Church of God International Affirms HWA’s Understanding of Atonement
In his booklet, Pagan Holidays – or God’s Holy Days, Herbert Armstrong insisted that one goat represented Christ and the other goat represented Satan in the ritualistic observance of the Day of Atonement recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. Even so, many of Armstrong’s critics have pointed out that the ninth and tenth chapters of the book of Hebrews make plain that the high priest was symbolic of Christ, and that the two goats represented different aspects of the high priest’s work to make atonement for the sins of the people (one providing the blood, and the other representing the removal of our sins – the very things that have separated us from God).
In Herbie’s theology, the assignment of the scapegoat as being representative of Satan was an essential component of a more complex theology elaborated in The Incredible Human Potential and Mystery of the Ages. The premise being that Satan ruined God’s original plan for the angels to inhabit this earth and complete God’s creation which in turn necessitated the creation of man (because angels were supposed to be immortal and indestructible). Moreover, Armstrong reasoned that, because Satan was the ultimate author of human sin, justice demanded that all of our sins be placed on the head of Satan. Thus, Satan would ultimately be sent away by the hand of another angel into the bottomless pit, and we would finally be reconciled to God.
Never mind that Scripture makes plain that it was God’s plan from the very beginning to create humankind, place the earth in their care and make them His children. The notion that Satan’s rebellion caused God to go to “plan B” is purely a figment of Herbie’s overactive imagination! Scripture also refutes the notion that any of the lifeforms which God has created (including angels) have immortal life (Paul tells us that immortality is a God quality). Finally, there are a great many scriptures which suggest that we are all personally responsible for our own sins, and that it is those sins which have alienated us from God.
Nevertheless, in his most recent sermon regarding the meaning of the symbolism surrounding the Day of Atonement, CGI Pastor Wynn Skelton continued to insist that HWA’s understanding of that symbolism was correct! After clearly linking the first goat to Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, he said:
“The other represents - now, don’t get mad at me <for> this – represents our enemy…it represents the devil…Now I’ve had debates about this and there have been papers in the Church of God International saying that both goats are for Christ…What we officially teach is this: one goat for Christ – one goat for Satan.”
He continues:
“I am not trying to create division or animosity, but I will point out for those who think that both goats are for Christ then…what would be the difference between the Day of Atonement and Passover?...How in the world are we going to have peace and harmony and at-one-ment if you don’t remove the enemy?” see Atonement by Wynn Skelton
Has Pastor Skelton forgotten what Paul wrote to the saints at Rome? Paul said: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” – Romans 5:10 Hence, it is clear that Paul thought that we were reconciled to God by Christ’s death, and I’m assuming that Satan was still around when Paul penned this! In other words, Satan’s removal wasn’t necessary for that reconciliation to happen. Likewise, Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth that God “hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” – II Corinthians 5:18 And, finally, Paul wrote to the Colossians that “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight…” – Colossians 1:20-22
For Paul, at least, the presence of Satan the devil represented no obstacle to our reconciliation with God! The fact is that Scripture clearly contradicts Herbert Armstrong’s teachings about the meaning of the Day of Atonement. According to Scripture, Jesus Christ is the vehicle for our salvation – something that Satan plays NO role in whatsoever! Moreover, Scripture makes plain that the ultimate fate of Satan will be just and force him to pay the penalty for his many sins. Ezekiel wrote about him: “Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” – Ezekiel 28:18-19 And this is certainly consistent with what we read in the book of Revelation: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone…” – Revelation 20:10 And, finally, the context makes plain that this lake of fire is representative of eternal death.
Hence, in officially perpetuating Herbert Armstrong’s errors with regard to the Day of Atonement, the Church of God International makes clear that they have not moved beyond the founder of the movement. In continuing to promulgate an understanding that is clearly flawed, CGI has rendered itself just another irrelevant splinter of a failed theology.
n Miller Jones/Lonnie Hendrix
I usually don't read pieces on doctrine since I am not a scolar.
ReplyDeleteIt seems this goes back to the age old questions from where "evil" originates.
Are we in a dualistic universe where the presence of "good", presupposes the inherent presence of "evil"? Is a "being" the originator of evil? Did God create "evil"?
Or is Star Wars right. The presence of "The Force" and "we" Jedi Knights can tap into or be drawn to the Force for bad OR good which seems to constitute a yin and yang balance force.
Is it Kathar Eastern Philosophy versus Western Christianity?
I only have questions, no public opinions.
nck
By the way.
ReplyDeleteI would understand if an Omnipotent Multidimensional Superbeing thinking to break the bore and have some fun after a couple of eons would NOT come up with "humans" as plan A!
I would suppose he would think of spiritual beings first to play with before resorting to us farters! But what do I know.
nck
Despite its claims, Tkach's GCI appears to be at at odds with orthodoxy in a number of areas. For instance it's observed that they still hold to a form of Adventist/Armstrongist annihilationism.
ReplyDeleteThey also appear to deceptive on the subject of Tkach's compensation: telling members "he's retired" while their website has him as 'President'. When asked point blank if he is taking a (huge) salary, they refuse to comment.
"(because angels were supposed to be immortal and indestructible)"
ReplyDeletea lot of people still believe that, and that Satan cannot be killed either...but he can, and will be....as will the rebellious angels.
for the vast majority of mankind Satan is the root cause of their sinfulness...which is part of the reason he will be locked away for 1000yr and the earthly kingdom will come to be, that physical kingdom that Israel simply couldn't.
me thinks Lonnie is just looking for something to complain about...there is no error in the CGI teaching about the goats.
Very good article. Well written, and well presented. There are several prophetic scriptures about the sins of the people being placed on Jesus, and Him taking away the sins. Those normally get ignored during Atonement sermons. There are no prophetic scriptures about the sins of the people being placed on the devil that I am aware of. It seems HWA's basis was the Azazel, (goat of departure), and the book of Enoch mentioning a demon named Azazel. Many of us believed this for decades, but a close examination does not measure up to that theory.
ReplyDelete"What we officially teach is this: one goat for Christ – one goat for Satan."
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent question is where did this "official" teaching come from and why should it be believed. It differs in several points from what the Jews taught about the Day of Atonement ritual. Someone (Hoeh? Armstrong?) presumptuously recast the ritual in a setting that involves New Testament concepts. But by what authority? Ecclesiastical descent from William Miller?
Christ changed the symbols of the Passover but he didn't alter anything about the meaning of the Day of Atonement. (The subtext is that he didn't expect anybody to continue keeping the Day of Atonement in a Christian context - so no need to update its symbols.) So the ancient Hebrew meaning has never been abrogated.
The ancient Hebrew meaning represents the Azazel as receiving a portion of the sacrifice made to God in the form of a goat chosen by lot and bearing by annunciation the sins of Israel. The Azazel was a deity that inhabited the wilderness. The name Azazel translates as "fierce god" (Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Second Edition, page 232). It is worthwhile to observe at this point that the ancient Hebrews were monolatrous. Though they believed in God, they did not deny the existence of other deities.
And this examination could go on. Miller Jones has given us a perceptive point of departure.
If a Millerite minister proclaims something to be "official" from the pulpit but says nothing further about how it was accredited, I believe this would be a call to any thinking person in the audience to examine the assertion and not to just let it slide. Like some Greek guy said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
353 Noted: "They also appear to deceptive on the subject of Tkach's compensation: telling members "he's retired" while their website has him as 'President'. When asked point blank if he is taking a (huge) salary, they refuse to comment."
ReplyDeleteJoe would have be getting a more than decent retirement paid for by the church. I am sure he paid no Social Security through the years as a "theologian". For the average pastor, "Jesus worked a great miracle in the church and we now have no money for retirments" (Ron Kelly, who probably also gets a nice check from the Church). Then, low and behold, another miracle where Jesus provided lots of money for the chosen ones and retirement. That crazy Trickster Jesus!
Perhaps I am wrong on this, but to understand the identity of the 2 goats, wouldn't we go back to the originator of the doctrine? From what I have seen, the Jews understood the treatment of both goats was all part of one sacrifice for sin. The Matthew Henry Commentary and JFB show that the two goats represent both sides of Christ's sacrifice for sin (mercy and judgement).
ReplyDeleteIt looked like idea of there being "two goats," one for Satan and one for Christ was an SDA revelation, brought by O. R. L. Crosier. This was in support of their eschatological views and the 2,300 day (failed) prophecy. After Crosier, Ellen G. White continued to teach these 2 goats after receiving a revelation from God that Crosier was correct.
HWA just picked this teaching up from the SDA's, (like so many other things).
https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-scapegoat-asp/
I think arguments can be made for HWA's line of teaching, but unfortunately the reason he teaches this is to support his view of the literal 1,000 year Millennium and Satan's role in it.
Sorry about the confusion, we're not talking about Grace Communion International (GCI) - we're talking about the Church of God International (CGI).
ReplyDeleteAs for the symbolism of the Day of Atonement, check out these scriptures:
“For there was a tabernacle made, the first…which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all…Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. BUT INTO THE SECOND WENT THE HIGH PRIEST ALONE ONCE EVERY YEAR (ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT), not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience…But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” –Hebrews 9:2-12
“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. IT WAS THEREFOR NECESSARY THAT THE PATTERNS OF THINGS IN THE HEAVENS SHOULD BE PURIFIED WITH THESE; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. FOR CHRIST IS NOT ENTERED INTO THE HOLY PLACES MADE WITH HANDS, WHICH ARE THE FIGURES OF THE TRUE; BUT INTO HEAVEN ITSELF, NOW TO APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD FOR US: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year WITH BLOOD OF OTHERS; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF.” –Hebrews 9:22-26
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" -John 1:29, NLT
"There are no prophetic scriptures about the sins of the people being placed on the Devil that I am aware of."
ReplyDeleteBut the principle is in the bible. God accused some evil kings of Israel of causing the people to sin. King Jeroboam who set up the two halves for the nation to worship, is one example.
Concerning Satan's culpability for our sins, there is an interesting story in the Gospel of John about Christ confronting the Jews of his day that might have some bearing on that question. They insisted that "'Our father is Abraham!' they declared. 'No,' Jesus replied, 'for if you were really the children of Abraham, you would follow his example. Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. No, you are imitating your real father.' They replied, 'We aren’t illegitimate children! God himself is our true Father.' Jesus told them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. Why can’t you understand what I am saying? It’s because you can’t even hear me! For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe me! Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin? And since I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God. But you don’t listen because you don’t belong to God.'" - John 8:39-47
ReplyDeleteMoreover, students of the Old Testament are familiar with this statement about culpability recorded in the book of Ezekiel: "‘What?’ you ask. ‘Doesn’t the child pay for the parent’s sins?’ No! For if the child does what is just and right and keeps my decrees, that child will surely live. The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness.'" - Ezekiel 18:19-20
Hence, if we are going to claim that Satan is the father of our sins (the devil made me do it), it seems inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture that our "father" is going to be held accountable for our sins!
Who has believed our message?
ReplyDeleteTo whom has the Lord revealed his powerful arm?
My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot,
like a root in dry ground.
There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance,
nothing to attract us to him.
He was despised and rejected—
a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.
We turned our backs on him and looked the other way.
He was despised, and we did not care.
Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
a punishment for his own sins!
But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the Lord laid on him
the sins of us all.
--Isaiah 53:1-6, NLT
Ah, righteous action, providing order and harmony through TRUTH.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like the decrees of Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians.
Light vs dark.
Nck
Miller Jones
ReplyDeleteIt's your 11.35 AM post that is inconsistent. Families profoundly effect their children. Children from single parent families don't do as well in school and get in trouble with the law more often. This is why God says that He visits the sins of the father's to the third and fourth generation. It's in this context that Christ calls Satan the moral father of the Pharisees.
Ezekiel 18:19-20 means that if a child robs, it's the child that's charged and not the father, and visa versa. It's affirming personal accountability.
But there are examples in the bible of children as well as the father being destroyed for serious sins. Eg, Amos 7:17. There's some complexity here.
Anonymous 10/6 @ 1:06,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was official Armstrongite teaching that the third and fourth generation stuff was talking about the consequences of sin - so that we wouldn't have any inconsistencies/contradictions in Scripture? If that's not right, looks like we have a conflict between Ezekiel 18 and Exodus 20!
So i see CGI has gone full circle and back tracked on Atonement goat belief.
ReplyDeleteHow strange to leave that HUGE doctrine change out Miller Jones/Lonnie. Perhaps because you have never been in CGI.
But i see the wifi is back on.
In the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, the Temple will have its yearly cleansing at the beginning of the sacred year (to maintain Jesus Christ’s dwelling presence in it):
ReplyDeleteEze 45:18b In the first month on the first day you are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary.
Eze 45:19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).
In the OC there were two hatta’t for national atonement on one day in the seventh month - Aaron’s and the congregations’ - which implies blood from both animals were applied on the one day. In the NC there are also two hatta’t but blood is applied over two days in the first month..
In comparing the OC and NC below the three Scriptures blocked together are the three places for the application of blood.
OC
Lev 16:18b and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat
Lev 16:15b He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.
Lev 16:16b put blood on four horns of incense altar and sprinkle blood before the veil 7 times...
Lev 16:18c and put it upon the horns of the [outer] altar round about.
Lev 16:20 ...making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar...
The Leviticus verses have been rearranged to parallel with the Ezekiel verses below. (1) Prior to the application of the combined blood of the bull and goat in 16:18b, the applications of the blood of the bull and goat were applied separately in the sanctuary (16:15b & 16:b); (2) 16:16b is in italics as it is implied from the context of 16:15 & 16a - "He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting" (16:16b).
NC
Eze 45:19a The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering
Eze 45:19b and put it on the doorposts of the temple
Eze 45:19c on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar
Eze 45:19d and on the gateposts of the inner court
Eze 45:20b ... so you are to make atonement for the temple
There can be no NC with out ‘atonement’ provided by animal blood.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
God’s holiness is incompatible with human beings. To have a ‘relationship’ with humans God grants a concession with animal blood as a substitution for human life.
Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
If the live goat is ‘for’ (preposition ‘l’) ‘Azazel = Satan’ (Lev 16:8), and Satan is restrained, any suggestions on how sin will be disposed of - removed from the Temple during the Millennium?
Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?
Lev 4:12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
During the year sin that is atoned for by the sin offering (hatta’t) is disposed of by either the priests eating the flesh of the purification offering (hatta’t) - mild cases; or by burning of the carcass in a clean place outside the camp - severe cases.
The Scapebird
ReplyDeleteLev 14:1-9, … if the leprosy is healed in the leper, then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, … one of the birds be killed … and shall let the living bird loose in the open field.
Lev 14:48-53, … then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. And he shall take, to cleanse the house, two birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. Then he shall kill one of the birds … Then he shall let the living bird loose outside the city in the open field, and make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.
NB: The person is already judged healed and the house clean when the rituals are performed. What's interesting is the similarity of the scapebird and the scapegoat - both are freed after killing the other bird/goat.
The goat for Azazel is a sin offering
Lev 16:5, And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering.
NB: There are 3 animals used as sin offering - bull (Lev 16:3) and 2 goats. Sin offering is for unintentional sins against any of the commandments of YHVH (Lev 4:2).
The goat for YHVH makes atonement for the Holy Place
Lev 16:15-19, Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, … So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; … There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. And he shall go out to the altar that is before YHVH, and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around.
NB: The Holy Place needs an atonement because of the sins of Israel. Some of them entered the Tabernacle/Temple in a state of ritual impurity. Some entered after having committed sins without knowing it - hidden from the eyes (Lev 4:13).
The goat for Azazel bears the sins of the people
Lev 16:20-22, And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, … The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land …
NB: The goat makes atonement (Lev 16:10) by carrying the sins of the people to Azazel, a place from where it cannot come back. 'As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us' (Ps 103:12).
Lev 16:31, It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever.
NB: There is no sacrifice/offering for intentional sins (Num 15:22-31). Only repentance is required. A valid fast involves repentance (Isa 58:5-7; Zech 7:4-7; 2 Chr 7:14).
Miller Jones
ReplyDeleteThere are conflicts between many scriptures if context is ignored. For instance, "let everyone carry their own burden" and "carry one another's burden."
It seems as if you do not understand the concept of context.
I believe many people today suffer from genetic defects because great grandfather sinned against nature by smoking or contracting syphillis. As a matter of fact most cancer is possibly a result of sin (societal greed by producing paints or chemicals or sugar etc)
ReplyDeleteI would not attribute many of societies or bodily ills to "personal sins", rather systemic or generational.
Of course there are personal sins too. Capital punishment not being a threat at all and largely ineffectual for stopping crime in comparison to other nations is another proof that some societies just "keep producing sin."
Not saying Switzerland or Bhutan don't have crime or sin. Just saying they are just in need of one chicken farm to attone for sin, while others need the entire state of texas to produce cattle for sacrifice.
Nck
More on the overwhelming scriptural evidence that each one of us is personally responsible for our sins:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Serpent was clearly punished for its part in what transpired in the garden, it is also important to note here that Satan's role in persuading Adam and Eve did not excuse them of personal responsibility for their sins. (Genesis 3)
When David sinned with Bathsheba, he understood that his sins could separate him from his God. He prayed: "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." (Psalm 51:11)
The prophets were also very familiar with this concept. Isaiah wrote: "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (Isaiah 59:1-2) When the Israelites persisted in their sins throughout the kingdom period, God's glory (presence) eventually departed from the Temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel 8-10) When the prophets looked to the future, they often spoke of a time when God would actually live among "His" people. (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:20, 37:23, 27; Zechariah 8:8) The clear implication being that God was currently separated from them.
In addition to this understanding, Old Testament theology clearly anticipated the need for a reconciliation between the sinner and his God. David wrote: "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." (Psalm 51:1-2) He continued: "Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." (Psalm 51:9-10) David clearly understood that the sins were the problem in his relationship with God, and that those sins had to be removed to effect a complete reconciliation with the Divine. Indeed, he praised God for removing our sins from us "as far as the east is from the west."
Finally, if our at-one-ment with God is truly dependent on placing our sins on the head of Satan and the removal of our enemy, why was it necessary for Christ to offer himself as a sacrifice for our sins? Doesn't such a notion render Christ's sacrifice superfluous?
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins...By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..." - Hebrews 10:1-20
ReplyDeleteNotice that our reconciliation is accomplished prior to the complete vanquishing of Christ's enemies. Notice also that it is CHRIST who clears the way for us to have access to the Father (Satan has NO role in that).
Yes.
ReplyDeleteBut my point was that "a person" cannot be responsible for great grandfathers sins, yet be a victim of "sin", either the collective sins of a nation (like pride ww1) or genetic defects because of ancestors alcoholism.
Nck
Having a crisis Miller Jones? Do you walk in the spirit, are you connected to Jesus Christ's vine or only type endlessly about it.
ReplyDeleteDo you neglect other important matters Miller Jones whilst you dwell on here.
Twas noted: "When David sinned with Bathsheba, he understood that his sins could separate him from his God. He prayed: "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." (Psalm 51:11)"
ReplyDeleteEver notice how David was "punished" with the child dying? So much for punishing the guilty. But no problem, they gets another one? Had Bathsheba been a commoner, she would have been stoned. Status has privilege. Even murder by David of Uriah was no biggie. Just another expendable Hittite in service to the King.
Good thing David was a man after God's own heart. OT God gets the same kind of passes for the same things.
Thank you, Miller, for your concise writeup . I was studying the same thing recently myself.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for Christ being both goats is striking when you consider it without bias.
It is particularly telling that Leviticus 16:5 speaks of BOTH goats being a sin offering--which makes them both without blemish and perfect--thereby disqualifying Satan as a possibility for one of them.
Dennis
ReplyDeleteHere you go again, you should know better. God told David that the sword would never depart from his house because he murdered Uriah. Later on his first born son Ammon was murdered by Absalom, who himself was killed in the battle to replace his father. If you read the account, the death of this son was a traumatic experience for David. The bloodbaths for the English thrown is another application of the sword following David's sin. I wouldn't say David got off light.
The meaning of the symbolism regarding the Day of Atonement is a minor point, but it does underscore that Herbert Armstrong's reasoning was flawed and often resulted in error. Unfortunately, there are a great many folks within Armstrongism (and also among those who have left) who are only reachable with scriptural "proofs." And you don't need to be a biblical scholar to contribute on spiritual topics - Lord knows Herbie wasn't!
ReplyDeleteThere's an old saying: "Give the devil his due." Herbert Armstrong was right about one thing: Traditional Christianity had largely forgotten about its roots - the fact that Jesus Christ sprang from the JEWISH tradition. Christian avoidance of the Old Testament is not smart and has robbed many folks of a deeper understanding of the religion which they profess to follow. We must not forget that the First Century Church had NO New Testament. The only Scriptures which they possessed were the ones that we refer to as the Old Testament. And, make no mistake, Christ and his apostles believed that it was possible to preach about him and his message out of those writings. In other words, they believed that all of that stuff pointed to him and his work. Even though most of the Pentateuch doesn't apply to Christians in the same way that it did to the ancient Israelites, there is much to learn about Christ and his work from the things that are outlined there!
And Dennis makes a good point about David's punishment. His point should give Fundamentalists and Literalists some pause and provoke at least some thought about their attitudes toward Scripture. Does everything in there reflect God's thinking or is it possible that some of the perspective of the human authors seeped into those pages? As for David being a man after God's own heart, we must all remember that scripture was talking about pre-king David - David in his innocence, before all of the horrible s..t he did! At least, he always retained the ability (and just enough humility) to repent!
1 Kings 15:1b-5, Abijam became king over Judah. ... And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; his heart was not loyal to YHVH his God, as was the heart of his father David. Nevertheless for David’s sake YHVH his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, by setting up his son after him and by establishing Jerusalem; because David did what was right in the eyes of YHVH, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
ReplyDeleteDeu 4:2, You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHVH your God which I command you.
Deu 12:32-13:5, Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for YHVH your God is testing you to know whether you love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after YHVH your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from YHVH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which YHVH your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.
Miller Jones writes:
ReplyDelete“Herbert Armstrong was right about one thing: Traditional Christianity had largely forgotten about its roots - the fact that Jesus Christ sprang from the JEWISH tradition. Christian avoidance of the Old Testament is not smart and has robbed many folks of a deeper understanding of the religion which they profess to follow. We must not forget that the First Century Church had NO New Testament.”
The question I would like to ask is to what extent is this true? I don’t know. Some thoughts:
A Christian bookstore will have an Academic section which would contain multiple commentaries on the Bible. Ths which would imply that there is some sort of demand for them. Most of these commentaries are written by people with PhDs in theology and who are proficient in Hebrew and Greek, with some using their own translations instead of a common translation such as NIV, NRSV. To write a good commentary on the NT one needs a good understanding of the OT, which would include knowing Hebrew and the LXX.
I would like to mention one PhD dissertation that was made into a well know Bible resource, at least in Academic circles. This book is entitled “Graded Holiness - A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World.” It was written by the recently retired Anglian Archbishop of Sydney. Those in his congregation would have benefited from his depth of understand of the OT, especially Leviticus, during his sermons and Bible Studies over the many years of ministry.
Bible expositors are usually employed by Bible Colleges and Seminaries, which implies students, whom presumably some will become ministers and presumably pass on what they have learnt and even developed to their own congregations.
So there is a depth of knowledge out there, also along with wrong conclusions (subjective comment). Which then comes back to the question, to what is extent is Miller Jones’ comment true?
While I am thankful that I was grounded in the Sabbath, Holy Days and non-Trinity, among a few other things during my time in the COGs, I no longer read COG literature as I have contributed to the maintenance of an Academic section of the local Christian bookshop, among other sellers.
Unfortunately, for me, the depth is just not there in the COGs; a hyperbolic comment taken out of context “once you have been to university you don’t go back to kindergarten” - I wish it wasn’t so.
I am still interested in how COG people - both anti and pro - are doing and that is why I visit this blog. Perhaps, something like how a migrant to another country still holds dear his or her connections to the home country.
I will end with a quote from a book that I am presently reading:
"The order of the central events of the book of Exodus is theologically important. First comes the redemptive work of God on behalf of the people. This serves to ground their precarious existence in the deliverance from both historical and cosmic enemies that God accomplishes on their behalf. The elect people is now a redeemed people. Only then is the law given at Sinai. The law is a gift to an already redeemed community. The law is not the means by which the relationship with God is established; God redeems quite apart from human obedience. But then the concern for the law suddenly fills the scene, not only in Exodus, but in the remainder of the Pentateuch. Central to the law is the issue of faithfulness to God alone, particularly in proper worship... Such faithfulness and other forms of obedience are certainly in Israel's interest for the best life possible (see Deut 4:40). But Israel is called beyond itself to a vocational covenant within the Abrahamic covenant... Israel's obedience is ultimately for the sake of being a kingdom of priests among the other peoples of the world (19:4-6)... Obedience remains central for the sake of witness and mission to the world. And God's tabernacling presence undergirds Israel on that journey" (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, IBCTP, p.22).
9:19
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
I do think however that the "depth" in christian circles is only about 50 years old. Firmly placed after VaticanII.
Christianity was rampant anti semitism for centuries, millenia actually.
I tribute HWA for being WAY before his time. (through the "faulty" or "unproven" BI lense of course).
The current pope sounds more than Armstrong over jewish roots of christianity than any before.
Nck
Nck
9.19 PM
ReplyDeleteYour last quote is typical churchianity intellectualizing that muddies the water and misses the mark. Christ explained that the purpose of the law and obedience is to "do good and save life." Or as secular writers express it today, to preserve human life and achieve success.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDennis
Here you go again, you should know better. God told David that the sword would never depart from his house because he murdered Uriah. Later on his first born son Ammon was murdered by Absalom, who himself was killed in the battle to replace his father. If you read the account, the death of this son was a traumatic experience for David. The bloodbaths for the English thrown is another application of the sword following David's sin. I wouldn't say David got off light.
October 7, 2020 at 1:01 PM
*******
Actually David lost 4 sons for his theft and murder paralleling the law of multiple restitution for theft (Ex 22:1).
Also, the British throne is not the Davidic throne. The two are not one and the same at all despite what Armstrongism/British-Israelism teach. And it’s a fallacy to use the historical “bloodbaths” of the non-Davidic throne of Britain as proof of God’s punishment on the Davidic throne throughout the Kingdom of Judah’s history since they are two separate and unrelated thrones. Besides you could use any monarchy in the world and its history of turmoil and bloodshed as if it’s proof of 2 Sam 12:10 and thus misidentify it as the throne of David as Armstrongism/BI have done with the British monarchy.
5.39 AM
ReplyDeleteYour point has been debated many times on this blog, but briefly, God repeated too many times that their would always be someone sitting on David's throne, and a bunch of British ribbon cutters being revered world wide for generations can only be a miracle from God.
Anonymous 10/8 @ 10:51,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but there is no debate about this one anymore! As Pence recently said, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your own set of facts. History demonstrates that the Irish, Scottish and English thrones have been inherited through the female line many many times (there is no continuous father to son inheritance advanced by anyone). And, even if you manage to explain away the gap between Zedekiah's fall and his daughter's supposed marriage to the Irish king, how does one account for the eleven years between the beheading of Charles I (1649) and the restoration of his son Charles II (1660)? For eleven years, Britain was a commonwealth/protectorate/republic. THERE WAS NO KING!!! Eleven years is a GAP no matter how you slice it. God's promise to David was about his descendant, Jesus Christ - he was to be the one that would ensure David's throne was never vacant!
Everlasting Covenants Can be Broken
ReplyDeleteGe 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Ge 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Human beings can break “everlasting” covenants when they don’t follow what God has commanded. In the Scriptures below “if” - is in upper case to highlight the principle.
1Ki 2:4 That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me [David], saying, IF THY CHILDREN take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel.
1Ki 9:3 And the LORD said unto him...
1Ki 9:4 And IF thou [Solomon] wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:
1Ki 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.
Ps 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
Ps 132:12 IF thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
There are “if” clauses to “everlasting” covenants; and who would known better than David and Solomon in regard to the throne?
According to the Davidic covenant, while “sovereignty would always remain in thy family” (Keil) this was not a guarantee that a descendant of David would always be sitting “on the throne of the Lord” (1 Ch 29:23).
Jer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah (c.561 BC), in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,
Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
That is, if no descendant of David was sitting on the throne there would always be someone from David’s line available to take possession of the throne at the time of God’s choosing.
God did promise that there would come a time, in the Messianic Kingdom, that there would always be someone sitting on the throne continually:
Jer 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely...
The context is the Millennium.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Jer 33:17 is often used when proof-texting that David will always have someone continually on the throne.
But if 33:17 is going to be cited as proof then it needs to be also be shown that the Levitical priests have also been doing “sacrifice continually”. It appears from the time of the Maccabees the sons of Zadok have not done so.
When reading the Bible the principle of gap-filling, for want of a better term, needs to be kept in mind. Because something is not mentioned in one place, according to the author’s theological emphasis, it doesn’t mean that what is not mentioned is not applicable.
While the Second Temple was God’s house, Jesus Christ did not have a dwelling presence in it as He did in the First Temple.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
The throne of David will be reestablished when there is a King in the Most Holy Place - the two go together.
An uncircumcised male child is considered to have broken God's covenant (Gen 17:14). What if the child later on in his life decides to be circumcised? Is he forever in a state of having broken God's covenant? Does this mean God will break His covenant?
ReplyDeleteDid God break His covenant with the children of Israel?
Lev 26:14-17, If they disobey God, … .
Lev 26:18-20, If they continue sinning, God will punish them 7 times more.
Lev 26:21-22, If still … 7 times more plagues.
Lev 26:23-26, If still … 7 times.
Lev 26:27-39, If still … 7 times more.
Lev 26:40-43, But if they confess … God will remember His covenant with Jacob …
Lev 26:44-45, Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am YHVH their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am YHVH.’ ”
JEREMIAH 33:
ReplyDeletev14, 'Behold, the days are coming,’ says YHVH, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah:
v15, ‘In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a branch of righteousness;
he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
v16, In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely.
And this is the name by which she will be called: YHVH TSIDKENU [OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS].’
NB: The time frame for vv14-16 is in the future messianic age. The 'days' mentioned in v14, v15 and v16 are referring to the same period. There is still no peace in Israel. The branch or Mashiach will be known when he brings about peace in Judah and Jerusalem. While Bar Kokhba and Shabbatai Tzvi were alive they were thought to be the Mashiach. But when they died without fulfilling messianic prophecies such as bringing peace to Jerusalem, the Jews realized they were not the long awaited Mashiach.
v17, “For thus says YHVH: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;
v18, nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.’ ”
NB: Although the fulfillment of vv17-18 is in the messianic age, would there be a generation prior that David did not have a son that can be king? I'm not talking about an existing throne. The tribal affiliation and royal succession is patrilineal (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17-18). Jehosheba's story in 2 Kings 11 tells us that a princess is not considered royal seed, neither her son. There is no Tanakh basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
vv19-22, And the word of YHVH came to Jeremiah, saying, “Thus says YHVH: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’ ”
vv23-24, Moreover the word of YHVH came to Jeremiah, saying, “Have you not considered what these people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which YHVH has chosen, He has also cast them off’? Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them."
NB: Who are those who despised God's people? Who are those that say God had disregarded the house of Israel and Judah? Read the misquotation of Heb 8:9b - "because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them". Read the correct one in Jer 31:32b - "My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says YHVH". Read Jer 31:35-36 and see for yourself how impossible it is for God to disregard the children of Israel. Compare this with the next verses below, Jer 33:25-26.
vv25-26, “Thus says YHVH: ‘If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them.’ ”
2.43 PM
ReplyDeleteThe IF clause would make God's promise to David fickle. So why bother repeating many times that there would always be a king on David's throne. I believe the IF means the practical rather than the absolute application of this promise, ie, gaps are permitted.
Miller jones, you ignore the obvious that there is no other thrown on this planet like the English throne. Why do I hear Englishmen speak of the members of the royal family as if they are gods? Do you think it's brainwashing? Revering these members is definitely NOT part of the formal education in countries outside of England, yet they revere them. Please explain this. The truth should be able to pass any basic reality test.
First, the British royal family is NOT held in high regard by everyone (not within Britain, and not around the world). For those who do revere the British monarchy, I can think of a number of reasons for that which have NOTHING to do with Anglo-Israelism. There is a certain romance and nostalgia attached to royalty that appeals to many folks. And there aren't many folks extant in the world who can reliably trace their ancestry back over a thousand years and include many of the notable figures of history. There is also much to admire in the charitable and humanitarian projects which the British royal family have traditionally engaged in supporting. Finally, many folks respect the constitutional and apolitical role that the British monarch plays in one of the most successful democratic governments of the Western world.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if God's promise to David wasn't about Jesus Christ, why did Amos prophesy: "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is FALLEN, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his RUINS, and I will build it as in the days of old." And why was that prophecy referenced in the New Testament book of Acts. Why did Isaiah prophesy that a shoot would emerge from the stump of Jesse's tree? And why did the angel tell Mary that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David?" Finally, because there will be NO END to the increase of his peace and government, David will NEVER want for a man to sit on his throne ever again! The truth is rooted in reality, not in the twisted reasoning of a poorly educated and failed businessman from Eugene, Oregon!
10:51 AM/6:03 PM
ReplyDeleteJust because in your mind “a bunch of British ribbon cutters being revered world wide for generations can only be a miracle from God” doesn’t make it so! And just because you hear “Englishmen speak of the members of the royal family as if they are gods” must mean they are divine or make their throne of divine origin doesn’t actually make it so. The Egyptian pharaohs, for instance, thought they were gods and their people believed they were, but they most definitely weren’t! Furthermore neither does such idolatry make it the throne of David or the British royal family of Davidic or Judaic descent! It’s pure delusion since the Pope is equally revered and in fact even more so globally—even by those very same members of the British royal family!—and for centuries more than the British monarchy. Does this mean the Papal dynasty traditionally of St Peter, is of God and has God’s seal of approval on earth?! I think not!
5:32 PM
You assert that Hebrews 8:9b is a “misquotation” of Jeremiah 31:32. However, Paul, like most NT writers, actually quoted from the Greek Septuagint; and in fact the LXX was the universal version for Christians until the 5th century CE at least. It’s even possible that the LXX was based on original autographs more ancient and more accurate than the later Masoretic text of the 10th century CE. For instance, the ages of the patriarchs post-Flood in the LXX are actually correct while the ages given in the MT for the same is incorrect.
4.58 AM
ReplyDeleteHas it occurred to you that you believing something doesn't "make it so" either.
Anon Oct 9 @4:58AM,
ReplyDeleteBrenton Septuagint Translation (BST):
Jer 31:32b (BST), for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.
Jer 31:35 (BST), Thus saith the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, the moon and the stars for a light by night, and makes a roaring in the sea, so that the waves thereof roar; the Lord Almighty is his name:
Jer 31:36 (BST), if these ordinances cease from before me, saith the Lord, then shall the family of Israel cease to be a nation before me forever.
Jer 31:37 (BST), Though the sky should be raised to a greater height, saith the Lord, and though the ground of the earth should be sunk lower beneath, yet I will not cast off the family of Israel, saith the Lord, for all that they have done.
NB: Notice how the BST's v32b contradicts v37. Just 5 verses later and there's already a contradiction. It even contradicts Lev 26:44:
Lev 26:44 (BST), Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject or despise them so as to destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.
Who translated the LXX's Jeremiah? The 70/72 rabbis/jewish scholars?
The original Septuagint was a translation only of the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. We no longer have the original (Library of Alexandria fire?). Check the Letter of Aristeas, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews XII chapter 2, and Jerome's Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions. The manuscripts that consist of Septuagint today date to the 3rd CE/AD. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian. In his preface to the Book of Chronicles, Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.
11:17 AM
ReplyDeleteCertainly! And that’s why I no longer believe everything that HWA believed and taught to be doctrinal truth like the unscriptural fantasy, complete fabrication and outright lie that is the BI/Armstrongist theory that the British throne and family are Davidic. If you and others believe this fable it’s your choice. I’ve done my homework and proven definitively and beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s pure fiction so all I can do is share the facts with those who are “sincere, but sincerely deceived” in relation to this 19th century invention. What they do in response is up to them.
ReplyDeleteMiller said, David will NEVER want for a man to sit on his throne ever again!
May I know where did you get this. Is it from Tanakh/OT? Is it Jer 33:17?
Jer 33:17, “For thus says YHVH: ‘David shall never lack (Heb yikkaret) a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;"
The word lack is from the Hebrew karath (Strong's H3772) which means cut off or cut down. You have added the preposition for! The way you worded it is as if David will never want/desire a man/mortal to sit on his throne. Different from the meaning of the original text.
Amos 9:11, “On that day I will raise up the tabernacle (Heb sukkah) of David, which has fallen down, And repair (Heb gadar) its damages (Heb perets); I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;"
The word repair is from the Hebrew gadar meaning 'to wall up or off, to build a wall'.
The word damages is from the Hebrew perets meaning bursting forth or breach.
So literally, it’s to fence in the breaches, the image here is there’s a wall, and when the city is captured they use a battering ram and they knock down the wall and there’s a big hole in the wall where all the soldiers run through.
Is this referring to the Temple or the House of David? It is not clear from the text. Solomon, not David, was the one who built the Temple. But David put the Ark in a tent. So the image is the tent of David fallen down and replaced by the Temple, which later on fell?
Hos 3:4, For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
Many days - years, centuries, millennia; without king, temple, sacrifice, and priesthood.
Amos 9:11 may refer to either the rebuilding of the Temple or the reestablishment of the Kingdom of David. Either way, in the messianic age, the Mashiach will reign on the throne and the Temple will be rebuilt.
Isa 11:1 (ESV), There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
The 'the stump of Jesse' refers to the Davidic dynasty, from which will come the Mashiach (shoot). This refers to the Mashiach's ancestry at the time of his birth.
Would you like to elaborate why you think this verse speaks of Jesus. What was his tribe? How was he from the tribe of Judah if he didn't have a human father? Who was his ancestor - Solomon (Mt 1:6) or Nathan (Lk 3:31)? The Mashiach's line is through Solomon, not Nathan (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). Matthew's genealogy has Jeconiah, a cursed king (Jer 22:28-30). Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. But he was given a signet ring (Hag 2:23) and appointed governor over the Jewish people. Regarding Jer 52:31, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him. Again, there is no Tanakh basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
How credible are the accounts of Luke? Are his writings inerrant?
ReplyDeleteJewish history according to Stephen
Acts 7:15-16, So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers. And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.
According to Acts 7:55, Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit. Was he full of this when he recounted Jewish history?
Was Jacob buried in Shechem? No. Jacob was buried in Mamre, Hebron (Gen 50:12-13, 23:19). The cave was bought by Abraham from Ephron, not Hamor's sons! It was Joseph who was buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32) in a field purchased by Jacob from the children of Hamor (Gen 33:19).
Gen 50:12-13 (NKJ), So his sons did for him just as he had commanded them. For his sons carried him to the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, before Mamre, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite as property for a burial place.
Gen 50:12-13 (Brenton Septuagint Translation), And thus his sons did to him. So his sons carried him up into the land of Chanaan, and buried him in the double cave, which cave Abraam bought for possession of a burying place, of Ephrom the Chettite, before Mambre.
Did Jesus read from the Septuagint?
Only Luke is the one who narrated Jesus' reading of Isaiah 61. Both Mt 13:54-58 and Mk 6:1-6 do not have the quote. Check the following:
1. Lk 4:18 "and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed"
2. Isa 61:1 (NKJ) "and the opening of the prison to those who are bound"
3. Isa 61:1 (BST) "and recovery of sight to the blind"
It seems Luke used the 'recovery of sight to the blind' of the LXX and retained the 'to set at liberty those who are oppressed' thought of Tanakh's 'and the opening of the prison to those who are bound'.
Was Luke really in the room when Jesus read Isa 61? Did this really happen? Did Jesus read from the Septuagint? The 'to set at liberty those who are oppressed' is not in the LXX and yet present in Luke's account.
Here are the English translations of Isa 61:1. Only the New Heart English Bible and Brenton Septuagint have the recovery of sight to the blind.
Lk 4:17-19 And he was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Isa 61:1-2 (NKJ), “The spirit of Adonai YHVH is upon me, because YHVH has anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of YHVH, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn,"
Isa 61:1-2 (Brenton Septuagint Translation), The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;
How credible are the accounts of Moses? Are his writings inerrant? (If he wrote both Genesis and Numbers, he was there in the time of Numbers but not Genesis).
ReplyDeleteGe 46:21 And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.
Nu 26:38 The sons of Benjamin after their families: Bela... Ashbel... Ahiram
Nu 26:39 Shupham...Hupham
"The genealogy of Jacob in Gen 46:8ff. and those in Num 26:5ff. and 1 Chr 2-8 obviously have some differences" (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-20, NICOT, p.599).
Below is part of John Walton's review:
"V. Hamilton, compares the list here with that in Numbers 26:5-50 and finds some significant differences. In one category are those names that occur in one list but not in the other:
"Thus Gen 46:10 lists Ohad as the third of Simeon's six children. Num 26:12-14 gives only five children for Simeon and there is no Ohad. Gen 46:17 lists four sons of Asher, of whom the second is Ishvah. Num 26:44 lists three sons of Asher and omits Ishvah. There are also names in the Numbers' genealogy (Ahiram, Shepupham, the sons of Benjamin [vv.38, 39]) that appear no where in Gen 46.
"Additionally, Hamilton finds differences in the numbers given.
"Apart from the surprise that a still relatively young Benjamin has fathered ten children in so few years, we note that Num 26:38-39 attribute only five sons to Benjamin. Two individuals listed in Gen 46:21 as sons of Benjamin and brothers to Bela (Ard, Naaman) are listed in Num 26:40 as sons of Bela and grandsons of Jacob".
"Hamilton can only conclude that "all of this suggests that there is a bit of artificially in Gen 46:8-27, and that the genealogy need not be pressed for historical exactness." Perhaps he is right, but I would not say it quite that way. Instead, we must remember that we need not expect genealogies to operate in the Israelite culture the same way they operate in ours. If they have a different function in the culture, different methods can be used to construct them, and different criteria must be used to evaluated their accuracy.
"Consider, for instance, the discrepancy in the brothers/sons of Bela in Benjamin's line. Is it not possible that this represents a levirate marriage replacement similar to what is detailed for us in the line of Judah through Perez? That would certainly explain them being grandson of Benjamin in one list (their biological position) and sons in another list (their legal position). That is, that Bela served as levirate for brothers of his that died and that his sons in the that process, Ard and Naaman, were adopted by Benjamin into his brothers' places. With regard to names included or not included, we must understand that each list has exercised its right to be selective, and we should not be surprised if different criteria are used for selection" (Genesis, NIVAC, p.685).
Because there are discrepancies in the OT an atheist may dismiss the OT as being suspect and not the ‘inspired' word of God. But is that a legitimate conclusion. If the OT had been written by modern western people using modern western literary concepts and logic there is a good change it is a legitimate conclusion.
But because we are thousands of years and miles removed, a question that may need to be keep in mind when reading the Bible is, are we reading it in light of the original culture or in light of contemporary culture?
There is the culture of the original writers of the OT and the culture of the late Second Temple era to contend with. In regard to the latter were the NT writers influenced by the then accept exegetical method of the day, such as Midrashic and Perser Interpretation? In this regard Moises Silva’s comment is appro:
“Well, then. If God wished to reveal something of the significance of the Old Testament through His inspired apostles, would He do so through “scientific” methods that were to take twenty centuries to develop and would therefore have been totally incomprehensible to first-century readers? Might He not rather use those very associations and interpretative clues that would awaken the intended human response? Just as the use of imperfect human languages like Hebrew and Greek can prove an adequate channel for conveying divine truth unmixed with error, so does prescientific apostolic exegesis serve to communicate, infallibly, the teaching of the Old Testament...” (Moises Silva, “The New Testament Use, p.164, quoted by Jonathan Lunde in the Introduction to “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” p.34).
ReplyDeleteJust as there is a solution to the apparent discrepancies in the OT genealogies, I suggest that is an explanation to Stephen’s apparent discrepancy, from a modern western perspective, in his account of the burial of Jacob. Did Stephen ‘telescope’ two separate land purchases as suggested by F.F. Bruce?
Apologies: This post should have preceded 10:43, it was earlier rejected as there were too many characters and I didn't realize it.
ReplyDeleteHow credible are the accounts of Moses? Are his writings inerrant? (If he wrote both Genesis and Numbers, he was there in the time of Numbers but not Genesis).
Ge 46:21 And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.
Nu 26:38 The sons of Benjamin after their families: Bela... Ashbel... Ahiram
Nu 26:39 Shupham...Hupham
"The genealogy of Jacob in Gen 46:8ff. and those in Num 26:5ff. and 1 Chr 2-8 obviously have some differences" (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-20, NICOT, p.599).
Below is part of John Walton's review:
"V. Hamilton, compares the list here with that in Numbers 26:5-50 and finds some significant differences. In one category are those names that occur in one list but not in the other:
"Thus Gen 46:10 lists Ohad as the third of Simeon's six children. Num 26:12-14 gives only five children for Simeon and there is no Ohad. Gen 46:17 lists four sons of Asher, of whom the second is Ishvah. Num 26:44 lists three sons of Asher and omits Ishvah. There are also names in the Numbers' genealogy (Ahiram, Shepupham, the sons of Benjamin [vv.38, 39]) that appear no where in Gen 46.
"Additionally, Hamilton finds differences in the numbers given.
"Apart from the surprise that a still relatively young Benjamin has fathered ten children in so few years, we note that Num 26:38-39 attribute only five sons to Benjamin. Two individuals listed in Gen 46:21 as sons of Benjamin and brothers to Bela (Ard, Naaman) are listed in Num 26:40 as sons of Bela and grandsons of Jacob".
"Hamilton can only conclude that "all of this suggests that there is a bit of artificially in Gen 46:8-27, and that the genealogy need not be pressed for historical exactness." Perhaps he is right, but I would not say it quite that way. Instead, we must remember that we need not expect genealogies to operate in the Israelite culture the same way they operate in ours. If they have a different function in the culture, different methods can be used to construct them, and different criteria must be used to evaluated their accuracy.
"Consider, for instance, the discrepancy in the brothers/sons of Bela in Benjamin's line. Is it not possible that this represents a levirate marriage replacement similar to what is detailed for us in the line of Judah through Perez? That would certainly explain them being grandson of Benjamin in one list (their biological position) and sons in another list (their legal position). That is, that Bela served as levirate for brothers of his that died and that his sons in the that process, Ard and Naaman, were adopted by Benjamin into his brothers' places. With regard to names included or not included, we must understand that each list has exercised its right to be selective, and we should not be surprised if different criteria are used for selection" (Genesis, NIVAC, p.685).
Because there are discrepancies in the OT an atheist may dismiss the OT as being suspect and not the ‘inspired' word of God. But is that a legitimate conclusion. If the OT had been written by modern western people using modern western literary concepts and logic there is a good change it is a legitimate conclusion.
But because we are thousands of years and miles removed, a question that may need to be keep in mind when reading the Bible is, are we reading it in light of the original culture or in light of contemporary culture?
There is the culture of the original writers of the OT and the culture of the late Second Temple era to contend with. In regard to the latter were the NT writers influenced by the then accept exegetical method of the day, such as Midrashic and Perser Interpretation? In this regard Moises Silva’s comment is appro:
It was posted:
ReplyDelete“NB: Notice how the BST's v32b contradicts v37. Just 5 verses later and there's already a contradiction. It even contradicts Lev 26:44".
There is no contradiction, more is being read into verse 32 than is intended.
Jer 38:33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord... (This prophecy is in chapter 38 not 31 in the LXX).
Perhaps quoting v.33 may have been helpful. The implication of verse 33 is that what is being read into v.32 is wrong. There has to be a people to make a covenant with.
Jer 11:14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
La 2:5 The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strong holds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.
“But they, the human enemies, are not even mentioned until verse 16. The real enemy whose slaughter had reduced Jerusalem to rubble was the Lord God himself. The first eight verse pound our ears with a relentless salvo of twenty-eight verbs portraying destruction on a blockbuster scale, and every one has God as the subject. ‘He” is repeated in almost every line. And after the crushing bombardment, nothing is left but deadly silence in the dust (10)” (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Message of Lamentations, BST, p.77).
"God has not just withdrawn, or turned against them, he has now actively become the enemy of Israel... The whole idea of YHWH the God of Israel becoming the enemy of Israel seems surprising and outrageous. But it was exactly what has been described in the threats that was explicit in the covenant relationship. The historical event that Lamentations portrays in graphic horror (Jerusalem being attacked and ravaged by enemies as the action of God in judgment) was the final outworking of the covenant curses that had stood as warnings in the law and prophets for centuries" (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Message of Lamentations, BST, p.83).
When the next generation came back it appears they renewed the old ‘covenant;’ and accordingly so they did not rebuild the Temple according to God’s design revealed to Ezekiel.
Ne 9:8 And foundest his heart faithful [’aman] before thee, and madest [karat] a covenant with him [Abraham]
Ne 9:38 And because of all this we make [karat] a ’amanah, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.
Ne 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
Ne 10:39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.
As someone said we know more, at least from Scripture, about the Temple that was not built and the ones that were built.
The generation prior to the captivity broke the covenant, as did most of the preceeding ones, but God’s patience had worn thin by then and they were the generation that paid the ultimate covenantal price (Lev 26:27-33).
Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.
The time eventually came for a following generation to renew the covenant and experience the blessings and curses of the covenant according to how they obeyed the commands of the Lord.
The points about what has gone on in academic/intellectual/scholarly circles is well taken. Unfortunately, most of this has little impact on the average Christian (If it did, we wouldn't have so many folks claiming to be Fundamentalists and Literalists). That there has been a great deal of thought and commentary about the Hebrew origins of Christianity is unquestionably true, but how much of that understanding/knowledge/discussion has filtered down to the laity? I wonder how the average Episcopalian/Lutheran/Baptist/Methodist would fair on even a very basic test about the content of the Pentateuch?
ReplyDeleteDennis has advanced the argument that you can't read something into a text that the original author never intended. I wonder what Melville would think about some of the commentary that has been generated about Moby Dick? Likewise, it is interesting to observe how different folks interpret various works of art and musical lyrics. Do artists and song writers usually discourage individual interpretation and appreciation of their works?
We know that the human authors of the New Testament interpreted the writings contained in the Old. Are those interpretations always consistent with the original author's intent? Should they be? Is there any role for the Holy Spirit to play in this discussion? Is this purely an academic/intellectual exercise?
And, as I have noted in past discussions of this topic, should any of the languages of humankind be considered perfect purveyors of one entity's thoughts to another? Aren't there inherent difficulties/flaws/imperfections in the way that we communicate with each other? Do Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English overcome these difficulties? Which version/translation/interpretation is the best? And isn't answering that question intrinsically subjective? Is the Septuagint superior to the Masoretic text or vice versa? Do different perspectives add to our understanding, even if they are flawed?
Finally, does logic and common sense play any role in this discussion? If the evidence confirms that every word is NOT the word of God, does it follow that all of it isn't? If Christians are NOT bound to observe the tenets of the Old Covenant, does it automatically follow that those elements have no value for them? If we admit that the Jewish perspective has value, must we regard it as determinative (even where it is demonstrable that their current practices and understandings diverge from their Scriptures)?
Yes, this is much more complex than any single offering by any one of us, but does that preclude us from making them? Christians see Jesus Christ in many passages of the Old Testament, and most Jews do not. Likewise, many scholars of the Old Testament find fault with the way that Jesus, John, Peter, Stephen and Paul interpret those writings. And, while Christians would do well to consider the objections of both groups, it does not follow that they are obligated to accept and adopt them over their own perspective. And, while I don't believe science and intellect should be regarded as rivals of Christianity, I also believe that things spiritual are not limited by them.
4:55
ReplyDeleteOne time "long haired brats making terrible noise masquarading as music", turn into "icons of their time, as vanguards of and or changing an entire culture as mozarts of popular music".
Crazy insects.
Nck
Anon Oct 9 @11:56pm,
ReplyDeleteWho are the people participating in the New Covenant of Heb 8:7-13? Are they the physical descendants of Israel such as the Jews who uphold the sanctity of the Torah and believe only in one God being YHVH? Are the eunuchs and children of foreigners mentioned in Isa 56:1-8 who join themselves to YHVH and keep the Sabbath included in this NC of Heb 8? These are the people whom YHVH will give a place in His House, and whose burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted in His altar (Isa 56:5, 7). Because they will enter YHVH's Temple, they are circumcised in heart AND flesh (Eze 44:9).
"You are not My people"
YHVH asked Hosea to take a prostitute wife, picturing the House of Israel's unfaithfulness to God (Hos 1:2). The names of their children were prophecies of doom for the 10 tribes of Israel:
Hos 1:4-5, Then YHVH said to him: “Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. It shall come to pass in that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel.”
Hos 1:6b-7, “Call her name Lo-Ruhamah, for I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away. Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by YHVH their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen.”
Hos 1:9b, “Call his name Lo-Ammi, for you are not My people, and I will not be your God."
"You are My people"
Hos 1:10b-2:1, And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,’ there it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’ Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and appoint for themselves one head; and they shall come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel! Say to your brethren, Ammi, (‘My people’) and to your sisters, Ruhamah (‘Mercy is shown’).
Hos 2:15b-16, ... as in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt. “And it shall be, in that day,” aays YHVH, “That you will call Me Ishi (‘My Husband’), and no longer call Me Baali (‘My Master’),
Hos 2:22b-23, They shall answer Jezreel. Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, and I will have mercy (Ruhamah) on her who had not obtained mercy (Lo-Ruhamah); Then I will say to those who were not My people (Lo-Ammi), ‘You are My people!’ (Ammi) and they shall say, ‘You are my God!’ ”
NB: In Hos 1:5, speaking of Jezreel, YHVH breaks the bow of Israel. In the restoration, YHVH will sow/build her. The prophecies in Hosea focus on the House of Israel. Although an allegory, it was only the House of Israel who was given a certificate of divorce (Jer 3:8).
Regarding Lev 26, it's ultimate fulfillment is still in the future:
Lev 26:41b, if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—
NB: There's no 'if' in the original. The NIV is correct in using 'when'. Would you say that Israel has humbled his uncircumcised heart? Did this happen since the time of Nehemia? The Jews are surrounded by their enemies. Their enemies are even inside their land. There is still an existential threat (Lev 26:44). Has the entire House of Israel been reunited with the House of Judah?
Mal 3:6-7a, For I am YHVH, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Yet from the days of your fathers you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says YHVH of hosts.
Anon Oct 9 @10:42-11:51pm,
ReplyDeleteHebron is the second holiest city to the Jews because the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and Matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, Leah) were buried there (Gen 49:29-31). I'm assuming that this information would have been well known to the Jews who grew up in Jerusalem during the Second Temple time. According to Luke chapter 2, the Jews returned to their ancestor's city to register for Quirinius' census. If they knew the city of their ancestor who lived a thousand years before, how much more they should know the burial place of the 3 Patriarchs.
I think he knew the difference between Hebron and Shechem for it would take him around 17 hours to walk from one to the other if it is just flat land. He was aware that someone important was buried in Shechem, and correct in identifying the original owner (sons of Hamor) of the land.
Did Stephen confuse the two burial sites? Did Luke actually witness Stephen's history lesson?
Luke's account of the burial place can be checked against a superior source - Tanakh, which is the foundation of NT. Tanakh is the correct one. Even the LXX's version which Luke usually quotes from agrees with Tanakh. This is not a case of needing 'to read it in light of the contemporary culture'. This is a factual error.
Luke has a bigger problem in Lk 4:17-19. He conflated Tanakh and LXX. It's hard to imagine a synagogue in Jesus' time using an LXX instead of Tanakh. And it's more difficult to imagine that the Isaiah scroll used contain a hybrid of Tanakh and LXX in Isa 61:1-2. Luke was not an eyewitness (Lk 1:1-2). His gospel is the only one with this story.
The discrepancy between Gen 46 and Num 26 cannot be checked against an extant superior source.
I believe that the original Tanakh was inerrant. The one we have is not.
I refer to the current Tanakh as the original text but I don't mean it as being the exact copy of the original. In my opinion the errors are miniscule and not significant. It's not like the original says "Thou shall steal" and a redactor changed it to "Thou shall NOT steal".
Click this Gen vs Num link.
A good many years ago a handful of us tried to officially change the teaching on the sin-bearing devil (my description of the SDA/HWA position), but we were unsuccessful. The majority of the ministry opposed changing it, though all agree that no one should be required to teach it.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is usually characterized as "both goats represent Christ" versus "one goat represents Christ, and the other goat represents Satan." For the record, I have objected to the use of the "both goats represent Christ" description. Rather, I prefer to say that the high priest represents Christ, for it is the high priest who makes atonement. It is he who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering, and it is he who sends the people's sins far outside the camp, thus figuratively removing them "as far as east is from west." The two goats are merely agents the high priest uses in making atonement for Israel. The two-goats ritual represents propitiation (by the sin offering) and expiation (by the leading away of the second goat). The true High Priest, Jesus Christ, accomplishes both but without the use of agents.
I also believe the KJV leaves the false impression that the second goat *is* (or at least *represents*) "Azazel." Jewish sources and modern English translations correctly (I believe) state that the second goat is *sent to* Azazel, whether "Azazel" is the name of a place in the desert or the name of a desert demon. If the latter, then the sin-laden goat is simply sent to the place where Azazel (Satan; supernatural evil) dwells. It seems appropriate that the uncleanness of the people would be sent to a place associated with uncleanness.
That's my view, but I'm not willing to fight over "goat theology," so if my friends in the ministry think the other view has more biblical support, I'm not going to make an issue of it.
Vance Stinson
Thanks for your comment Mr. Stinson. I agree with your characterization of the goats as agents, and not strictly representative of Christ (as my own comments reflect). I also appreciate your transparent declaration of the way that this teaching has evolved within CGI. And, while I also agree with you that a war over "goat theology" would not be productive or consistent with brotherly love, I continue to regret that so many folks are stuck in the rut of HWA's understandings of these things - they are missing out on some very meaningful symbolism and spiritual truth. I have also been pleased to hear more sermons from your ministry over the last few years that point to our tabernacling in the flesh and eventually tabernacling with God and Christ in the future vis-a-vis the FOT.
ReplyDeleteThanks again,
Lonnie
Adding my two cents: I think a reasonable case may be made that the two goats picture two aspects of Christ's sacrifice; though a case from typology may have Satan involved.
ReplyDeleteTo throw in the mix is the typology of the bull for a purification offering [hatta't] for the high priest and his household.
The transliteration hatta't is the offering that is required for sin and ritual impurity that impact the Temple. That is, in regard to the former, it is not for sin that require a reparation offering - hatta't are for certain types of sin. While I do not want to argue over the translation of hatta't, below presents why I favor purification offering:
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering [ht't].
Lev 8:15a And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified (ht') the altar...
Lev 14:49 And he shall take to cleanse [ht'] the house two birds...
Lev 12:6b and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering [ht't]... unto the priest:
Lev 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed [thrh] the issue of her blood.
Jacob Milgrom argues that ht't is derived from the piel of [ht'] not the qal, hence the translation "purification offering’. This makes good sense as having a child is not a sin.
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
But the uncleanness generated from childbirth requires blood to purify the altar of burn offering and to ransom the new mother's life.
Eze 45:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse [ht't] the sanctuary:
A question that may be asked, if Satan, that is in the argument that he is azazel, is shut-up and sealed in the bottomless pit during the Millennium, what happens to the sins that are cleansed from the Temple (Eze 45:18) during this time?
Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?
I tend to favor the argument, which has difficulties, as any argument does, that, in mild cases, the priests eliminate sin be eating the flesh of the purification offering; and in severe cases the sin is eliminated by burning the carcass of the purification offering.
The implication is that the removal of sin from the Tabernacle by azazel is the annual parallel to the above means of elimination - not expiation per se, but elimination.
During the year, in the argument for the disposal of sin by eating or burning the hatta't only one animal is involved in atonement; the animal is sacrificed and its carcass destroyed in severe cases of sin.
Lev 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering
while on the Day of Atonement another animal is involved. The two animals make up one hatta't. One goat is sacrificed and one goat is a vehicle of elimination.
Lev 14:53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
and has its parallel in the bird that is let go.
Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Jay Sklar argues that "scapegoat" is an acceptable explanation as well as the two mentioned in the previous post above:
ReplyDelete"Third, ‘azazel could be a compound noun, consisting of the noun ‘ez ('goat') and the verb 'azal ('go away, disappear'), that is, a ‘goat that departs/goes away' (cf. LXX). This leads to the tradition rendering of scapegoat (AV, NIV), since the goat departs bearing all the Israelites' sins... the traditional rendering scapegoat does a good job of capturing the role the goat played on this day..." (Leviticus, TOTC, p.209-10).
The goat that departs bears away sin not impurity - the latter is ritual impurity and impurity generated by sin and ritual impurity.
Lev 16 and Isa 53
Before looking at Isa 53 it is to be noted that the Jews see the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel as this comment in Isaiah in the Soncino Books of the Bible notes:
"1-9. The Babylonians, or their representatives, having known the servant, i.e., exiled Israel idealized, in his humiliation and martyrdom, and now seeing his exaltation and new dignity, describe their impressions and feelings (Ibn Kaspi).”
Da 2:38b Thou [Nebuchadnezzar] art this head of gold.
Da 2:39a And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,
The NT reveals the person who represents the nation of Israel. Jonathan Lunde explains the concept:
"... the NT writers often utilize the Jewish assumption known as "corporate solidarity" or "the one in the many"...This notion perceives the existence of a corporate oneness among the members of a group, such that "a single member of a community can represent the whole" - the king or priest can represent the nation, an animal can bear sins representatively for all [E.g., Lev 16:15-24, 34], and a prophet can picture the nation's fate in his individual life [E.g., Eze 4-5; 12]" (Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp.37-38).
2Sa 5:1 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.
In the above quote the footnotes are in square brackets. The footnote that follows the king or priest as "representing the nation" reads:
"Note the solidarity that the people perceive between themselves and the king in 2 Sam 5:1 and 1 Chron 11:1; cf. Ps 118:20, when the king, represented his army, refers to himself as the one surrounded by enemies. Aaron functions as the representative of the entire nation on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16)" (ibid., p.38).
Looking at Isa 53 from the perspective of the person who ‘represents' Israel:
ReplyDeleteLev 16:22 And the goat shall bear [nasa'] upon him all their iniquities [‘awonotam] unto a land ['eres] not inhabited [gezwrah]: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
Isa 53:8b ... he was cut off [nigzar] out of the land ['eres] of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:12b ... he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare [nasa'] the sin [ht'] of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Jay Sklar's comments:
"The goat bore not only their sins, but also the penalty their sins deserved, as the following observations suggest. First, the sins were put on the goat's head (v.21), implying that the goat was now responsible for them (just as someone with bloodguilt on his head was responsible for it; 2 Sam 1:15-16). Second the goat is said to bear on itself all their sins (v.22), and the phrase ‘to bear sin' is used elsewhere to refer to bearing sin and its penalty (see at 5:1). Finally, the goat was sent to a ‘land cut off' (v.22; my trans.) The word for ‘cut off" (gezera) is built on a root used elsewhere to describe people being cut off from worship at the temple (2 Chr 26:21, NASV), from life (Lam 3:54), or from the Lord himself (Ps 88:5). In short, the lethal burden and penalty of the Israelites' sins was taken off their shoulders and placed on the goat, which bore it away and endured its consequences on their behalf. (Cf. Isa.53, which uses the language of this chapter to describe the suffering servant as the one who ‘bore the sins of many' [v.12] and was ‘cut off' from the land of the living [v.8]. The New Testament sees Jesus as the ultimate suffering servant who bears the sins of others [Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 2:24])" (Leviticus, TOTC, pp.212-13).
For a detailed explanation of the concept of bearing sin referring to bearing sin and its penalty and other concepts mentioned above see Jay Sklar's "Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement - The Priestly Conceptions."
For a detailed argument that Azazel = Satan, see Roy Gane's "Cult and Character - Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy".
Having noted the above, food for thought, there are too many ‘angles' to identify with certainty the typological fulfilments behind the annual cleansing of the Tabernacle/Temple to maintain Christ's ‘presence' in the Most Holy Place.
It was mentioned above that:
ReplyDelete"Luke has a bigger problem in Lk 4:17-19. He conflated Tanakh and LXX."
Luke 4:17-19 also contains the phrase "To set free the oppressed"... which is not mentioned in either the Tanakh or LXX; was this a midrash?
I do not see Luke having a "bigger problem" with Lk 4:17-19; or that he "conflates the Tanakh and LXX". I would suggest that the quote was Septuagintal with some editing by Luke.
Christ's everyday language was probably Aramaic but the NT was written in Greek. So Christ may have read the Hebrew text, but Luke used the LXX text to record it; perhaps also Luke was also quoting from memory.
It was also mentioned that:
"It's hard to imagine a synagogue in Jesus' time using an LXX instead of Tanakh."
Below suggest otherwise:
Ac 6:1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews [Hellenistes] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews... (NIV).
Ac 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Ac 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians [Hellenistes]: but they went about to slay him.
T. Jerus. Sotah vii. 1 (Gemara), "Rabbi Levi, the son of Hithah, went to Cæsarea, and heard the voice of the people saying the Shema (the name given to the Hebrew confession ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, Jehovah is one,' from its first word) in Hellenistic. He desired to prevent them. Rabbi Jose heard of it and was angry, and said, Thus I say, that whosoever does not know how to read it correctly in Hebrew shall not read it at all [in that language], but does his duty [by reading it] in any language which he knows how to speak."
(In the time of Christ there may have been at least four Hebrew texts, as well as Greek translations for use as source material).
It was also noted that:
"Luke was not an eyewitness (Lk 1:1-2). His gospel is the only one with this story."
I don't know what this observation has to do with the argument. Was Moses there when Joseph engaged in conversation with his brothers in Egypt? At least Luke could ask eyewitnesses who were there, but not Moses.
Being there maybe a factor in a text-based society but not in an oral-based ANE society.
Mt 28:19a Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...
It was some 30 years or more before the first gospel appeared.
"Jesus lived in a predominantly non-literate and oral culture. He proclaimed truth in oral forms and commissioned his followers to do the same. His followers, beginning with eyewitnesses, passed along oral versions of what Jesus said and did. As suggested in Luke's prologue, the oral texts became the basis of the Gospels" (John H. Walton & D, Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture - Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority, p.150).
Mt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son...
Lk 3:22b and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son...
"Variants occurred, but the degree of variation was within the limits of the values of the oral community... Thought the differences may appear to entail errors, that is a case of judging by modern standards. They were not errors according to the standards of those who passed along the oral texts or authored the written texts" (ibid., pp.150-51).
"There has been a great deal of discussion about the attitude of the ancient historians and biographers towards the factual accuracy in their writings... The ancients, according to Moseley [in a study of the intent and practice of such writers as Lucian, Dionysius, Polybius, Ephorus, Ciecero, Josephus, and Tacitus] ... did ask the question "Did it happen in this way?" and while some were slovenly and uninformed in their reporting, others "tried to be as accurate as possible and to get information from eyewitness."
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, Gleason has pointed out that those who cite Thucydide's words "I have used language in accordance with what I thought the speakers in each case would have been most likely to say," as though that settles the matter in favor of the thoroughly imaginative character of the Thucydidean speeches, are distinctly unfair to what Thucycdides was actually saying:
"With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; it was hard to record the exact words spoken, both in cases where I was myself present, and where I used reports of others. But I have used language in accordance with what I thought the speakers in each case would have most likely to say, adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually spoken (History of the Peloponnesian war, 1.22)."
"... it must also be insisted that history, as opposed to the mere formulation of chronicles, was written by the ancients for moral, ethical, and polemical purposes and just to inform or entertain.... It is true as well for Luke's Acts, wherein the histography of the OT, there is the tracing of the activity of God in various historical events viewed from a particular perspective" (Richard N. Longenecker, Acts, EBC, Vol.9. pp.213-14).
"Effective Communication Must Accommodate to the Culture and Nature of the Audience" (John H. Walton & D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture - Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority, p.39)
Pointing to apparent discrepancies in the NT to argue that the NT is invalid is not convincing for me in light of the lack of knowledge of ANE culture, which would include what they believed at a certain periods in history.
"Now Abram ... left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old and at the command of God went into Canaan" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:10:1).
This appears to be at odds with Genesis 12:4. Telescoping?
Ge 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Ge 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. (AV).
Gen 12:1 The Lord said to Abram, "Go by thyself from you country, your clan, and your Father's house to the country that I will show you. (Gordon Wenham, pers. trans.)
Ge 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him ... and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (AV).
"32. Terah died in Haran. This was more than sixty years after Abraham's departure from [sic] Canaan. Nevertheless it is recorded here to spare Abraham the criticism that he showed disrespect to his father in leaving him alone in his old age (Rashi). [Abraham Ibn[ E[raza] also holds that Abraham's preceded Terah's death" (The Soncino Chumash, p.55).
The most natural reading of Ge 11:26-12:4 was that Abram was directed to go to Canaan from Haran while Terah still lived.
But Philo notes that Abram left after Terah's death (cp. Acts 7:4)
"Now it is not probable that any one of those persons who are acquainted with the law are ignorant that Abraham had previously migrated from Chaldaea when he came to live in Charran. But after his father died he then departed from this land of Chaldaea, so that he has now migrated from two different places" (Philo, De Migratione Abrahami, 177).
It is suggested that a tradition arose, despite the mathematics, that Abram departed after Terah's death, based on the notice of Terah's death before the call in 12:1. Compare the argument that Melchizedek was without father and mother, which was presumably argued based on there being no record of his parents in Scripture. Some tradition may also be involved in Acts 7:16.
ReplyDeleteThe NT writers are accused of "reading into" Scripture. But the accusations can be also made against the Rabbis. In the introduction to the Chumash it has this:
"The mediaeval Jewish commentators whose work on the Pentateuch and Haphtaroth is summarized in this volume regarded the Bible as the word of God, and consequently as an inexhaustible storehouse of wisdom to which they could always resort for inspiration and guidance. While they derived knowledge from other sources also, even this knowledge obtained an added significance in their eyes, and became more fully absorbed, when they were able to discover some indication of it in the Scriptures. Hence in studying the text of the Bible they were always on the look-out to find in its support for what was already in their minds; consequently they read into it - perhaps unconsciously - as much as they got out of it, if not more. It is this feature which informs a distinctive characteristic of their commentaries.
"This process of ‘reading in' was especially carried to great lengths for homiletical purposes by Jewish interpreters of the Hebrew Bible, notably the Rabbis of the Talmud in their Haggadah. It is true that the Rabbis laid down a rule that no interpretation was to be admitted which was incompatible with the peshat or plain meaning of the text; but in practice they paid little regard to this rule. The commentators with whom we are concerned, however, usually observed it more rigidly, and thus restricted their liberty of ‘reading in'..." (Soncino Books of the Bible, p.xi).
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Lk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Lk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Lk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself
Not only was the Pax Romana with Greek as the linga franca of the Eastern Roman Empire conducive to the spread of the Gospel; Second Temple exegesis had developed whereby Jesus Christ could be fully expounded from the Scriptures.
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
"Those who have studied the interpretation of Scripture among other Jews at the time, particularly at Qumran and among the rabbis, recognised that they are on familiar ground in Matthew, sometimes in the actual interpretative methods he employs, but also more widely in the creative ways he goes about discovering patterns of fulfilment, ways which modern exegetical scholarship often finds surprising and unpersuasive. But Matthew was not writing for modern exegetical scholars, and we may safely assume that at least some of his intended readers/hearers would have shared his delight in searching for patterns of fulfillment not necessarily in what the original authors of the OT texts had in mind but in what can be perceived in their writings with Christian hindsight..." (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp.12-13).
Anon Oct 17 @2:35-2:36am,
ReplyDeleteAre you equating Luke with Moses? Luke got the information from 'eyewitnesses'. How many decades after Jesus' death was the gospel of Luke written? Who revealed the Torah to Moses? If Luke's account was false, what happens to Tanakh? Nothing! If Moses' account was false, what happens to the NT/Christianity and Quran/Islam? As I've written in the past, Tanakh is the foundation of NT. If Tanakh was false, it would automatically make the NT false. Tanakh being true does not make the NT true.
Are you implying that Jesus read and spoke Greek in the Nazareth synagogue? What language did he use in his dying words? Was Nazareth more sophisticated than Jerusalem during his time?
Regarding Hos 11:1, Hosea was recalling the past Exodus in this passage, not a future child/messiah fleeing into Egypt. Matthew ripped this out of context to persuade his readers that Hosea predicted about Jesus (Mt 2:15b, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”).
How do you reconcile Matthew's version with Luke's account? Here is Ehrman's take on Matthew's Egypt account vs Luke's (about 6 minutes long).
Let's examine this passage of Matthew:
Mt 2:23, And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Where can I find the verse Matthew cites in Mt 2:23? Which prophet spoke that? Can you find anywhere in Tanakh/OT the passage where it says the Mashiach would come from Nazareth?
I'm not an orthodox Jew. I do not believe in the authority of the rabbis. I study their explanation on topics relating to Tanakh but do not accept midrashic interpretation/explanation.
Anon Oct 16 @3:40-3:42am,
ReplyDeleteYou said, Before looking at Isa 53 it is to be noted that the Jews see the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel …
People called servant in the book of Isaiah - Isaiah (Isa 20:3), Eliakim (Isa 22:20), David (Isa 37:35) and Israel (Isa 41:8-9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3).
Other books identifying Israel as God's servant - Ps 136:22, Jer 30:10, 46:27-28.
Isa 43:1, But now, thus says YHVH, who created you, O Jacob, and He who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; you are Mine.
Isa 43:10-11, “You are My witnesses,” says YHVH, “And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am YHVH, and besides Me there is no savior."
Who is spoken in Isa 52 and 54? Israel.
Isa 54:17b, This is the heritage of the servants of YHVH, and their righteousness is from Me,” Says YHVH.
You wrote Isa 53:8bOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available) ... he was cut off [nigzar] out of the land ['eres] of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
First, let's find out who is speaking in v8.
Isa 52:15 (NLT), And he will startle many nations. Kings will stand speechless in his presence. For they will see what they had not been told; they will understand what they had not heard about.
Isa 53:1, Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of YHVH been revealed?
The kings/nations of the earth, gentiles, are speaking.
Here's the CJB from Chabad (not to be confused with CJB from the messianics which contain NT):
Isa 53:8b, For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them (Heb lamo).
Notice that the Chabad's version uses them instead of he as in most translations.
According to Gerald Sigal of Jews For Judaism:
In Isaiah 53:8, the Gentile spokesperson continues to acknowledge the fault of the nations for the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant, Israel, during his passage through history (cf. Isaiah 52:1,15-53:1-2). Thus, he states: "As a result of the transgression of my people [the Gentile nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted." The literal translation of this verse is: "From the transgression of my people there has been affliction to him [or "to them"]." The poetic form of lahem, lamo, "to them," is used in this verse in reference to a collective noun (cf. Genesis 9:26). Lamo is rendered "to him" as it refers to the collective noun, "suffering servant of the Lord," that is, the Jewish people. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity given the appellative "suffering servant of the Lord."
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
ReplyDelete6:44 you are not going to persuade me that the NT is invalid and I am not going to persuade you that it is valid.
So it is futile to go back and forth - going nowhere.
As John would say: “Time will tell.”
The more time doing so leaves me less time to work on my commentary to my 3D model of Ezekiel’s Temple.
Regards