Unforgivable
Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall! Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him: “Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.” Hosea 14:1-2 NIV
Fruit of our lips – Rabbi Tovia Singer provides a shocking commentary on these verses. He points out that the Hebrew text says nothing like the translation of the NIV. By the way, the NASB, KJV, NKJV, Young’s Literal Translation and who knows how many other Christian-based translations all make the same (deliberate?) error. The only translation that I found that almost gets it right is the Complete Jewish Bible. Even the Orthodox Jewish Bible contains the same error. The Complete Jewish Bible translates this verse as: “Take words with you, and return to Adonai; say to him, “Forgive all guilt, and accept what is good; we will pay instead of bulls [the offerings of] our lips.”
The Hebrew text reads oonshalma farim s’fatelnoo.[1] The key word here is par (farim – plural). It means bulls, not “fruit.” In other words, the Hebrew verse essentially says, “We will pay with our lips rather than with bulls.” There is absolutely no way that farim can mean “fruit.” As Rabbi Singer says, “What gives the Christian church the right to change the meaning of the Hebrew text?”
Here’s the real issue. According to Hosea (and he’s not the only one), God does not desire the sacrifice of animals. Bulls, sheep, pigeons or anything else are not what makes atonement effective. What makes atonement effective is a contrite heart, true repentance and obedience. So Hosea says, “We will pay for our sins with our words, that is, with the deep expression of remorse and the avowal of return. We will give you what you really want, Lord. Not bulls but hearts!” But this statement flies in the face of the critical doctrine of the Church that Yeshua died on the cross in order to pay the price for sin. The typical Christian view is that someone had to die, had to be sacrificed, for God to accept us. Instead of bulls, God wanted Yeshua. Hosea says that real repentance is what God wants, but the Church teaches that God wants a killing and without a killing, without blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
So who’s right? Hosea? Augustine? Luther? Ah, dare I say it, the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:22)? Is there forgiveness without the shedding of blood? Hosea seems to think so. So does Ezekiel. So does David. What are we to do about this? The answer given by the translators is to change the text! If the translation doesn’t fit the accepted doctrine, no problem. Just change it so it does. Don’t try to actually work out how Hosea and Hebrews fit together (if they do). Just change Hosea so it reads the way we want it to. Is it any wonder that Jews just can’t understand Christian thinking? Can you read a Bible altered by theological bias and not be led astray?
Topical Index: Hosea 14:2, farim, par, bull, fruit of our lips, Hebrews 9:22
[1] Hebrew World transliteration
This is powerful revelation – heads and hearts will roll. Intransigence over truth, darkness in preference to light- soulishness over spiritual revelation will dig in its heels!
No wonder the word continuously speaks of a remenant. Will we also turn away or shall we say like Peter ….. Where can we go … U have the words of eternal life! Truth dispels lies but it always costs -stand firm the ground is as shaky sand but HIS word our firm foundation – no matter how curript the translation. His word an eternal warrior!
Thanks Skip!
This posting had me going this morning! I like that. I checked the translation I have immediately. My heart “always” understood the verse in Hosea to say that we are to take our words of repentance with us to “return to Yahuah” and although my translation (The Scriptures, produced by ISR South Africa) uses the word bulls here is what is translated in it: “TAke words with you, and return to YHWH. Say to Him, ‘TAke away all crookedness, and accept what is good, and we render the bulls of our lips.” then there is a superscript annotating the following: Hebrews 13:15 – bulls, referring to offerings. The only offerings I know of from our lips are the words of praise and repentance and this is what we have to take as we return to Him.
Now, I also took special note of “where in the world did we get the idea and phrase we have ALWAYS heard… ‘without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin’?? So I looked that up too. I found one in Hebrews 9:22
“And, according to Torah, almost all is cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Heb 9:22. Now we know that this statement as standing alone seems to be *not true* so I knew something was going on here. In looking at the context and into the Greek word references I found more and that is why I am even commenting here today to maybe help someone else if need be.
The context is the subject of the covenant between Yahuah and the children of Israel at Mt Sinai. It was sealed and instituted with blood. Therefore it was a blood covenant. And we know what that means. If one of the parties breaks the covenant, blood must be shed. When the translations state: without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness… and ends right there on the word forgiveness… I am led astray. I looked up the word there and it is: aphesis
From GR863 it can mean: remission, forgiveness, deliverance, liberty, release from bondage or imprisonment, forgiveness or pardon, of sins, REMISSION OF PENALTY.
I capitalize the last entry because in my mind… this one fits. Why? Because the penalty for sin is death. Death is what was defeated by Yahusha on the cross. In my mind this verse now reads: “without the shedding of blood there is no remission or removal of the penalty for breaking the covenant. There is no removal of death. But because Yahusha defeated death, the penalty has been removed and I now have LIFE!”
Anyway, I may be incorrect on some points but I did want to share that with others in case it may help with our digging through translations to actually get to the truth. Shabbat Shalom!
You must have read Cross Word Puzzles. I make this argument and expand it to show what was really happening on the cross.
And if she hasn’t (yet) read CWP, will it imply confirmation of your assertions by the Spirit?
I would tend to think so.
I’m very curious now as to whether or not she has.
The Word
said these words:
“For this is My blood of the new covenant,
which is shed for many the remission of sins.” Mat 26:28
Are you saying He didn’t mean what He said?
Of course He meant it. The question is whether we understand what He meant. You will have to do a study of the connection between blood and covenant in the Tanakh before you can assume that you know what He meant and what the disciples would have understood. Cross Word Puzzles will help you get started. Notice, however, that the application of these words to Yeshua removes any possibility that the sacrifice was merely ritual. Heart and hands are always joined in His life. Our sacrifices without repentance and return are as useless as bulls on the altar. That’s the point behind Hosea. Sacrifices mean nothing unless they are accompanied by repentance. But that doesn’t mean that they mean NOTHING AT ALL. They are symbols of repentance (when it is the sin offering). There are, however, a host of sacrifices that have nothing to do with sin and are still, and will continue to be, appropriate.
I am really confused now. What was the purpose of the sacrifices YHWH set up in the Levitcal priesthood?
But the Levitical sacrifices are all about UNINTENTIONAL sins. Where’s the confusion?
One might say that the fruit on the lips of some Christians is bull. Michael
🙂
Nice. i was thinking the same.
So if Jesus didn’t have to die for our forgiveness, why DID He die?
But you are missing the point. Who said the sacrifice of Yeshua wasn’t necessary? Who said he didn’t have to die? My point was only that the Church required death instead of repentance because it also focuses on the external. The sacrifice for sin that matters occurred in the heavenly Tabernacle. Our confusion is to think that it occurred on the cross. But as I have tried to show in Cross Word Puzzles that doesn’t make sense. Yes, I know we have been taught this, but go read the book and then see what you think.
Those who have read it, time to chime in. Tovia Singer is only saying that Christianity doesn’t have license to rewrite the text to fit its doctrine. If God wanted ONLY sacrifice, then bulls and goats would have sufficed. What does Micah say (6:8)?
Psalm 51:17
There are many benefits to Jesus’ coming and sacrifices. Ephesians 1 is one of my favorite spots to find them: v3 blessed with every spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Messiah; v4 chosen, set-apart and blameless before Him; v5 adopted as sons through Y’shua/Jesus Messiah; v6 favored in the Beloved; v7 redemption through His blood and forgiveness of trespasses. It goes on and on and then tells us of our inheritance and status as co-heirs because of Jesus. How fabulously grand!
You can do this with many chapters of most of the NT letters and much of the Scriptures.
There are many reasons Jesus came, lived, died and rose again. Just because Scripture doesn’t authenticate much of the church’s theology (“saved from sin at the cross…” et al) doesn’t mean there was no meaning in it! I’ve found much deeper meaning and more numerous reasons for His life, death and resurrection through what Scripture alone says about these things. Take heart – the answers are there and very satisfying.
“Ah, dare I say it, the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:22)? Is there forgiveness without the shedding of blood?”
I can understand you are uneasy with this.
I came across this translation of Hebrews from Daniel Gregg on his website http://www.torahtimes.org/gnmbook/default.html.
On page 369 he says:
He has quite a list showing that the “facts” regarding the Torah as stated by the writer prove that Paul could never have written this book.
I would love to have your comments on this Skip.
I agree that the book is not Pauline. But it does reflect a Hebrew worldview during the first century prior to the destruction of the Temple. And if we read it in that context, we discover quite a bit that makes perfect sense and is corroborated by Peter and John, among others. I realize that many modern scholars reject Hebrews but I am not sure it is accurate to say that it was widely rejected until the fourth century since the canonization process wasn’t in place prior to that. Many groups of believers also followed the letters of Clement but they are no longer considered part of the canon. Doesn’t the argument work in reverse too?
I tried the link you provided but it did not take me to a translation of Hebrews.
I read quite a bit from Daniel. He is a messianic [loaded term, I know] who makes very similar conclusions to yours. He rejects Hebrews because it seems to have Gnostic influences.
For example:
Heb 1:2 says that the Almighty made the αιωνας which is normally translated “ages”. [This fits perfectly with the Gnostic view which says that the Unknowable one created the aeons [His emanations] who in turn created an evil world.]
Heb 4:14 says that our High Priest passed through the heavens. [Gnostics had 8 spheres/heavens]
Heb 7:11 & 19 talk about perfection [perfection as opposed to obedience is a Gnostic idea]
Heb 9:23 the things in heavens [plural] need cleansing according to the author. [Gnostics believed on the 8th heaven was pure]
Daniel has some great notes on Hebrews 10:5 & 7.
Verse 5: “body: The author took the liberty of changing the text of Scripture here. Neither the Septuagint nor the Hebrew Text read “body”. Some very late copies of the LXX in the family tree of the Complutensian Polyglot (1522) were edited to agree with Hebrews, so they are no evidence except of the author’s alteration of Scripture. The author gets a key interpretation from his change: the sacrifice of Christ is desired more than the Levitical offerings. This is a fundamental contradiction to Psalm 40:6-8, because the Psalmist is teaching that obedience is better than sacrifice. King David is reflecting on Deut. 17:14-20, and also on Saul’s downfall. Saul thought sacrifice was better than obedience, and Samuel corrected him (1Sam. 15:22). Samuel’s teaching does not stop at animal sacrifice: to obey is even better than Messiah’s sacrifice. Which is better, to obey Messiah in the first place, or to lay another sin on him? It is quite obvious that to obey is better than even Messiah’s sacrifice. So the author has poisoned the text to elevate sacrifice over obedience, and has denied the teaching of Ps. 40:6-8 by substituting one sacrifice for another sacrifice. Psa 40:6: When the text is correctly rendered according to the LXX and MT, it will read, “but my ears you have dug out”, which means you have opened or prepared my ears. David’s ears were prepared by having to write himself out a copy of the Law (Deut. 17:14-20), and by the life experiences Yahweh’s put him through, so that His Law would be upon his heart.”
Verse 7:”The author omits the end of the verse, which is included here in [ ]. David was doing his duty to learn the Law (Deut. 17:18-17:20), and as the chief administrative authority cohen, he also has to apply it to the Congregation of Israel. The Law is in the king’s “heart” so that “his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that the may not turn aside from the commandment” (Deut. 17:20). So by replacing obedience with Messiah’s sacrifice, the author teaches that sacrifice is as good as obedience, and indeed, this is what the Reformation doctrine of imputed righteousness teaches—essentially that one does not have to obey, but can just believe, and obedience will be accounted through sacrifice. Such doctrine is false.”
This is why I think it makes total sense that you question Heb 9:22.
If you read the list of factual errors in Chapter 9 alone, one should be uneasy.
On the other hand, much of what we find in Hebrews provides insight into the attitudes and thought of the first century believers (even if it has gnostic influences which I am not convinced about). Since both John and Peter provide evidence for a sacrifice before the foundation of the world, Hebrews concurs but does not seem to be the SOURCE of that thought. As I have pointed out in the book, if we deny that atonement before the foundation of the world, we are left with really big problems about the continuity and consistency of YHWH’s grace across the ages and we are forced to either posit a retroactive forgiveness (for which there are plenty of counterexamples) or we are drive to a replacement theology view of grace. Neither one is Scriptural as far as I can see.
I’ll take a longer look at Daniel’s comments as I have time. The canonicity issue isn’t simply about the assumption that Paul was the author, by the way.
I am adding my confusion with Rett’s. What was the altar before the Garden of Eden for? What was the bleeding Lamb before the throne in Revelation? Of COURSE blood without repentance is useless. That does not automatically ‘prove’ that you don’t need blood for the forgiveness of that sincere repentance, does it? I understand that Yeshua died because the Law is immutable. The Greasy Grace crowd would like the law to be mutable; but if it were, there would need be no penalty for its transgression; therefore leaving the Son of God dying just cause He felt like it. If I hear you say that there is no penalty of death for the transgression of that law, does that put you over there with the Greasy Gracers? I am not trying to degrade anyone, forgive me for using terminology that I did not invent only because it is a description that can be commonly understood; and I am not trying to degrade you, either, I just need to know where to sort you on my shelf, ya know?
Laurita, If you must; top shelf, on the right. Shalom, Michael
Once again, please, most of the confusion comes from mixing more than one theological doctrine with popular understandings. Most of us get very confused when we BEGIN by assuming that Yeshua died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. Cross Word Puzzles investigates this claim, arguing that the death on the cross is NOT about sin, but rather about something critical to the restoration of the universe. BUT THAT DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT YEHSUA DID NOT PROVIDE AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN! It just means that it didn’t happen on the cross.
So, first separate your assumption that the cross is about sin. Good, we have that cleared up. Now ask yourself why we have sacrifices in the Tanakh. Could it be that they are object lessons in preparation for understanding the that true atonement for deliberate sin must come from GOD, not from men? And when did that occur? Well, if Adam and Havvah are forgiven, doesn’t that require that some atonement already be in place BEFORE they sinned?
You also introduce the Lutheran idea of death on the cross as punishment for sin. But where did that idea come from? Does God REQUIRE PUNISHMENT? If He does, then what do we do about Hosea or about Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple? Of course there is punishment for sin, but did God REQUIRE it from the Son?
All of this necessitates a careful articulation of all the intertwined ideas that we so commonly assert without really knowing where they came from or how they are related. That’s what we are trying to do with Today’s Word articles – take it all apart so slowly that we can see what happened to our thinking.
Now, go read the book.
The tone of this post concerns me.
For believers in Messiah we understand that:
1) our transgressions offend YHWH and indebt us to Him because of the ways our transgressions break The Covenant;
2) our indebtedness causes separation (to some degree) from Him;
3) in order to “draw near” (karav) to Him again He allows this to occur thru the shedding of innocent blood (the payment of the debt/redemption- a korban) and the work of an intercessor;
4) this process cannot be accomplished by ourselves, particularly on an ongoing (the frequency of our sins) basis;
5) while the sacrifice of animals may be effective on earth, in the Tabernacle/Temple… they would not be effective in the heavenly realm for which they are only a “shadow”;
6) the Scriptures teach us that a righteous man’s righteousness can only save himself, but not others (we also know what the Word says about our own righteous deeds);
7) a better, everlasting atonement can only be accomplished by YHWH Himself (as He demonstrated when He went through the pieces by Himself as two entities);
8) through the “sacrifice of Isaac” He showed us what ultimate Covenantal faithfulness would entail, and that indeed He Himself would provide The Sacrifice!!!
FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, SO THAT WHOEVER BELIEVED IN HIM WOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE!
It is certainly true that the Holy One desires circumcised hearts (to be faithful to the Covenant with Him) over just offering sacrifices. In fact His preference would be that we not sin at all. The fact that we offer many of the offerings is because we sin. HalleluYah that He does not forsake us for each and every time we fall short.
At home we teach the axiom: “Good, better, best, never let it rest, until your good gets better and your better gets best!” I believe our Heavenly Father extends grace to us to allow us to overcome our evil inclination, and in His mercy He does not allow our debt to accumulate by paying it for us… if we chose to abide in His grace. live according to His covenant (best we can), and accept His payment of our debt (Yahshua). If we are dying (due to our transgressions), then we trust Him when He tells us to look to the One lifted up.
Because we trust in YHWH, we believe in His Promises and that He has Himself provided the redemption and atonement which our covenantal unfaithfulness demands. We trust in the work He did through Yahshua to accomplish this, and not in our own works. Understanding what He has done for us should drive us to strive (because of our circumcised hearts) to act in faithfulness to His Covenant!
OK, so now I need some clarification. Nothing that you wrote causes me any distress. The issue is not God’s WRATH and our need to APPEASE. The issue is defilement that causes relationship separation. We can’t fix that unless God bridges the gap first. No man can do that, therefore God had to provide the means. God’s covenant relationship is in place because of the voluntary offering of the Son (however we are to understand that). I only point, so far, is that the cross is not the place of that offering. 1 Peter, Revelation and Hebrews all attest to this.
Tovia Singer’s point is that the text of Hosea has been modified but he Christian church in order to justify its need for a DEATH. But that pushes us toward a God who seeks appeasement, and that isn’t the kind of God we find in Scripture.
Are we on the same page?
My concern is the spirit of Anti-Messiah.
Tovia Singer is an anti-missionary and is very effective at leading believers AWAY from Yeshua!!!
The work of YHWH to redeem Israel had to be done on earth, and therefore He would take on flesh as the Son of GOD to accomplish this.
The price for sin on earth is death, and it is the promise of resurrection that overcomes this penalty that the promise of an eternal covenant would be true.
The price paid on earth (for an earthly people) was received in heaven and hence YHWH can and did resurrect from the dead.
I am certainly not anything close to being a scholar of languages or “religion”. I can agree that a contrite heart – a true heart – within a life wholly given to God, draws unto itself the full power of Christ’s Blood – because words without truth are only lies. However, to say the Blood of Christ has no purpose is such a horrible assemblage of words, I can barely write them. Adonai Himself instructed Moshe – Lev. 17:10-11, “When someone from the community of Israel or one of the foreigners living with you eats any kind of blood, I will set Myself against that person who eats blood and cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.” When a human child is born and the father is unknown, a DNA test is given in order to prove the paternal source. In the same way, Yeshua, bearing the DNA of His Father Adonai, allowed that Holy, Unconquerable Blood to be poured out on the earth He had created – as His flesh was torn and hell itself screamed in His ears. Because the Life is in the Blood and it was given for darkened but desperate hearts to receive.
I am not sure who you think is saying that the blood of Yeshua has no purpose, but it wasn’t me. Please don’t confuse an examination of the issue of DEATH with the idea of ATONEMENT. It is very clear from Scripture that atonement can be achieved in multiple ways. Blood is NOT ALWAYS required. Since I assume that the author of Hebrews knew this, that means he has another purpose in mind when he uses the Leviticus citation. Also, please notice that your citation of Leviticus 17:10-11 includes the often-overlooked context, which is about INGESTING blood, a pagan rite. The point of the Leviticus passage is not the ONLY blood makes atonement but rather that blood is ONLY TO BE USED for atonement. Any visit to even modern tribal cultures will convince you of the truth of this statement. Therefore, extracting “the life is in the blood” from this context leads to all kinds of theological anomalies.
Tovia Singer’s point is simply that the early Church followed the Greek path of appeasement, requiring DEATH for atonement when Scripture offers other ways. Now, before you go crazy and say, “But what about Yeshua’s death?” please keep in mind that atonement for DELIBERATE rebellion is not covered in Leviticus and is at the heart of our predicament. So God had to deal with that if we were going to be reconciled to Him. How He did that is the story of Yeshua’s sacrifice? When He did that is the subject matter of my book.
As I said, I am not a scholar – my use of verse 10 in Lev. 17 was inappropriate. Suzanne, however understood my point in verse 11. Blood is of the highest value in heaven and on earth. If the blood of innocent Abel cries out from the ground – the Blood of the innocent and Holy Yeshua must be heard to this day weeping over the darkness of confusion and defeat in which much of His Creation chooses to live w/o realizing the Life is in Him. Words, of themselves, will never uncover the mystery of God among us. A young man may suspect that a particular young woman is the one for him. He can speak and listen to millions of words from people who know her and even from some who only observe her with a very wise judgment. However, until that young man seeks her out and gives his heart to knowing her above other pursuits – he will live his days w/o her. I pray for each of us, “Oh God – breathe Your Breath upon these dry bones and put Your Life in us and make us one with You.” Oh yes, as words are unable to relay accurate emotion among strangers – my first post was truly not written in anger. I am sorry if that was implied.
I certainly did not take your words as though they were angry. Just examining the text, as always.
” For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I HAVE GIVEN IT (to you) on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.” (Upper case and parenthesis mine)
In reading Cross Word Puzzles, this verse suddenly stuck out at me as describing the action that was already completed. The blood of a living creature is now set apart as holy because of the action taken by Yeshua BEFORE the foundation of the earth. That’s what makes it an abomination now to partake of it.
YHVH says here that the blood was ALREADY given on the altar for atonement in the true Temple, not the earthly copy (which was actually the “shadow” of the real Temple) before the foundation of the earth.
BTW Skip: am I missing something here in the Hebrew but I don’t see “to you” in the Hebrew “ha mizbeach” (Lev 17:11) — I only see “the altar”. Was the addition of “to you” also theologically motivated or is it implied in the verb tense and I’m missing it?
The Hebrew la-kem is in the original “for you.” netatti hu la-kem “have given it for you”
I took the time this a.m. to read this very intriguing, though one could call it shocking on one level, lecture by rabbi Singer and though much could be gleaned from it, I would have to say that what struck me as most prevalent was the distance that remains (and needs to be bridged) between Judaism and Christianity. Simply said, until both parties lay down presupposed agendas and understanding and seek truth for the sake of truth, the chasm will remain. We’ve much work to do!! To even say that much humility will be required is probably the grossest of understatements, because there’s truly two paths to take concerning the acquisition of truth, unity or division, which brings blessing or destruction. Both will get us there, the method is entirely up to us. I suppose the only question that remains is, what are we WILLING to pay? One costs us our ego, the other our lives and the lives of our children.
As a side note, I’ve heard much about the “validity” of the book of Hebrew’s and I would suggest that it’s about time that it was addressed by both parties. As with most issues, it’s only through direct confrontation that the truth is made evident. It’s not the book that’s the problem but rather the assumptions placed on it that remains the issue. The “good news” is that I sense a willingness to address these things in an ever increasing manner.
Let’s take on that mantle of “sola scripture” and apply it to ourselves first. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to sing together, “blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.”
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Except Y’shua didn’t teach ‘christianity’ as we know. He was jewish. He taught Torah. he lived Torah.
I don’t see how ‘christianity’ will ever be reconciled to ‘Torah’. In my mind it is a contrived religion that is nothing like the original heart/intent of the man it purports to follow.
That being said, it’s not so much the Jewish side ‘to lay anything’ down. They won’t ‘see’ until they are allowed to. (see Isa. 6:9 – 10)
Being the incurable optimist, it’s not about what Judaism or Christianity has become or ever was. It’s about Truth. Somewhere it says, whoever calls on the name of the Lord. It’s a great promise, but it relies on the NAME/ AUTHORITY of YHWH. When that’s sought (by whoever) He answers, He says so Himself. 🙂
YHWH bless you and keep you…….
WOW! It’s thrilling to see how many people have come out of the woodwork on this one. Maybe we all get motivated when the subject matter comes closest to home. Thanks one and all.
22 In fact, according to the Torah, almost everything is purified with blood; indeed, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
25 Further, he did not enter heaven to offer himself over and over again, like the cohen hagadol who enters the Holiest Place year after year with blood that is not his own;
26 for then he would have had to suffer death many times – from the founding of the universe on. But as it is, he has appeared once at the end of the ages in order to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself.
Hi Skip,
I listened to the tape this morning, but didn’t really trust the sound of the Rabbi’s voice
Sounded a little too much like guys in American Hustle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Cb4SFt7gE
And Paul’s point is illogical:
“he has appeared once at the end of the ages in order
to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself.”
Oy vey! We ignore the Hebrew context of the Letter to the Hebrews at our own peril. The context of the letter is the Temple service on Yom HaKippurim. It is speaking specifically of that day, not generally of the whole sacrificial system. It was written to the believers in Jerusalem during the great siege just prior to the destruction of the temple, to reassure and explain of the continued significance of Yom Kippur (and how atonement was made) sans temple.
There is an ancient Hebrew manuscript of this letter which resolves the issues between our English translations and the Tanakh. The passage you quoted above is rendered thus (translated from the Hebrew by James Scott Trimm);
It is the purification of the place of atonement that is being discussed here, NOT the act of atonement itself. Of course, Tovia Singer and his ilk will not tell you this because it is not in their interest to do so; if they did, they would lend credence to the very NT texts that they are trying to discredit.
[In his book “The Letter to the Hebrews from an Old Hebrew Text; HaEgeret el HaEv’rim” (in which the entire Hebrew text is reproduced, along with parallel English translation and critical notes), Trimm also shows how the letter is an extended homiletic midrash (made up of 5 sub-midrashim) on Ps 110. Definitely worth having for research purposes.]
Oops – it seems the “bold” and “italics” tags are overridden by the “blockquote” tags in this new wordpress theme, thus you cannot see the emphases that I attempted to add to the quote. Oh well…
Thanks again.
Skip or anyone.. could you please help me on this !
Is there a difference between LAW and Commandments ?
in my mind the the COMMANDMENTS are the LAW’s Cliff Notes.
Is there a difference between LAW and Commandments
Hi Carol,
The Law is singular and the Commandments are plural
There are more commands than I can remember and they exceed my reach
However I think it would be hard to argue that
We are not supposed to study and obey God’s commands
You could be mistaken here. I highly recommend that you look at each of the 613. You will find that MOST of them you are already doing or they don’t apply to you. What are left are certainly NOT beyond your reach (why would God ask you to do something you were logically incapable of doing). And in Jewish thought, the LAW is the commandments plus all the narrative, poetry, stories and details that surround them. Expectations plus examples and helpful elaborations.
I truly thank you all as I continue to trust HIM to help me sort this out.
Babylon is behind me and the New Jerusalem is before me but WITHIN ME is much that needs to be allowed in or put out.
**I am sure you all understand this at this point in your Pilgrimage.
THANK YOU again for your input .
What are left are certainly NOT beyond your reach
Hi Skip,
I think you are absolutely right
Man’s reach should exceed his grasp 🙂
And today we will talk about those things that we do grasp rather than reach. 🙂
US Law is comprised of (many) singular statutes on (many) different levels.
Look at the sheep! (one sheep? or a herd of sheep).
Hi Skip,
In the interest of accuracy, I want to soften the tone of some of the statements in today’s blog
I agree with you and Rabbi Singer that ” fruit of our lips” is a very poor translation. But it is hardly evidence of widespread and deliberate mistranslation by some of our popular Bible versions. Here is what I found when I took a brief look at a few:
“accept that which is good: so will we render as bullocks the offering of our lips”(ASV)
“so will we render the calves of our lips.” KJV
” For we will offer the sacrifices[a] of our lips.” NKJV with marginal notation stating: “Literally bull calves; Septuagint reads ‘fruit’
“”the fruit of our lips”. Bad but both the RSV and NRSV include marginal notation for ‘fruit” stating: Gk Syr. Heb. bulls
I did not check the NASB but I think I make the point here that you and Rabbi Singer are being a little unfair in this instance.
As you might expect, the NIV merits your and Rabbi Singer’s criticism. But then, Skip, I think you will agree that the NIV is not useful as a study Bible!
Of course, the main point you are making today stands unquestioned: no game players, no bull, He wants our hearts!
With regard to blood and the forgiveness of sins, I try to keep it simple. It seems to me that forgiveness of sin is not the problem. God tells us over and over that He is a forgiver of sins, par excellence. The issue is the penalty for sin. God tells us that the penalty for transgressing His Holy Laws is death.( Rom. 5:12, Rom. 6:16, Rom.6:23) We all know that the sacrifice of bulls etc. could never cover that penalty. Adam created a problem with his sin and introduced us to carnality and death. Clearly God could have prevented Adam from sinning but He had a purpose in allowing him to do so – to teach human beings that their selfish self centered self willed life choices do not produce the “fruits’ we all want: love, joy, peace, prosperity, communion with our God etc. One would think that after 6000 years of human history, we might have learned our lessons! As I write, for example, we have a country leader, ironically, in the greater area of the Garden of Eden, (Bashar Assad in Syria) thinking he can use horrendous barrel nail bombs to bomb his citizens into submission and happiness! O well….In any event, God had the solution to humanity’s problem in place before the foundation of the world. We all know its John 3:16.
Skip, I have not read the Cross Word puzzle yet but I have ordered it so I am looking forward to getting into it over the next few months! So I am in no position to seriously comment or get involved too much in some of the intriguing questions you have stimulated among the readers of TW.
But in my studies on Universal Reconciliation, I learned about the Laws of Redemption found in Leviticus chapter 25. I cannot see how this law of redemption would work with your pre foundation of the world sacrifice of Messiah notion. I will be brief here and we can revisit this point if necessary for further elaboration. In Lev. 25 it says that a relative has the right of redemption of a relative who was in slavery for a debt, as long as he has enough money to pay he debt of his relative. I think we all know that God considers our sins a debt owed to Him. So we find Yahshua came as our Redeemer, redeeming us from death and making us His bond slaves. In this theology, we see that the humanity requirement of Yahshua was critical. The Book of Hebrews is key in this. (Sorry friends if you have doubts about Hebrews! I have a few questions too but so love that book!) Let’s look at chapter 2:
“But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower that the angels crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, SO THAT BY THE GRACE OF GOD HE MIGHT TASTE DEATH FOR EVERYONE. For it was fitting that He, for whom and by whom al things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.” (Heb.2:9-10)
Skipping down to verse 14:
“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, HE HIMSELF PARTOOK OF THE SAME NATURE, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage’ (Heb. 2:14)
“Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:17)
So it seems to me that Yahshua’s humanity – (He was not called the “son of man” for nothing!) is important to God establishing Him and qualifying Him as redeemer of all mankind. This would seem to negate the notion of pre creation sacrifice.
Shalom
P.S. If anyone would like a copy of a study paper I wrote on: “What does it mean to be a bond slave of Yahshua Messiah?”, just shoot me an email: sjohnwalsh@gmail.com In it I go into more detail on the topic of being redeemed by a near kinsman found in Leviticus chapter 25 that I touched on in this post.
Hi John,
I accept your point about translations. Perhaps some (usually the older ones) attempt to stay true to the Hebrew text. KJV is a good example but notice that as the translations are more current, the vocabulary changes to meet theological presuppositions. KJV is old and more literal. Nevertheless, you make a good point. Perhaps some committees tried to capture the Hebrew idea.
On your comment about forgiveness: First, I would ask you to read Derek Leman’s Yeshua Our Atonement. Most Christian views of the atonement are based on a substitutionary idea introduced by Luther. But in Scripture the issues seems to be defilement, not payment. Yes, I know the verses you will cite, but remember to read them in the context of the Tanakh and the understanding of Hebrew thought. And again, translation issues abound. For example, in Hebrews we can easily see that the purpose of the incarnation could fit the idea that His death was necessary in order to conquer death, not in order to provide forgiveness. And the example from Leviticus still fits a sacrifice before the foundation of the world since what is in play in Leviticus is simply another form of atonement – the redemption of one through the act of another. This needs more work, but first try Cross Word Puzzles. Finally, just a small correction. “Son of Man” is a title of dignity, not humanity. “Son of God” is the human title.
Thanks for your challenges and careful thinking. There is so much more to discover by looking deeply into this subject. But enough for now. It’s 5AM and I am not quite on track yet.
Great discussion! (Sometimes, I hate being on vacation!)
… I think it is Derek Leman”s and not David Leman, just in case someone wanted to search for the book.
Oh yes, of course. My mistake. I will correct it.
Shalom, Skip.It is some time since I’ve commented on TW, although I have been reading regularly. Like John W above, I note that there are variances between English translations; there are those that use the phrase “the fruit of our lips” and those that follow more closely the Hebrew (Masoretic) text (such as the KJV and ASB to name but two). Of those that use “fruit” rather than calves, they seem to be following the LXX rather than the MT. Remembering that the LXX was a translation of the Tanakh into Greek by Jewish scholars, predating the MT by some centuries, one wonders why they chose to render it using “fruit” rather than “calves”, or even where/when the change was actually made…
Could it be that it was the MT that was altered much later, with the LXX bearing witness to an earlier Hebrew text family that has been lost in antiquity?
Here is the LXX text as rendered on Blue Letter Bible;
Not being a Greek scholar, I will leave it to those more knowledgable to analyse that text.
This is most likely based on the Jamnia text of the LXX – it would be interesting to find out how the older Alexandrian LXX reads, although I don’t have access to that text at the moment. Comparison with the Peshitta Aramaic text would also be interesting, particularly that of the Khabouris codex which can be dated from internal evidence to a source document from around 160CE (again, pre-dating the MT by centuries). What of the DSS? Is Hosea among any of the scrolls found at Qumran?
I did listen to Tovia Singer on this topic, and I must say although I found much to agree with I also find him somewhat disingenuous at times because, in common with other Jewish anti-missionaries like Yisro’el Blumenthal and Eli Cohen, he deals solely with English translations and the church’s interpretationof the NT, not with the text itself (and the source documents) in its proper historical, temporal and linguistic context. In that way, he’s rather clever, turning the church’s own interpretation and understanding back on Christendom rather than teaching how the text would have been understood by the original readers.
I have two more questions for you, and please forgive me if you have already answered these in Cross Word Puzzles; I’ve not yet had a chance to read the book past the introduction. In the phrase “from the foundation of the cosmos” (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), is the preposition ἀπὸ necessarily temporal or could it also be read in a locative sense (like “before” as in “in front of” or “at”)? Secondly, apart from the NT references, can this concept be found anywhere in the Tanakh?
Lots of great questions about who and how of the translations. A good PhD dissertation. And without that kind of research, I cannot answer your points.
As for Singer, yes, I agree. But I find it interesting and provocative that the chasm between Jews and Christians is often about what they say about each other rather than what that text says. More Jews reject “Jesus” on the basis of what the Church teaches Paul said about Jesus than on the basis of what either Paul or Yeshua actually said. The sword cuts both ways.
As for apo, a lot of this is covered in Cross Word Puzzles, including a rather exhaustive look at all the occurrences of the phrase and the words. Even if read as “before” or “in front of,” doesn’t that still make the case that the event in question has some standing prior to the creation. Even if not temporal, the relationship still exists so that whatever the atoning action, it does not depend on the cross event. After you read the book, you will see how I try to show that this concept is part and parcel with the Tanakh and other New Testament authors.
Thanks, Skip. I look forward to reading the book in its entirety. 🙂
“…from the foundation/before/in-front-of the cosmos…”
Could that phrase refer to “the decision” that redemption/atonement would need to be made from the origin of the universe, yet the act could occur at an appointed time?
So now you made me curious. Bauer’s second edition lists the locative (of place) as the first general use of apo, but follows immediately with apo in the temporal sense and finally in the sense of indicating distance. Obviously, context must determine the meaning if the other linguistic clues do not suffice. So, consider the verses in Rev 13:8. 1 Peter 2:20 and Hebrews 9. Is it reasonable to suggest that these three authors thought of the atoning sacrifice only in terms of “separation” from the world? I suppose we could answer that affirmatively but if we do it still makes the case that the sacrifice did not occur “in this world” or, in particular, on the cross. However, given the context of these passages, I would argue that there is no reason not to think of apo in the temporal sense, especially when I see the other uses of the full phrase “before the foundation.”
Nevertheless, it is possible that the authors have BOTH sense in mind. Either one establishes the sacrifice as an event in the heavenly realm, fully consistent with Hebrews “Tabernacle not made with human hands.”
I am sure we could fruitfully investigate this further but I am so far convinced that we would come to the same conclusion. More later. Have to run.
The CEB renders verse two forgivably:
Hosea 14:2
Prepare to speak
and return to the LORD;
say to the LORD,
“Forgive all wickedness;
and receive the good.
Instead of bulls,
let us offer what we can say:
Love how provocative this post was…as usual. Thanks for engaging your readers so vigorously. Really makes your blog and your work an extra shade of meaningful!
Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall! Take words with you and return to the LORD . Say to Him: “Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.” Hosea 14:1-2
“Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you shall come for Me One who will be Ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” (Micah 5:2)
“Say to Him..” Say to Who? Who ~ has authority on earth to forgive sins? ~ (Mark 2.10)
Skip,
As always, thanks for the comment. I really don’t understand why this has to be an “either/or” situation rather than a “both/and”. Maybe, if we put the scriptures together, we can deduce that God wants a repentant heart, yet there still has to be sacrifice. Empty rituals are something to be despised. The final sacrifice was Jesus, and, since that happened before the temple;s destruction in CE 70, then there is no longer a need for the sacrificial system that existed at the temple. God doesn’t need bulls because Jesus’ sacrifice is efficacious for all. Why doesn’t God simply forgive the penitent without a sacrificial system? I don’t know for sure but my life experience says that true love costs. We have to give something of ourselves to be in a true love relationship. It seems to me that God expressed true love by giving us Jesus. Anyway, I am unwilling to dismiss Hebrews 9:22 as wrong.
Blessings,
Greg
Rabbi Tovia Singer has pulled more people away from the walk of faith in Yeshua, than most people, he is a Rabbi and has a charm about him. and I’m not saying he has no truth in him, but as always the Word of YHWH is the proof for all truth. shalom
I understand your point. Of course, I could argue that Luther did more damage to the faithful than any current rabbi. Look for the truth where you find it. Check everything.
Luther lost his way, and most pastors hold him up as the turning point of faith, if truth is the point of our looking into GOD’S word, to find what He had in mined when He said it, truth is going to upset our views but it is truth that sets of free, not man made views of what YHWH might had said because it makes me fill good to see it that way. all I want is the truth, and I will go where that is to be found in GOD’S word. thanks keep up the good work
The English translation of the LXX also renders this fruits. So the translation from the Greek just as poor? I’m traveling and without my usual study aids.
While I don’t know at the moment why the LXX uses “fruit,” it is pretty clear that the Hebrew does not. Of course, the LXX is useful but it isn’t the original text.
Of course. I have had some close encounters with Rabbi Singer. His interpretive techniques are interesting.
Then why was Yeshua the, “Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”? Wouldn’t it have been sufficient for him to conquer death on the cross, and not have to be, “slain from the foundation” like Rev. 13:8 says? And Leviticus 17:11 states that the blood, when sacrificed, makes atonement by the life that is in it, thus the instruction of why to not eat blood. How do you see it?
Why is it that we continue to read Leviticus 17:11 OUT OF CONTEXT and assume that we are correct? Leviticus 17:11 is about PAGAN use of blood vs. God’s use of blood. But it is abundantly clear that atonement can be found in many other ways. So the citation of Leviticus 17:11 in the NT must be there for reasons other than to convince all of us that blood is the ONLY sacrifice. That Yeshua is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is NOT IN QUESTION. Scripture is clear about this. So it is obviously NOT sufficient for him to simply conquer death on the cross. BOTH are required. Why?
Read the book.
Oh, this is too harsh. Sorry. Let’s keep pressing on this issue. There is much more at stake here, especially since we have so little information about what happened before the foundation of the world.
Eh… I can take it, and if I can’t, I’ll just find a hole to cry in until I figure out that getting a stark comment from Skip Moen can actually be a compliment, not that I’m your son, but “the wise son receives his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.”
I was thinking about it, and the purpose we see in the lamb being slain during passover is deliverance from death, and so by rule of first mention, that gives the “lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world” some reference. Of course, you’re right, there’s so much more to be discovered.
Hope to see you in 2014 so I can apologize in person. Good point about Passover, but that has DIRECT application to the mention of the Passover lamb in the NT. Supports my argument that the cross is about death, not forgiveness. Actually, when it comes right down to it, we have NO IDEA what was involved in the sacrifice in the Tabernacle not made with human hands.
Though, I do look forward to finding out!
And about apologizing, why don’t we just call it even, since I lured you into slicing up your toe on the beach. But I wouldn’t mind seeing you sometime this year, so I’ll take the opportunity as soon as I can.
Thanks Skip for your teachings.
I found this translation in The Stone Edition of the Tanach for Hos 14.3
“Take words with you and return to Hashem; say to Him, ‘May you forgive all iniquity and accept good [intentions], and let our lips substitute for bulls.”
The footnote states:
“An essential part of repentance is that one feel remorse for his past failings and sincerely resolve to improve. Thus the penitent begins by begging God to look favourably upon his good intentions and to accept the prayers, confession, and pledges of his lips in place of, and as more worthy than, fatted bulls as offerings, which may look superficially impressive but are lacking in inner content.”
Roy