Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
Why would a Messianic Christian have more understanding of the OT than an orthodox Christian? In fact, that particular world view would seem to cloud the truth rather than reveal it.
But the NT confidently asserts, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4) and “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11).
So, it makes sense, based on what we are told in the book of Hebrews, that there must be a sacramental sense in which the blood of the sacrifice atoned for sin.
I think we have to believe that the ancient people understood the sacrifices in this way. Not that the animal itself could do anything, but by faith in the One who is the Redeemer, that real, eternal salvation was made possible.
After all, if Jesus could say to the Jews in His day, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad," why should it be difficult to think that the people in Moses' day (and beyond) were able to look past the animal and the blood and actually see Jesus Christ in the sacrifices?
I don't think I said that they would. I'd just like to get Buggman's take on this issue.
Define "Orthodox"
And that would reflect our understanding of the Lord's Supper, too...
"the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified" which "points forward to the person and work of Jesus Christ" and "must be appropriated by faith in order to be effectual."
You and me. 8~)
As they say, one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.
“Animal sacrifice never accomplished atonement for sin.”
Animal sacrifice never accomplished the propitiation/expiation for sin. It did accomplish atonement, a covering for sin, by a ritualistic obedience, but it did not satisfy and placate God’s wrath towards sin.
“I recognize that I am a heretic”
Be careful with that. A self defining of heresy means you have measured yourself against someone’s list; their particular enumerated standards or creed. You might need an atonement of some sort.
But the NT confidently asserts, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4) and “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11). So, it makes sense, based on what we are told in the book of Hebrews, that there must be a sacramental sense in which the blood of the sacrifice atoned for sin.
OK that's good, and thanks for the passages from Calvin. I'm trying to nail down the actual mechanics of what's happening here. From your #99:
"The blood of animals atones for the sins of the people insofar as it points forward to the person and work of Jesus Christ. It must be appropriated by faith in order to be effectual. That is, faith in the God who is the Redeemer of Israel."
OK, then would you say that "insofar as ..." also means "in a literal sense not at all"? If it's appropriate, let's relate it to water baptism. Would we say that water baptism saves (atones for) us insofar as it points to Christ on the cross, and that we must have faith for it to be effectual? That doesn't sound right to me. :) I'm trying to understand precisely what "sacramental sense" means.
Do you mean sin in general or the instant sin? Assuming the latter, then what is the significance of the animal sacrifice covering/atonement? Are there two completely different uses of "atonement", yours here and that of Christ in particular? It looks like you're saying that there can be actual and full atonement vis-a-vis a given sin without propitiation. I don't understand what the point would be.
I think you are making an artificial distinction.
The word atonement was invented in the sixteenth century by William Tyndale who recognized that there was not a direct English translation of the biblical Hebraic concept. The word is composed of two parts "at" and "onement" in order to reflect the dual aspect of Christ's sacrifice: the remission of sin and reconciliation of man to God. Tyndale's concept overcome the limitations of the word "reconciliation" whilst incorporating aspects of propitiation and forgiveness.The Hebrew word sometimes translated as “atonement” in the OT, kaphar (or kippur) and applied to animals has the idea of both propitiation and expiation. In fact, the LXX translates kaphar with the Greekhilaskomai, or propitiation.In Christianity, Propitiation is a theology term denoting that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., that 'satisfaction' or 'appeasement' by which it becomes consistent with His character and government to pardon and bless sinners....
(See What does ‘atonement’ mean?)
“I think you are making an artificial distinction.”
Really, then what is the difference between animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of Jesus?
If the answer is yes, then you do Marcion proud and there's really no point in going any further.
If the answer is no, then you have to accept the fact that the blood of bulls, goats, and lambs really did provide atonement--that is, a covering over sin, as if someone spilled that blood over the page recording your sin.
What the book of Hebrews points out is that none of these sacrifices could bring someone to the goal of perfect, eternal standing before the Holy One. The daily sacrifices demonstrated their weakness in that they required the Yom Kippur sacrifice to atone for all of Israel. Since the Yom Kippur sacrifices were likewise repeated over and over again, this pointed to the need for a super-sacrifice that would not only atone for sin, but like the Azazel goat, actually remove it--and that sacrifice is the Messiah Yeshua (lit. in Hebrew, "Annointed Salvation").
Now when it comes to the Millennial sacrifices described in Ezekiel, why would we return to making them? Three points answer this question:
First, the Apostles, including Paul, continued in the Temple, corrupt as it was, which meant taking part in the sacrificial service. Indeed, Paul financed a total of fifteen animal sacrifices for four men plus himself to complete their Nazrite vows in Acts 21 (which I've discussed in detail here) and actually states in Acts 24:17 that it was for the purpose of not only delivering alms but making sacrifices that he had returned to Jerusalem. Clearly, the Apostles saw no conflict between belief in Messiah and making sacrifices.
The second is to point out the continued pattern: The Torah demonstrates that the daily sacrifices require the Yom Kippur sacrifice, and Hebrews points out that in the same way the Yom Kippur sacrifice requires the Messiah's. However, just as Israel did not cease to offer the daily sacrifices after the first Yom Kippur, there is no reason to suppose that the super-sacrifice of Messiah need bring the others to an end forever. Rather, Yeshua's sacrifice makes them full and effectual--without Him, the blood of the whole world would be to no avail.
And third, post-Crucifixion, the sacrifices continue to provide an illustration of the price of sin (the offerer literally slit the animal's throat himself so that its blood would be on his hands) and what Messiah did for us. In the same way, Passover serves us as a reminder of who the Holy One has twice redeemed us from slavery (once from Egypt, and once from the world) and as a way of passing on that knowledge to our children.
To Dr. Eckleburg:
Why would a Messianic Christian have more understanding of the OT than an orthodox Christian?
Maybe because we take the OT seriously, as opposed to those you consider "orthodox." To wit, from the article: "In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land." O rly? Even if that were true--and it is not except in the tail-eating theology of preterism, since the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation both assume Israel restored to the Land--so what? Again, are you a Marcionian or a Christian?
Shalom.
Thanks for your input. As usual you have given us all a lot to think about.
That was explained here, here, and here. The relationship is between the sign (animal sacrifice) and the thing signified (The blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ). The difference is that one was a mere shadow of the other. Shadow and substance. Col. 2:16,17.
We no longer worship with the shadows.
Orthodoxy has often been defined by the Church in terms of what it isn’t as well as what it is.
Esp. when we talk about things like the nature of the Godhead or the Person and work of Jesus Christ, we must expose the negatives in order to define the positives.
I would also say, for example, that based on a plain reading of Galatians that any gentile who tried place himself under the Jewish ceremonial law would not be “orthodox”. As Paul tells his readers, those who practice such things are turning “to the weak and beggarly elements.” It is clearly a return to law-keeping which cannot save (Gal. 4:21).
In the new covenant, Paul identifies those who would encourage practices like circumcision for gentiles as “putting confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).
The Church, as she as correctly understood the teachings of the apostles, has never encouraged or sanctioned such retrograde behavior. Sadly, though, many Christians today are mesmerized by the cult-like attraction of the messianic movement. While the notion of “Jewish roots” sounds attractive, in many cases it is just an excuse for adopting quasi-rabbinic traditions of a post-apostolic age. It is really a rejection of Christ’s legitimate authority which He placed in His apostles and their disciples. It’s just a new restorationist movement with a Jewish twist. We’ve seen the same in groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, both of which had a false view of the Godhead. Messianism has its own problems in this area.
It never could "save". That was the point.
But I see no problem whatsoever in a Christian observing Old Testament traditions provided that they are doing it out of a sense of calling or love or out of a purpose of obedience.
I had not realized until this thread that Paul continued to practice the Old Testament traditions while at the same time preaching that they were not necessary for salvation and that they were "required" of the gentiles.
The Jewish Law was never intended to bind Gentiles as the Gentiles were not chosen by God for that purpose. The ceremonial laws were instituted as a means for those who were given God's grace to show their love through obedience. David (who had his problems keeping the law and who was saved solely by grace) proclaimed how he loved the Law.
I see the same attitude in my Messianic brothers. They obey the law not because it provides them with an extra measure of Grace, but because they love God and it is a way for them to show obedience (if not to the LAW, but to the Law Giver).
I do separate myself from those who would proclaim that if you do not keep the Old Testament Laws, that you are somehow living in sin or being disobedient to the Gospel. Romans 14 makes it clear that we have freedom in Christ and that Christians are not to judge one another in manners of customs or food or holy days. I sense no condemnation from my good FRiend Buggman because of my penchant for Sunday worship and eating bacon, nor do I condemn him for his committment to Saturday worship and the eating of Matzo and Herring.
I don't know about you, but my shadow follows me right through the church doors.
Because I was not denying that animal sacrifices pictured propitiation/expiation/atonement, which seemed to be your claim, making, as it were, some distinction between atonement and propitiation/expiation wrt animals.
Animal sacrifice never accomplished atonement. That was, I believe, your position.
Do you believe that animal sacrifice was a picture of the perfect propitiation/expiation/atonement of Christ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.