute king is documented from the nineteenth century B. C. to the the time of Alexander the Great attests to its persistence. Chronologically, the strongest evidence derives from Neo-Assyrian times, specifically the reigns of Esarhaddon (680-669 B. C.) and Ashurbanipal (668-627 B. C.), which increases the likelihood of Isainic familiarity with the custom.* Not only did the the Neo-Assyrian play an important role in Judean politic during the ministry of Isaiah (2 Kings 18-19 = Isa. 36-37), but also Isaiah’s prophecies demonstrate awareness of Mesopotamian religion and custom elsewhere in the book.*
“The thematic affinities between the fourth Servant Song and the Mesopotamian ritual are obvious. The substitutionary role of the victim, that is, one person commandeered to take on himself the curse/omen of another/others and dying in his/their place, provides the most obvious link. But there are several additional, more subtle connections. First, just as the ritual elevates the substitute to kingship, so the song begins with a notice of the exaltation of the victim (52:13). Second, Isaiah’s servant king “sprinkling”* many nations (52:15) recalls the ablutions in the bit salaᵓmê (“house of sprinkling of water”) of the Mesopotamian ritual. Third, Isaiah’s reference to the burial of the servant as a wicked man, but with the rich (v. 9), makes perfect sense in the light of the Mesopotamian ritual. Fourth, the pleasure that Yahweh takes in crushing the servant (53:10) is reminiscent of Marduk’s intentional striking of the substitute.*
“While the links are impressive, obviously the prophet adapts the custom for his own unique theological, specifically messianic, purposes. Most notably, he parodies the ritual by reversing the roles. Whereas the substitute king ritual has a commoner taking on himself the curse that hangs over the king and dying in his place, the Servant Song has the king (interpreting the servant as above) taking upon himself the sins of the common people and being slain in their place.”
Hopefully this is not too long and will be beneficial to the conversation.
*Endnotes. Anyone who is interestested, I will supply those as well.
I thought this was very intresting and sheds some light on the discussion. I have been listening to Rico Cortes’ teachings on the Torah in light of ancient near east customs, and these things help make sense of a lot of things that are otherwise more difficult to understand in my opinion. Knowing the beliefs and culture of the day and time in which Scripture was written sheds a lot of light on the matter. Thanks.
How deep the Father’s love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory
Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that left Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished
I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom.
~ In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins ~ (1 John 4.10)
~ For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us ~ — (1 Corinthians 5:7)
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
the emblem of suffering and shame;
and I love that old cross where the dearest and best
for a world of lost sinners was slain.
So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
has a wondrous attraction for me;
for the dear Lamb of God left His glory above
to bear it to dark Calvary.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
a wondrous beauty I see,
for ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
to pardon and sanctify me.
To that old rugged cross I will ever be true,
-its shame and reproach gladly bear;
then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,
where His glory forever I’ll share.
So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
~ But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world ~ (Galatians 6.14)
~for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins ~
(Matthew 26.28)
These teachings are interesting and thought provoking. I wasn’t sure until today’s post what difference it made. Having read today’s word I have a question for you Skip. It is asked in all sincerity without any wish to start a controversy. I hope the answer is yes and I hope I get a real answer not a punt. It is something I have been wondering about for several years:
Are Jews who do not acknowledge Yeshua as Messiah and who may in fact openly oppose him (as they currently understand him) but who are Torah observant from the heart and genuine lovers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob… “saved,” “born again,” have a place in the Olam Haba? Use whatever words you want… you get the point of my question.
Thank you.
You must be asking for my “opinion” since only God can judge the heart of a man, but, that said, in my opinion the people you describe have a relationship with YHWH and will have a place in the olam ha’ba. I am not sure the word “saved” means much in this context since it almost always carries an evangelical overtone. Redeemed is probably more appropriate but that means something very different in the Hebraic worldview.
Skip,
Am I understanding you correctly, that a Torah observant Jew has a place in the olam ha’ba outside of faith/trust in Yeshua?
If so, why is Paul so concerned about preaching the good news of Yeshua to Jews?
As Yeshua said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” So, no Jew has a place in the olam ha’ba except through Yeshua. But if the sacrifice occurred on the heavenly altar before the foundation, then there is no problem here. The only issue is KNOWING how it happened, not that it did happen. Paul may wish that all his brothers come to this realization because it answers the question about the Messiah, but they are “saved” in the same way I am.
Skip, as previously stated I hope that you are right and something inside tells me that you are right. But, as you have taught us, inner-promptings can’t necessarily be trusted.
One of the questions I have is that the motivation of teaching how something happened seems adequate to explain Paul traveling extensively and enduring the hardships of travel in that era but, for me, it is inadequate to explain enduring beatings, stonings, arrest by Romans, and execution.
Why was Paul so driven if his mission was primarily to inform?
I also wonder, if your point is true, about poorly informed Mormons, JW’s, etc. They have a zeal for God but are woefully misinformed. I live in a state that is second only to Utah in percentage of Mormon’s to the total population. They are serving God as He has been explained to them and some of them, including a very good friend, are closer to Torah than many evangelicals.
Do they “get in” if they have served YHVH to the best of their understanding? Even if their understanding of YHVH is highly corrupted?
Thanks for taking the time for me Skip.
So, to take this to the absurd, all are saved since the sacrifice that purchased salvation occurred before any human was born.
Case closed, shut down your blog, because your information is in conflict with my Hindu, Muslim, …. view of God and it’s inconsequential information anyway.
I don’t get it, help me out here!
All are not saved simply because the provision and offer is made. That would make salvation automatic which it is not. God’s offer must be accepted – and I do not mean in word only. By example, anyone is capable of winning the lottery, but only those who have purchased a ticket are eligible.
Skip, I was asking for your opinion. Thank you.
I also understand that my language is influenced by evangelicalism.
There is within me a deep desire and hope that you are correct.
I also have questions about Paul but they come from my hellinized paradigms. I look forward to more teaching on this Skip.
Thank you.
If the Atonement was before the foundations of the world, I wonder what else was prepared for us before the foundations of the world? There must be a reason God told us this. Was the King of Salem there too? Was I there? Am I my shadow?
Hebraic thought does not contain the idea of the pre-existence of individuals yet to be born. That would be a version of Platonism or perhaps Plotinus. But I am sure you can be confident that the full plan of the restoration was anticipated and prepared.