Did You Notice?
if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. Leviticus 4:3 NASB
Lord – Of course, the Hebrew doesn’t say “to the Lord.” We all recognize the circumlocution in this text, substituting LORD for the divine name, YHVH. But perhaps you were distracted by the small capitals and the avoidance of God’s name so that you didn’t notice something far more important.
“Sacrifice in the Torah is always expressive of an I-Thou relationship between creature and creator. That is why, whenever the Torah speaks about sacrifice, it always uses the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God, Hashem, and never the term Elohim, which expresses the impersonal idea of ‘the force of forces,’ God as creator, or God as justice.”[1]
This is just one reason why the misrepresentation in Christianity of Hebrew sacrifice as legal requirement is grossly incorrect. For example, by treating the “law” as if it were forensic rather than relational, Luther and others put in place an understanding of sacrifice that stands in opposition to grace, something never found in the Tanakh. This leads to statements that the death of Christ on the cross “put an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system”[2] (see the full article on the death of Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices on the web site Quodlibet Journal). Such thinking attempts to justify the claim that “Christianity is not a new religion but a historical manifestation of an eternal purpose, which was ordained in heaven.”[3] Unfortunately, neither history nor the biblical text supports such a conclusion. Christianity is a new religion. It isn’t new to us now that we have had 2000 years of indoctrination, but it was absolutely new in the second century when the Gentile intelligentsia of the assembly began to incorporate Greek paradigms into theological alterations of Hebraic concepts. Lloyd Gaston puts the nail in the coffin of Christian appropriation when he says, “It may be that the Church will survive if we fail to deal adequately with that question [the question of the church’s anti-Semitic perspective], but more serious is the question whether the Church should survive. A Christian Church with an antisemitic New Testament is abominable, but a Christian Church without a New Testament is inconceivable.”[4]
What do we learn from the insight of Sacks? We learn that sacrifice never ceased. It is essential for a relationship with the Father, YHVH. In Hebraic thought sacrifice is the glue of engagement. It is as far from legislation as a marriage certificate is from the relationship of marriage. Christianity might claim something else, but to do so means ignoring all the clues (and the direct statements) in order to justify a religion without ancient foundations.
If sacrifice is always personal, if it always employs the personal name of the Holy One, then it is time we learned to enter into that relationship by drawing near to the lover of our souls in the way He asks. Franz Rosenzweig noted that, “law is always impersonal, whereas command is personal. We obey law because of reason and interest. We obey command because of our relation to the One who commands.”[5]
Now you get to ask yourself, “Is sacrifice personal for me? Does it draw me closer to the One I love? Do I obey because I cherish the engagement? Or am I still in Luther’s camp, treating sacrifice as if it is a law governed by cost/benefit analysis?”
Topical Index: sacrifice, YHVH, law, fulfillment, Leviticus 4:3
[1] Jonathan Sacks, Covenant & Conversation, p. 66.
[2] http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/hall-sacrifice.shtml
[3] Ibid.
[4] Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah
[5] Franz Rosenzweig, On Jewish Learning, cited in Sacks, Covenant & Conversation, p. 67.
So I hear you say, Skip, that there is a difference between the sacrifices for relationship vs. the sacrifices for sin?
The sacrifice of the cross gives me the ability to appropriate the shedding of my sin (which separates me from heaven) so as to be able to draw near with the sacrifices of relationship (which unites me with heaven).
I cannot get rid of my sin (which prevents heaven from being able to directly relate with me), but repentance gives heaven the ability (by means of the cross) to get rid of it for me. What I CAN do is to sacrifice my own agenda for His will. This is the sacrifice I find in my hand.
It appears as if you believe that the cross was a means of atonement and salvation. I have argued this is not possible (see Cross Word Puzzles). I have also argued that the “shedding of blood” used by the author of Hebrews is not the full range on atoning rituals, but is used in this case for a specific reason. You may want to read this.
So I hear you say, Skip, that there is a difference between the sacrifices for relationship vs. the sacrifices for sin?
The sacrifice of the cross gives me the ability to appropriate the shedding of my sin (which separates me from heaven) so as to be able to draw near with the sacrifices of relationship (which unites me with heaven).
I cannot get rid of my sin (which prevents heaven from being able to directly relate with me), but repentance gives heaven the ability (by means of the cross) to get rid of it for me. What I CAN do is to sacrifice my own agenda for His will. This is the sacrifice I find in my hand.
Are you saying that we have no means to draw close to heaven today? That the cross is out of the equation as a PART (the part that removes our separation) of that means? Is this the start of an argument that without temple ritual we have no access? What exactly are you saying? That the death and the shed blood were accidental? That it was not enough for my access? If you would make positive statements in regards to these questions, then I could understand. Is the statement on the subject that Carl quoted out of Hebrews insufficient, and if so, then exactly in what way? Thank you.
read the book, Laurita. Then decide.
Skip, I guess the problem is not that I haven’t read Crossword Puzzles, but that I have, and in the spirit of that, I appreciate the TW you wrote today (Nov. 11: The Continuing Saga). In it, you seem to have restated some of the positions that you appeared to be taking in Crossword Puzzles. That answered some of my confusion. Now, to try to address the rest of the clarification:
Crossword Puzzles deals with a few of the purposes of the Incarnation (and we have been told so very few!), but the main one that I see is that blood (death) is about the consequences of sin, and not about the guilt. In other words, guilt is about our separation from God, but Yeshua took care of that before the foundations of the world. What He did come for, however, you point out, was to restore the Kingdom of God to the cosmos. Provision for forgiveness of sin was there from the get-go: the sacrifices and ritual just gave us a way (and not to be limited to just those ways, as I believe you have also pointed out) to access that forgiveness, but the cross was about power; specifically power over death, which is the CONSEQUENCES of sin.
However, because we were not privy to the deal that was cut in heaven, and performed there with that “Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world”, the cross became the visible manifestation, or, proof, that it (the forgiveness end, anyway, of the taking away of sins) occurred. I don’t think we are wrong to celebrate that death as our proof of that deal. In fact, I think that is a very, very Hebrew thing to do. Why? Because, in CP, you point out that “In Hebrew, actions are not past, present or future. They are complete or incomplete; that is, they are either finished or they are continuing,” (p. 162) This explains passages like 1Pet. 1:20. Also, on p. 94, you say “Once again we encounter a Hebraic concept that sees the RESULT of an act latent within the ORIGIN of the act…Just so, the incarnation is not a separate event from the determination to provide redemption. Its manifestation may appear temporally separate from its source, but it is one continuous act, from intention to final glorification (yet to come).” For instance, if Carl, say, wants to celebrate every day that the cross is where he can see his forgiveness, I say, why let him! It’s a Hebrew thing to do! The Lamb is still taking away my sin! Halleluah! But I digress.
You say, on p. 169 “dying is not about forgiveness of sin, dying is about holiness.” The question I have is about the role of the temple in heaven, and its continuing role. Somewhere in here, we are missing a vital link in regards to the function of our now-High-Priest. Something is also missing in regards to the cleansing of the Holy Place from our sins (blood does not cover sin; it washes it away). When the veil ripped, it signified that we now had direct access to the Holy of Holies; something definitely changed! The Tabernacle is now no longer polluted. You said “The Levitical sacrifices are intended to remove this defilement so we can enjoy His presence. The blood washes away the defilement we bring into the Temple.” (p. 160) Holiness is what makes it possible to have access, but now holiness is available. We don’t need to be backing up here!
Sacrifice is how we obtain holiness, but sacrifice is even now being sufficiently provided – isn’t it? I can come boldly into His presence now, because Somebody cleared my way. Does this mean that I do not have a part to play in that holiness? Of course I still do! But, then, there is plenty of instruction for that, too. ‘Nuther subject.
For the record, I love the whole book, and I think it does a very good job of clearing things up. However, it seems you have shifted your position on a couple areas, which we all reserve the right to do. In that context, I wanted to give you the opportunity to restate where you are at. On p. 68, you said “Perhaps this (two temples) helps us understand why the shedding of blood of ONE man can have universal effect. On earth, one man may die for another. But how can one man die for all? No earthly mathematics can explain such an extension of grace. But in heaven things are different. The sacrifice of one is sufficient for the forgiveness of many, especially so when the One is God Himself.” End of confusion. Thank you.
Hello laurita
I thought for a moment that you must have misread, misquoted or misunderstood so, I went back and looked.
I didn’t catch that or remember it either but… there it is on page 68. That’s interesting.
And of course I completely agree with that statement. There’s no other way except for YHVH Himself to pay that great of a price. And no way around it, no matter how we want to view it, it had to be done here, in the physical sense. And how does He do that? Using one of Paul’s favorite terms…. “in Yeshua Messiah”. I also agree that there isn’t any earthly logical way to explain it.
I just responded to Laurita – and to you in the same comment.
From Shadow to Substance
~ The Law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can NEVER, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship ~ (Hebrews 10:1)
Now the first covenant also had regulations for ministry and an earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was set up, and in the first room, which is called the holy place, were the lampstand, the table, and the presentation loaves. Behind the second curtain, the tabernacle was called the most holy place. It contained the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, covered with gold on all sides, in which there was a gold jar containing the manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. The •cherubim of glory were above it overshadowing the mercy seat. It is not possible to speak about these things in detail right now.
With these things set up this way, the priests enter the first room repeatedly, performing their ministry. But the high priest alone enters the second room, and he does that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Ruach HaKodesh was making it clear that the way into the most holy place had not yet been disclosed while the first tabernacle was still standing. This is a symbol [or shadow] for the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper’s conscience.h They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of restoration.
~ But the •Messiah has appeared, High Priest [a Priest after the order of Melchisedek] of the good things that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation) He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves,
BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD, having obtained eternal redemption.
For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow, sprinkling those who are defiled, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, HOW MUCH MORE will the blood of the Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God?
~ Therefore, He is the Mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promiser of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Where a will exists, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will is valid only when people die, since it is never in force while the one who made it is living. That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood. For when every command had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded for you.
In the same way, he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the articles of worship with blood. According to the Law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves to be purified with better sacrifices than For the Messiah did not enter a sanctuary made with hands (only a model or shadow of the true one) but into Heaven itself, so that He might now appear in the presence of God for us.ac He did not do this to offer Himself many times, as the high priest enters the sanctuary yearly with the blood of another. Otherwise, He would have had to suffer many times since the foundation of the world.
But now He has appeared one time, at the end of the ages, for the removal of sin BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF.
And just as it is appointed for people to die once — and after this, judgmental — so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.
Skip, I was going to send a post yesterday but backed down. It was on the whole law vs. grace argument. I’ve had pastors use this stance. And if you bring up Torah or any of the OT commands, immediately you will get a response, “That was the law, we live by grace.” And, then, you’re labeled a legalist. Ironically, as I’m sure you know, there are the denominations who use legalism to keep people controlled.
I would like to know, how as followers/leaders, are we to handle this? As a pastor in the inner city who deals with a multitude of issues and behaviors, God will not let me “control” my people. Our mission is based around Isaiah 58, to free the oppressed. Much of our work is about building shalom and helping people get free from all kinds of trauma. Many of our people don’t care about or understand theology. They’re in survival mode. I often feel like Moses in the wilderness. Where do you start with all this?
One of our worship days is Saturday. I didn’t plan this, its how God led me. How many people do you think have commented, “so where do you go and worship?” As if, only Sunday between 10 and 12 is official!
Maybe you should write a new book, Law vs. Grace Who’s Correct?
Dana, you sound like you are involved in much-needed work. And you of all people know that someone in distress wants just one thing–security. Stability. After people feel safe, then they can start wanting other things, too.
Paul said in Romans 7:12 that the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good. Poor translating makes Paul’s writings seem like he’s not too keen on law, and big on grace. Try referring to David Stern’s “Jewish New Testament Commentary. He can help you see what Paul was really talking about when we read seemingly conflicting statements about law and grace.
Law and commandment give us the security we need to know which way to go. Grace is what energizes us to start walking. Probably another one of my oversimplifications, but it makes sense to me.
Dana, Todd D. Bennett wrote a book on this subject: The Law and Grace. I found it very helpful. You can buy it at http://www.shemayisrael.net/shema-yisrael-books-todd-bennett.html
It seems like I have spent many years leaving my own personal unholy scapegoat sacrifice to enter a deeply personal holy sacrifice my life surrendered unto YHVH ….
it’s a fine line looking for love ….
I really like this posting from a couple of years ago! https://skipmoen.com/2013/02/04/the-thin-red-line-2/
That is soooo good Truett. Glad you brought that one back up.
I have one thing to add. Romans 5:14 says the death reigned from Adam to Moses….notice….not Adam to Yeshua but from Adam to Moses. It seems to be saying to me, after studying various translations and the original that, well, death reigned from Adam to Moses (or Torah). Did you get that? What did YHWH say in Deuteronomy 30:11-20? If you obey my commands, you will live and if you disobey you will die. Live? How long? YHWH doesnt give an expiration date. Just “if you obey you will live”. It seems that YHWH was dealing with death issue here in Deuteronomy as Paul says in the Romans 5 passage. Problem was Israel didn’t obey.
But the rest of Romans tells us that one did obey and was sinless. Obeyed what? Torah, the will of the Father. And guess what, he lived. Now, by his faith, I can live also. He showed us how to overcome death; Taught us how to overcome death. And by overcoming and conquering death and taking the power of death, fulfilling Deuteronomy, and becoming the first-fruits, we also can live also! Its not magical: “He did it so I don’t have to.” It’s “He did it so I could do it too.”
What does sacrifice (in this case for sin) mean today? It sounds as if it is equated to a close, personal relationship with God and obedience. Is that what you meant? Didn’t the priest have that too, and sacrifice was something added? There was repentance and sacrifice. What did you have in mind when you wrote this TW? Is it a heart attitude, followed by obedience to whatever God says? “It is time we learned to enter into that relationship by drawing near to the lover of our souls in the way He asks.” NT talks about repentance/faith/trust/obedience/confidence – is that it? Is our sacrifice to deal with and accept the consequences of our obedience in this anti Torah world? To me, the practical outworking of these discussions are crucial.
Skip, I guess the problem is not that I haven’t read Crossword Puzzles, but that I have, and in the spirit of that, I appreciate the TW you wrote today (Nov. 11: The Continuing Saga). In it, you seem to have restated some of the positions that you appeared to be taking in Crossword Puzzles. That answered some of my confusion. Now, to try to address the rest of the clarification:
Crossword Puzzles deals with a few of the purposes of the Incarnation (and we have been told so very few!), but the main one that I see is that blood (death) is about the consequences of sin, and not about the guilt. In other words, guilt is about our separation from God, but Yeshua took care of that before the foundations of the world. What He did come for, however, you point out, was to restore the Kingdom of God to the cosmos. Provision for forgiveness of sin was there from the get-go: the sacrifices and ritual just gave us a way (and not to be limited to just those ways, as I believe you have also pointed out) to access that forgiveness, but the cross was about power; specifically power over death, which is the CONSEQUENCES of sin.
However, because we were not privy to the deal that was cut in heaven, and performed there with that “Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world”, the cross became the visible manifestation, or, proof, that it (the forgiveness end, anyway, of the taking away of sins) occurred. I don’t think we are wrong to celebrate that death as our proof of that deal. In fact, I think that is a very, very Hebrew thing to do. Why? Because, in CP, you point out that “In Hebrew, actions are not past, present or future. They are complete or incomplete; that is, they are either finished or they are continuing,” (p. 162) This explains passages like 1Pet. 1:20. Also, on p. 94, you say “Once again we encounter a Hebraic concept that sees the RESULT of an act latent within the ORIGIN of the act…Just so, the incarnation is not a separate event from the determination to provide redemption. Its manifestation may appear temporally separate from its source, but it is one continuous act, from intention to final glorification (yet to come).” For instance, if Carl, say, wants to celebrate every day that the cross is where he can see his forgiveness, I say, why let him! It’s a Hebrew thing to do! The Lamb is still taking away my sin! Halleluah! But I digress.
You say, on p. 169 “dying is not about forgiveness of sin, dying is about holiness.” The question I have is about the role of the temple in heaven, and its continuing role. Somewhere in here, we are missing a vital link in regards to the function of our now-High-Priest. Something is also missing in regards to the cleansing of the Holy Place from our sins (blood does not cover sin; it washes it away). When the veil ripped, it signified that we now had direct access to the Holy of Holies; something definitely changed! The Tabernacle is now no longer polluted. You said “The Levitical sacrifices are intended to remove this defilement so we can enjoy His presence. The blood washes away the defilement we bring into the Temple.” (p. 160) Holiness is what makes it possible to have access, but now holiness is available. We don’t need to be backing up here!
Sacrifice is how we obtain holiness, but sacrifice is even now being sufficiently provided – isn’t it? I can come boldly into His presence now, because Somebody cleared my way. Does this mean that I do not have a part to play in that holiness? Of course I still do! But, then, there is plenty of instruction for that, too. ‘Nuther subject.
For the record, I love the whole book, and I think it does a very good job of clearing things up. However, it seems you have shifted your position on a couple areas, which we all reserve the right to do. In that context, I wanted to give you the opportunity to restate where you are at. On p. 68, you said “Perhaps this (two temples) helps us understand why the shedding of blood of ONE man can have universal effect. On earth, one man may die for another. But how can one man die for all? No earthly mathematics can explain such an extension of grace. But in heaven things are different. The sacrifice of one is sufficient for the forgiveness of many, especially so when the One is God Himself.” End of confusion. Thank you.
and not to step into any sacred cow movements here, but one thing that has recently been bugging me is how come YHVH, who is so adamantly AGAINST human sacrifice, on any level for any reason, allow HIS child, his one and only begotten human child, to be sacrificed.
I have, and have read your book as well, and it didn’t answer this question for me.
Didn’t even address it.
Not that anyone has asked, that i know of, but i do wonder.
and Laurita, thank you for your well stated questions.
Only one corrective comment here. The rest requires, I believe, EXTENDED conversation, not blog comments. But this one I can maybe clear up. I wrote Cross Word Puzzles BEFORE I started seriously considering the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and there are a few lines I would revise now. The one on page 68 is one of those. I think I mentioned this before. Live and learn. I would no longer write the sentence as it is written in CWP. But how to revise it? Ah, that’s the question.
This is also for you, Mark.
Agreed Skip. Most of this “requires” real, personal, up-close conversation.
So, much of this topic demands real relationship and knowing who someone is, as well as being able to observe how someone does or doesn’t walk out the things they say, rather then just reading impersonal words.
Not agreeing with someone or having an opposing view, shouldn’t diminish our relationship “in Yeshua Messiah”.
I’ve read much of what you’ve written since then. I don’t really remember you point blank saying you had changed your view on that. I probably missed it.
It probably begs the question to be asked then, is it fair to ask how you do see it now? I mean not in the sense of Yeshua being God maybe, but, defining how you do see Him now? How would re-write that sentence today?
I’m not trying to back you in a corner here. I have utmost love and respect for you as a friend and as a brother. I do think it’s probably important, in the larger scope of things, to know how someone we have relationship with, does see and think of Yeshua though. The questions like, is He Deity? Is He not? Is He just a man? Is He divine? Is that fair to ask?
I thought I had seen a post you made, just not that long ago, where you stated you absolutely did see Him as Deity. Maybe I’m just not clear on that word, in regard to how you’re using it. Or I’m just being normal, confused:) Clarification of words and terms seems to be relevant and important.
Perfectly written. Would to know more about your ministry please.
I have a few other readers in Canada. Where to you live? Maybe there is someone close by. As for what I do, just peruse the 6000 words studies and 100’s of audios and books on the web site. That’s it. Just trying to understand what the text says in its historical, linguistic and cultural context and expose paradigmatic thinking that isn’t in line with the Jewish authors.
” “It may be that the Church will survive if we fail to deal adequately with that question [the question of the church’s anti-Semitic perspective], but more serious is the question whether the Church should survive. A Christian Church with an antisemitic New Testament is abominable, but a Christian Church without a New Testament is inconceivable.”[4]”
Right, the question is- Should an antisemitic Christianity survive? NO!
It goes against the very Word spoken (devarim) by The Creator YHWH in His commands to guard His Dietary laws, Shabbats, Feast Days, and circumcision both physical and spiritual (heart) as Abraham.
WHEN we read the “NT” through Greek eyes/understanding, though most of “NT” have been ‘discovered’ as having Hebraic context and concepts (very crucial to our understanding) written by “Jews”.
Read Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg’s book “The Jewish Gospel of John”.
“Christianity might claim something else, but to do so means ignoring all the clues (and the direct statements) in order to justify a religion without ancient foundations.”
Christianity has a very shaking foundation if any.
Questions- What are the roots of Christianity? If not built upon the “OT”, then HOW has it deviated from its very Roots? WHY does it claim to be different from that taught by our Forefathers- Moshe, e.g.? HOW will we ever learn, if not from those who Recorded their invaluable testimonies, and experiences in their journeys with YHWH, starting from the very beginning? The end/answers is/are from the beginning, not half way in the Book.
Shalom.