Makes You Free
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45 NASB
Ransom – The question before us is not, “Did Yeshua die as an atonement for us?” That fact is made as clear as it could be in Scripture. He is our atonement. His sacrifice removed the obstacle that prevented us from experiencing the presence of YHWH. No, that’s not in question. The question is, “When did Yeshua die as an atonement?” Most Christian replacement theology asserts that this event took place on the cross, that is, the cross is the place of atonement for sin. This ignores several important scriptures like Revelation 13:8 (which is subsequently interpreted as the intention of God, not the actual event). Because the paradigm of Christianity’s demarcation between the “old” and the “new” so heavily depends on the cross event, statements like this Greek translation of John’s Hebrew announcement are read as if John is announcing something that is yet to take place. With the cross event as the place of atonement already in mind, we think that John is foretelling what Yeshua will do later. We read “to give His life” as if it means “at sometime in the future (i.e., on the cross) Yeshua will sacrifice Himself as a ransom.”
But there are just a few problems with reading the verse like this.
- If this “ransom” is about sin, then Abraham (and all the others) were either not saved in the same way that you and I are saved, or God only temporarily “saved” Abraham in anticipation of the cross event.
- Since this event is connected to Passover, it is hard to imagine that the Jews would have seen the crucifixion as an atonement for sin. That atonement occurs on Yom Kippur, not Passover.
- The word used here (Greek lytron) is related to the Hebrew words kippur, g’l and pada’, all tied to the idea of ransom. But Scripture prohibits the sacrifice of human life as a sin offering. If atonement occurs in the heavenly Tabernacle before the foundation of the world, then it does not violate this prohibition. But then something else is happening on the cross.
- Finally, for now, John speaks Hebrew, not Greek. That means the verb tense draws attention to the yet-to-be-completed action of ransom, an action that began in the heavenly Tabernacle but is not finished until the consequences of sin (namely, death) are also removed. “It is finished (accomplished)” does not have to mean, “I have taken away Sin.” It can just as easily mean, “Death has been finally defeated.” Since Hebrew views the entire action from beginning to end as the same event, John’s words only indicate that the action is still continuing. He does not necessarily mean that it hasn’t even started.
“If the Son makes you free.” Does that mean, “Makes you free from sin?” or does it mean, “Completes the victory over death so that you are free from its sting?” Go read Hebrews 2:15 and see what you think. Then remember that John’s language isn’t Greek.
Topical Index: ransom, lytron, kippur, g’l, pada’, atonement, Mark 10:45
While I agree there are many things connected to the fact that the text clearly tells us that Yeshua died for our sins. However, I don’t see how He could actually “die” before He was even born a man.
As far as scripture prohibiting human sacrifice goes. The only thing I’ve been able to find as prohibiting human sacrifice is as in children sacrificed to other gods. Not to mention, there wasn’t any human fit for this sacrifice, other then our sinless Messiah. And how could He be found sinless, and able to be qualified, if He wasn’t first able to prove that as a real man? We see much parallelism with the binding of Isaac. And the proclamation that YHVH will Himself provide the lamb. And then of course John’s statement, behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Not has taken but, rather will.
So, yes I totally agree that there are many things we just aren’t able to get or to fully understand but, I just don’t see anyway to reconcile how such a sacrifice could have been carried out in real time prior to our Messiah even being born into this world as a man able to die.
Hi Mark,
Let me try a few of these. First, the statement of John was in Hebrew, not Greek, so the Greek tense won’t help much. I have addressed this in the book. If Hebrew sees the action as “yet to be completed” then the full scope of the atonement includes the defeat of death, at which point the “sins” of the world will finally be completely erased, that is, guilt and its consequence.
Second, what is required for sacrifice is also “spotless.” Are you suggesting that Yeshua was “spotless” when he was lifted to the cross? That seems quite unlikely. So even on the grounds of Levitical order, he could not qualify.
Third, since Scripture provides no detail about the atonement made in the “tabernacle not made with human hands,” we cannot say HOW this was accomplished. But we do know that it was and we know that it cannot have occurred on earth (cf. Hebrews). So what do we make of this? How can the cross be “a tabernacle not made with human hands”?
Hello Skip
Yes I’ve read the cross word puzzles book. And it opened up many new questions for me. In no way do I profess, too even remotely, have the whole work of forgiveness of sins, and how that was carried out before the foundations or even on the cross, down pat.
Yes, most definitely they would have spoken Hebrew, at least in the area of Jerusalem. Greek was the common language even among the Jews. I don’t hold to the theology that our NT writings were written down in Hebrew originally. At least at this point we have no evidence of such. So, we really can’t say how it would have appeared in Hebrew form, other then through a lot of assuming based on our knowledge of the language in our modern Greek worldview. I also don’t hold to the notion that the sins “of the world” will be forgiven apart from partaking in that atonement in agreement, confession and acceptance of Yeshua. In other words sins of the world as a whole aren’t by default forgiven just because. Just my take on it anyway.
Our Messiah wasn’t a animal but a man. And it’s my opinion that His spotlessness is in His sinlessness. A animal didn’t have that ability to be sinless so it had to be spotless for the purpose of sacrifice.
I’m also not sure we have to really “know” this sacrifice was in fact carried out physically before the foundations. I mean how would we? I think we can simply accept the word of God is true. But, more importantly I see it as if, since He purposed it, it was as good as done. But, again, I see no way to wrap my mind around it having been doable if in fact He wasn’t even born as a man. How would we be able to conclude He could even shed that blood if He wasn’t a man born of a woman able to do so?
Thank you for the interaction Skip. You know I have much respect for your scholarship and understandings of our Scriptures. You truly are a needed asset in today’s world, especially with the lack of the above, and the need for us to try and understand the work of our Messiah better. And most of everything I have to say, is more of asking myself and pondering it, rather then questioning your knowledge.
Shalom
Let me take another shot at this.
1. The idea that whatever God says He will do means it is as good as done is not supported by Scripture. Take Ninevah (and dozens of other examples). God said it but He changed His mind. that is the essence of Hebrew prophecy. Many things are contingent, and in my view, so is the accomplishment of the Messiah. If you believe that the Messiah operated without free choice in this matter simply because God thought of it, then you strip the Messiah of any meaningful human act. It’s complicated, but that’s what God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience is all about.
2. I am not sure that the atonement required for the forgiveness of sin can in fact be accomplished by a MAN. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that no man is guilty for another man’s sin and that no man can be offered as redemption for the sins of another. Isaiah 40 makes it clear that GOD HIMSELF is the sacrifice, so the idea that this had to be a HUMAN act seems to ignore quite a bit of the material from the prophets. Isaiah isn’t the only one here. How is it possible for a man, even a sinless man, to die in place of ALL men? And add to that the fact that this event isn’t about just SIN. It is about the total defilement of the entire creation, all of which is in the throes of the consequences of sin. Can any MAN pay for that? I would add that the Reformers formulation of the penal theory of atonement might just be steering us in the wrong direction here. See David Lehman on this.
3. As for the Hebrew/Greek issue, there is no doubt that even if we have a Greek text the words were not SPOKEN in Greek. So we have to do some backwards translation. But it isn’t all just guesswork. We have the LXX and we have the ShemTov Matthew, plus considerable information about thought parallels between the two languages.
4. Finally, if you think that “before the foundation of the world” is simply God’s INTENTION, but not a reality, then what do you do with Abraham (and all the rest of them) and, in particular, the man lowered through the roof?
Next round?
Skip
Well let me take them number by number.
As to #1, I see it more then just God saying and doing. It goes to the promises He makes. He doesn’t change His mind on them. We can put them in the bank. Free will and choice is a major area of debate but, I’ll just say this. I’m not a proponent that one has the freedom of choice, in will or deed, to subvert God’s will. And He doesn’t have to wait to see what we will do before He carries out what He has purposed and desires. That being said, I see Messiah as having been sent from the Father to do what He was sent for. Did He have choices within that context? Certainly. Just as we have choices we make in the context of what God has purposed for our lives as well.
As to #2, Here again, the whole is Yeshua God, is Yeshua all man understanding is complex and a huge debate beyond a commenting website arena. But, I hold to all of the above being true, even if I’m unable to reconcile it and wrap my limited mind around it. I see the text says all the above is true. Beyond that though. My biggest point about that is that He wouldn’t have been able to die or shed blood in any other state of being except flesh and blood, hence having humbled Himself and became a man.
As to #3, I agree the words, more likely then not, would have been spoken in Hebrew. Although we don’t know that for certain either. It just seems to be a good assumption. And I agree. But, it becomes debatable as to how we would reverse translate in order to put definitive answers to sentence and word structure/meaning. And I’m not sold on the ShemTov being more then just a translation from the Greek to the Hebrew.
As to #4, I think we’re told that Abraham was able to look forward to that day. So, I’m of the opinion that He as well as others were able to be included, through faith, that God would do as He promised. And I also, as I said above, don’t see it as just God’s intention, I see as His unchanging nature to completely carry out His promises.
Your gonna really make me work on this aren’t you my brother? 🙂
I’m gonna have to crack open my accordance program and start digging more deeply I see, even before lunch.
Blessings and Shalom
Just a comment on implications: If Abraham ONLY looks forward to forgiveness on the cross, and God promises that he will be forgiven (i.e, counted righteous), then doesn’t that make the cross an INEVITABLE event? Otherwise how could God promise salvation on an event that is contingent. And if the cross is an INEVITABLE event, then how can it be the CHOICE of Yeshua to obey?
Just thinking. I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Not sure why it isn’t giving me the ability to reply to this comment but, I’m going to look into it.
You said;
“Just a comment on implications: If Abraham ONLY looks forward to forgiveness on the cross, and God promises that he will be forgiven (i.e, counted righteous), then doesn’t that make the cross an INEVITABLE event? Otherwise how could God promise salvation on an event that is contingent. And if the cross is an INEVITABLE event, then how can it be the CHOICE of Yeshua to obey?
Just thinking. I don’t think you can have it both ways.”
My response;
I’m not sure if I said Abraham “ONLY” looks forward to forgiveness. If I did then I retract. What I would have meant was, that he would have “looked forward with faith” and seen God faithfully doing what He had promised in Messiah. Because I think the cross “was” a inevitable event. Purposed before the foundations. God had also put into place temporal means for forgiveness of sins as well.
And what I was trying to say in regard to Yeshua obeying or not, is that even though He had choices within His pre-ordained job of the atonement for sin, there was, more likely then not, some choices to be made (what those are or were, I simply couldn’t say). I don’t think it was known for a second that He wouldn’t carry out what He was sent for.
Is that making any sense? I’m not really good at conveying everything I want too through this type of format. I’m just giving it a go. And as I’ve stated, in no way am I’m proclaiming, I know everything and can lay it out in clear and concise manor.
But this is a real problem. If there is any sense in which the cross is foreordained to ACTUALLY happen, then the temptation to forego it in the Garden is sheer acting. What can it mean to legitimately ask for the cup to be removed if the cup has already been determined to have occurred. In other words, if God’s planning of the cross entails that the cross MUST occur, then any attempt to make it seem as if it were a choice is nonsense. This is a major issue with the Greek/Augustinian view of extemporaneity and the infallibility of God’s knowledge (as I discuss in detail in the book). It makes a mockery of Hebrews claim that he was tempted in all ways like us. I believe that you are walking into an epistemological trap here because of your a priori acceptance of the Reformers’ view of divine foreknowledge. Be careful.
You didn’t address the man lowered through the roof. Was he really forgiven on the spot? It surely seems so. Yet the cross was still in the future. Please don’t counter with “the cross affected his forgiveness retroactively.” If that were true, then why did Yeshua demonstrate the power of forgiveness by healing the man at that very moment?
Conundrums. More to digest.
I really am seeing that we know so little about that most mysterious of communings among the Godhead; we are hanging around outside the window, gleaning scraps of light – but I want to know what it is about this sacrifice for the purposes of being better able to be grateful! Not only what He did for me in terms of how my life gets changed, but also what it cost Him: I want to know how much I should be thankful for both! Friendship requires both, and He has called me friend….. I am speechless…..
I do think, though, Randall, I might see a little of why John was exclaiming in future tense about the “taking away of the sins of the world”. Our perspective and God’s perspective are not the same, even though they may both be valid. From my perspective, my sins are not taken away until I repent them; and no, I did not get them all perfectly repented of when I began this process of moving toward God (really, of agreeing to cooperate with the process of Him moving toward me, as I am stuck like a sheep on that mountain ledge!). However, my best current understanding of His perspective is that the instant the original pair sinned, there had to be an immediate remedy, from the perspective of the perfect God Who can tolerate no sin, or else they would have died then and there. For that matter, surely it is also grace that allows ha-satan to exist until the fulness of the results of his choices are apparent, too, in the name of justice. The mystery, for me, is what was required to set that grace in motion from the beginning of the need for that grace.
The above two comments show how much we are stuck in our Greek mode of thinking. I do not have a handy solution to this stuckness. For mme it is part of the mystery that I live with. Far be it for me to attempt to dictate how God is to bring into being my salvation. I trust He has done his part (is doing yet today) and now it calls for me to be doing, not thinking. This does not sound very eligant but so be it. Today my goal it to be like He wants me to be!
BACK TO THE BEGINNING (AGAIN)
The cross of (the) Christ is crucial,critical and central. It is as vital as our own blood and breath. Without the cross, there would be no shedding of blood. Real, red, sacred and sacrificial blood. Lamb’s blood. The blood of the Lamb (of) sent from God. One, The Incarnate One, the Word was made flesh, became flesh (one of us) and lived among us. One, who was sinless died a death that was (in the foreknowledge of God, very necessary.
“Without the shedding of blood- there is no atonement (covering) for sin.” Did Abraham know this? Or even as far back as the son of Adam- Abel- the one who gave a more excellent sacrifice than that of Cain, his brother. Abel presented unto YHWH a blood sacrifice and Cain? Oh, he worked so hard to grow those pretty vegetables or flowers. Mr. Cain, ~ not by works of righteousness which we have done! ~ No, this salvation, -our salvation is the gift of God- not of works, Mr. Cain, lest any man should boast. Adam and Eve (their parents) were both “clothed” (covered) with the skin of an animal.
Back to the cross. The preaching, (not to sound “preachy”) the declaration, the message of the cross is to those who are perishing- foolishness. I can see it, just as plain as day- it is. But- (love those Bible buts!) to those who are being saved -it is the power of God. If the message of the cross is “offensive” to you (it is dear to me) I cannot apologize. Why? Has no one heard the gospel? The Good News? -What is this “gospel?” What is this good news concerning the Messiah?
According to Paul, ~ I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every man who believes.. (Romans 1.16) Every man? Any man?
I will not, I cannot “discount” the cross, the tslav of the Messiah. Without that cross- the cross upon which the Lamb died, we have no hope whatsoever.
There are those who do not know, and then there are those who know, but are (amazingly) “willingly ignorant.” These are the ones who are (now) and will be under the severest judgment of God. Those who would “trample underfoot” the precious blood of the Lamb.
Hear His words (again, for the first time) ~ This is the New Covenant in My blood ~ Friend, the cross, His cross is the gateway to life.
Are you ready for a flood of Biblical “proofs?” (Proof texts?)
1 Corinthians chapter 15. Read the entire chapter for a very clear account of the gospel.
Acts 2:24
But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Him.
Acts 26:23
that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to His own people and to the Gentiles.”
1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:23
But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when He comes, those who belong to Him.
1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In His great mercy He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the Firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood,
These are but a few..- there is more.. – so much more! – Oh, the cross!
You often state that the writers of the NT SPOKE Hebrew. I understand that they KNEW Hebrew, but that they SPOKE it? Their Temple experiences might have made them familiar with Hebrew, but spoke it? Just a question.
There are several articles on the web site about this. 90% of the archeological evidence supports the claim, as does most of the idiomatic usage in the NT. See Roy Blizzard on this as well.
Skip,
Thanks again for your insight.
RIck
I read Hebrew chapter 2 and the rest of Hebrews. We know Hebrews is a watershed for Christian theology. Who wrote Hebrews and what is the author’s source? Was it a vision, a prophetic utterance re: an other-world priesthood, or wild speculation? Why does the author seem to misquote the TANAK several times in order to make his point? Back on track… Isn’t the final Messiah sent to restore Israel from exile in order to lead planet earth back to our Creator? Doesn’t our Creator repeatedly tell us anyone can simply come to Him directly in repentance without a mediator and without a sacrifice – and God promises to forgive and restore the humble soul? Do we need to read anything more into Yeshua’s death?
I hope you have read Cross Word Puzzles. Many of the points you raise in questions are answered.
Skip, I’ve also thought about Yeshua’s claim, “It is finished (accomplished)”. I’ve often wondered if he meant, “I have completed my task of “filling up” Torah, fulfilling all messianic prophecy and completing every task the Father gave me.” Consequently this would include the overturning of death.
Yes, it would. If it doesn’t accomplish that, what’s the point!
I checked out Roy Blizzard. Wow! Which of his books would you recommend for a beginner?
The Difficult Saying of Jesus – see the appendix
Dear Roy,
My father’s father was a what people used to refer to as a ‘barefoot preacher’. (I always thought he was one, literally.) He was a dairy farmer here in the South, who retired when I was young because of his heart, but he still farmed, growing huge amounts of food, which he gave away to all. He loved people!
He was a Sabbath keeper when Sabbath keeping was not cool, but that never seemed to make any difference to anyone who knew him. He never wore shoes, summer or winter, except when he was worshiping, or went to town, and not even then,sometimes, and had never been to seminary or been ordained,either. He was a simple man, who loved nature and it’s Creator. He typically attended house churches, as there were no large communities of Sabbath keepers in the rural South where he lived, but he was often gone Sunday morning too, as every denomination for at least 50 miles around had him on their standing invitation list to preach, and he would often go from church to church that day. I heard many a sermon of his, but never tired of them. My mama asked him one time what he thought his secret was about preaching, as he was so well respected and liked and listened to, no matter if people agreed with him theologically or not.
He replied that he only had one. He loved children, and so he would look around in the first couple rows until he found the smallest child that was old enough to pay attention, and then preached to them. He said he thought that if he could keep their attention, then he must be saying something real.
So I want to thank everyone for their kind attention, here, as I feel like I am crashing an exclusive party sometimes, in that I don’t get the inside jokes yet, so to speak (but I would like to!), and I am not offended at all,and truly do not want to offend anyone else, either! But I would like to also put out a standing invitation to anyone, including you, Roy, right here, to try to see that the main reason I have of sharing where I am coming from is as a starting point, not only for me and my understanding, but also for others to be able to understand me. My understanding of this whole concept of ONE BODY is to learn how to do communing. And this being the only way I have, it is where I must begin. But it is not where I wish to end!
For the purposes of enlightenment (lol!) I would like to ask anyone at any time to take what I may have said, point by point, or, better yet, in totality, and show me the correct way instead. But, please, if you don’t mind, try to think of me as a small child in one of those front pews, and make it simple! I saw an interview once with a very smart person on this earth, who was asked what he thought the best test was of whether or not a person had not only something true to say, but who actually understood what they were saying. He replied that the best one was whether or not they could make a small child understand it. And they were talking about advanced physics, or some such like. So, Y’all, please treat me like that small child: I won’t be offended, because I don’t have much of an education, anyway, and I like simple.
Thank all you dear people so much for existing and being available! People who want, and are delighted, to obey are so hard to find to hang out with! This is a wonderful place, and everyone is so patient with me! Thank you in advance for your help, as well as the pleasure of your company.
Love, Laurita
Skip, the man lowered through the roof is a good point, but I don’t see a problem with Abraham “looking forward” to the coming of Messiah, and I do want to read Crossword Puzzles for sure. In the case of Abraham, if he was just accepting a done deal for his forgiveness, then would not his faith have just been a joke? I mean, I have people who have faith in me that I will come through for them and they go to the line in expectation that I will. I can always choose not to; their faith certainly does not mean it is a “foregone conclusion” that I will, although I will say it certainly does tend to give me the courage and impetus to do so! And one final point; if the Godhead struck a deal at the beginning, then banked in advance on it, how does that automatically make it a ‘foregone conclusion’, leaving Jesus no choice on the cross? I mean, wasn’t the final impetus for Him surely the understanding that His Father had faith in Him? Cannot the Godhead have faith in, and swear by, Himself?
Unfortunately, the human counterpart of “faith” in someone is not the same as divinity. You’re right. We have “faith” that another person will do such and such, but we all know that things happen. Our “faith” is really anticipated wishful thinking. There is no guarantee of the reality. But for Abraham to have “faith” in God means that it must be guaranteed, otherwise his faith is really in vain. If it were possible that God promised Abraham righteousness based on the future, as yet undetermined, actions of Yeshua, and Abraham’s faith was vouched as certain by God, then it would not have been possible for Yeshua to decide otherwise. And that’s the problem.
Moreover, the man lowered through the roof clearly has his sins forgiven. How can that be if the cross event has not yet occurred and the cross is ESSENTIAL for forgiveness?
Please read the book. Lots more than this to consider.
~ Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed ~
(1 Corinthians 5.7)
~ “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”… ~ And His answer was?
(Please) ~ Search the scriptures (diligently) ~ for these are they that testify concerning Me ~
The written word reveals (to all) the Living Word- (the Word made flesh). Any remaining doubt?
~ He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the Name by which He is called is The Word of God ~ (Revelation 19.13)
Be not faithless, but believing- He is who He says He is.
The Living Word of God declares (reveals) Himself throughout the whole of our Bible, the written word of God, from Genesis (things that were) and until the Revelation (things that will be). From the amen (from the original “let there be”) to the amen- amein!
Living Word of God, -speak! Remind us of what You have said, and may we be mindful of these things, for Your words are always true and faithful, and You speak only what is true. Amen.
Hi Luarita,
Boy would I have loved to have known your grandfather. Sounds much like a person I would be proud to call friend.
I appreciate your posts and your questions. I sense a lifetime of good stories there and I do enjoy a good story! Brings to mind a picture of two (or more) friends sitting on a porch on a nice summer day, listening/watching creation and sipping on some fresh lemonade and just visiting with each other. 🙂
Hey, back, Dawn! I like thinking of you as a friend, too. I think everybody’s life itself is a story, just that we don’t usually sit back and see it as such. I want to know everybody’s story! I look at everybody as having something I am incomplete without, and so I get frustrated by the stuff that separates or gets in the way of that (sin; all of it). I hate sin because of that.
I think I get it that we were forgiven the instant we sinned or else we would not be here at all for another chance to get it right (grace). How that went down I do not think we were told. I think it was private, and so I don’t want to know if that is the case. I also think I get it that shed blood is about death substitution, and REMISSION of sins is not the same as FORGIVENESS of sins. In the sanctuary service, blood was transferred daily from altar of sacrifice to the altar of incense, was it not?, and then once a year the sanctuary was cleansed of the sins, which were transferred to the goat. People were forgiven daily, but the sins went away yearly from where they were ‘stored’ (in type). What that freedom from sin MEANS, however, is that we get to live. FOREVER. That is what the death-and-resurrection accomplished, is it not? Am I warmer? (I know I am leaving out a lot)
Thank you again for your patience. I am reading as fast as I can go what I can.