Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Introduction
On MENJ’s site we find the article, The Invalidity of the Crucifixion of Jesus As An Atonement for Sin, attributed to a retired physicist and practicing Jew, named Dr. JosephG. The author attempts to show that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross allegedly is not valid from the point-of-view of the Old Testament. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize, in light of the Biblical data, the claims of the author. Dr. JosephG begins:
Here is a partial list of reasons for why the death of Jesus on the cross couldn't possibly have served as a valid sacrifice - any one of these would render a sacrifice as unacceptable for the purpose of expiation of sins.
GIVEN that, at the time of Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem and the Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force, here are some of the reasons why the death of Jesus on the cross cannot be a valid sacrificial offering:
RESPONSE:
Notice, first of all, that the author’s foundation for the objections that follow is based on the sacrificial system established in the Torah. The author goes on to list ten reasons that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is invalid, according to this paradigm. Since Sam Shamoun has already provided detailed refutations to points 7, 9, and 10, we will focus on points 1-6 and 8 to finish off the set. Before continuing with our response, you may first want to read Sam Shamoun’s answers to the aforementioned points in the article, Judaism and Human Sacrifice as a Means of Atonement.
We also highly recommend that the reader consider the material from the link below, which expounds valuable information regarding ancient Jewish exegetical procedures, since it may be relevant to this issue: www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html.
Before we delve into the author’s objections specifically, it is important that we first discuss some relevant Biblical data regarding animal sacrifices, as well as the New Covenant and the Messiah’s role in it. This will help to demonstrate the author’s fallacies and establish the true Biblical paradigm from which we will be responding to his objections. Consider, first of all, the first few arguments utilized by the author:
FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).
SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.
THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12).
FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).
RESPONSE:
When we take a more in-depth look into some of the relevant Biblical passages, the author’s fallacious arguments become more apparent. First of all, we need to determine the proper role that the Levitical priesthood played in regards to foreshadowing the Messiah’s sacrifice. In order to do that, we will consider the New Testament’s exposition of Christ’s ministry, and the corresponding Old Testament data upon which it is built, but first we’ll consider a few of the Old Testament sacrifices that were NOT made according to the Levitical ordinances, the reason for which will become clear as we continue. Scripture quotations will be from the NIV, unless otherwise noted.
Sacrifices Made "Outside the System"
The first acceptable sacrifice explicitly reported in the Bible was performed by Abel, obviously well before the Levitical priesthood was established:
"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." (Genesis 4:3-5)
Next, consider the sacrifices made by Job:
"When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’ This was Job's regular custom." (Job 1:5)
Although Job was not an Israelite, and in fact, probably lived prior to the establishment of the Israelite theocracy, and thus also the Levitical priesthood, we see that he made sacrificial offerings on behalf of his children, worrying that they may have sinned.
Next, we turn to the Passover sacrifice:
"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire-head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-both men and animals - and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD - a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat-that is all you may do. "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread." "Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down." "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' Then the people bowed down and worshiped. The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead." (Exodus 12:1-30)
While the Passover festival was to become the premiere feast of each year for the Israelites, commemorating their freedom from bondage under the Egyptians, the first Passover sacrifices were performed before the Levitical priesthood was established, and is hence another sacrifice made "outside the system." This becomes all the more pertinent when we consider (later) that Christ’s sacrifice served as the anti-typical fulfillment of the Paschal Lamb.
So, it is clear that animal sacrifices were made that were acceptable to God prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood. However, there were also sacrifices made "outside the Levitical system", even when this system was currently in effect. Consider first the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal:
"‘Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table.’ So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. Elijah went before the people and said, ‘How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.’ But the people said nothing. Then Elijah said to them, ‘I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire-he is God.’ Then all the people said, ‘What you say is good.’ Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, ‘Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.’ So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. ‘O Baal, answer us!’ they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. At noon Elijah began to taunt them. ‘Shout louder!’ he said. ‘Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.’ So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention. Then Elijah said to all the people, ‘Come here to me.’ They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, ‘Your name shall be Israel.’ With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, ‘Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.’ ‘Do it again,’ he said, and they did it again. ‘Do it a third time,’ he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench. At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: ‘O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.’ Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, ‘The LORD - he is God! The LORD - he is God!’" (I Kings 18:19-39)
King David was also commanded by the Lord to make sacrifices, on an altar that he was commanded to build on a threshing floor of a Jebusite named Araunah. This was done in order to stay a plague that had fallen upon Israel.
"On that day Gad went to David and said to him, ‘Go up and build an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.’ So David went up, as the LORD had commanded through Gad. When Araunah looked and saw the king and his men coming toward him, he went out and bowed down before the king with his face to the ground. Araunah said, ‘Why has my lord the king come to his servant?’ ’To buy your threshing floor,’ David answered, ‘so I can build an altar to the LORD , that the plague on the people may be stopped.’ Araunah said to David, "Let my lord the king take whatever pleases him and offer it up. Here are oxen for the burnt offering, and here are threshing sledges and ox yokes for the wood. O king, Araunah gives all this to the king.’ Araunah also said to him, ‘May the LORD your God accept you.’ But the king replied to Araunah, ‘No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.’ So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them. David built an altar to the LORD there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then the LORD answered prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was stopped." (II Samuel 24:18-25)
So, we see from these examples that God was quite willing to work outside the Levitical system both before, and even after, it was established. Thus, already we find that Dr. JosephG’s insistence that Christ’s sacrifice conform perfectly to that of the Levitical system questionable.
Biblical Data on the Messiah’s Work
It is the Christian contention that Christ’s ministry serves as the fulfillment of the Torah, and that all of the animal sacrifices and associated rituals outlined therein were symbols pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. In this case, the priest’s sprinkling of the blood on the altar was a symbol (i.e. type) of the ultimate High Priest to come, mediating a New Covenant on the basis of the ultimate Sacrifice (i.e. anti-type). This New Covenant was foretold by Jeremiah the prophet:
"The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ’This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD . ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’" (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
The Old Testament also predicts that the Messiah would have a priestly ministry:
"The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head.’" (Psalm 110:1-7)
We notice here that David states that "The LORD says to my Lord," indicating that God (the "LORD", or "Yahweh") would allow the second "Lord" ("Adoni") to sit at His right hand and be the ruler of Zion, before whom all kings will be crushed on the day of God’s wrath. That David refers to this future "ruler of Zion" as "Lord" (although a different Hebrew word is used in reference to the ruler than when David referred to God as "LORD", i.e. Yahweh) indicates that he is even higher in authority than King David himself! Keeping in mind as well that David is a prototype of the Messiah (see e.g. Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Isaiah 11:1-11), it becomes clear that this is a Messianic prophecy, as was recognized in many early Jewish and Christian sources. As we can see, however, from what is in bold, this Messiah-king is also a priest.
Interestingly, there is some Old Testament data indicating that King David himself was a "priestly king." Recall the passage quoted above where David was commanded by the Lord to build an altar and make sacrifices (II Samuel 24:18-25). However, sacrifices were functions to be performed virtually exclusively by priests.
Michael Brown notes, in regards to this:
"It is important to remember that King Saul, David’s predecessor, got into big trouble by offering a sacrifice without priestly authorization (see 1 Sam. 13:14), while a later, godly king like Uzziah was stricken by God for daring to infringe on priestly ministry (in his case, burning incense in the Temple; see 2 Chron. 26:16-26) [Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 1, pg. 226, n. 34]
However, it wasn’t only David that made sacrifices to the Lord, but also his most prominent son, King Solomon:
"Three times a year Solomon sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the altar he had built for the LORD, burning incense before the LORD along with them, and so fulfilled the temple obligations." (I Kings 9:25)
One pushback that we should note here is that Elijah, as demonstrated earlier, also performed a sacrificial ritual that was accepted by God (even though the Levitical priesthood was in effect at the time), though he MAY not have been a Levite. Regardless, it is still interesting to point out that both David and Solomon, precursors to the priestly-king Messiah, were among the rare exceptions in regards to being allowed to perform duties generally only reserved for Levitical priests.
We also see from the Old Testament that David was allowed to eat the showbread (i.e. hallowed bread), reserved typically for priests:
"David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, ‘Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?’ David answered Ahimelech the priest, ‘The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, 'No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.’ But the priest answered David, I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here - provided the men have kept themselves from women. David replied, ‘Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!’ So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away." (I Samuel 21:1-6)
Interestingly, the exception that was made for David is alluded to by none other than Jesus himself in the New Testament:
"
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’ He answered, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’" (Mark 2:23-28; for the question of why Jesus referred to Abiathar when David spoke to Abimelech, see here)
Perhaps most intriguingly, there is a place in Scripture where David’s sons are called priests! Consider the following:
"Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army, and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder, and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiah was secretary, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and David’s sons were priests." (II Samuel 8:16-18, ESV; 8:15-17 in some Jewish translations)
We can see in the last verse that David’s sons were called priests. Other English versions besides the ESV that render "kohanim" as "priests" include the MSG, NLT (it is rendered here as "priestly leaders"), and the CEV. Most translations, however, render the word "kohanim" differently in II Samuel 8:18. For instance, the NIV renders "kohanim" as "royal advisers" while the NASB renders the word "chief ministers." The LXX renders the word differently as well. However, it is much more likely that "kohanim" should be translated as "priests." Consider the following:
"The noun occurs 440 times in the singular and 310 times in the plural and always means ‘priest’—without exception; the Rabbinic commentators to 2 Samuel 8:17 struggle with the obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the fact that kohanim also occurs in the previous verse (2 Sam. 8:16), and the meaning there is indisputably ‘priests.’ It is impossible to think that the same word is used two very different ways in the space of two verses in the same context, especially when it is never used in any sense except ‘priest’ throughout the Bible. That the Spirit of God was hinting at something important in this verse is confirmed when we realize that the later parallel passages to 2 Samuel 8 (viz., 1 Chronicles 18) states that David’s sons were ‘chief officials’ (v. 17; ri’shonim). Thus, the special, intentional statement made in 2 Samuel 8:17 is clear: David’s role as a priestly king is seen in the fact that some of his sons were also called priests." [Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 1, n. 35, pg. 226]
Remember also the Scripture quoted above which indicates that Solomon made sacrifices to the Lord, on an altar that he himself built (I Kings 9:25). This is compatible with the Scriptural claim that David’s sons were priests.
Thus, the evidence in favor of "kohanim" being translated "priests" is solid. The controversy over translation likely stems from the fact that David’s sons were not Levites, the latter of which were the only priests according to the Old Covenant:
The LORD said to Moses, "Bring the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest to assist him. They are to perform duties for him and for the whole community at the Tent of Meeting by doing the work of the tabernacle. They are to take care of all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing the work of the tabernacle. Give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to him. Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death." (Numbers 3:5-10)
In that sense, it is inexplicable as to why David’s sons (from the tribe of Judah, not Levi) would be referred to as priests. However, when considering the overall picture given in the Bible regarding David, specifically his role as a type of the Messiah, the latter of which would be a priestly-king according to Psalm 110 and other passages (see below), the implications involved in referring to David’s sons as priests become clear.
So, the hints in Scripture, when considered cumulatively, lead us to the conclusion that David’s kingship did indeed have "priestly" overtones:
With this being the case, it is not, therefore, too surprising to discover, from Psalm 110:4, as well as other passages we will discuss presently, that the Messiah, for which David was the prototype, is said to have a priestly role.
The next passage we’ll consider which suggests that the Messiah will perform priestly work is found in the 9th chapter of Daniel:
"‘Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.’ "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (Daniel 9:24-27)
This passage is a very potent Messianic prophecy, for a number of reasons, but what concerns us here are the portions in bold. Note that this is a prophecy of an "Anointed One" that is to come. Thus, by the end of "seventy sevens" (which takes us up to sometime between 30-70 A.D.; on this see the link below), there will be atonement made for wickedness, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, and perhaps most interestingly, the anointing of the most holy. Clearly, this is speaking of sacrificial/priestly work, and it is connected with the coming of this "Anointed One," which is none other than the Messiah. We won’t go into anymore depth here on this verse, but for a more thorough exposition, as well as answers to common objections, please see the material in the following link: www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#fourteen.
Finally, there are also a couple of relevant texts from Zechariah indicating that the Messiah would be a priest:
"‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day. In that day each of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and fig tree,’ declares the LORD Almighty." (Zechariah 3:8-10)
The word of the LORD came to me: "Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’ The crown will be given to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the LORD. Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the LORD, and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the LORD your God." (Zechariah 6:9-15)
Hebrew scholar Michael Brown comments on these passages:
"Let’s focus in on Zechariah 3:8, ‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.’ The Targum renders this closing phrase as, ‘Behold I will bring my servant the Messiah.’ The Branch—understood to be the Branch of David—is the Messiah…."
"Why was Joshua the high priest, along with his companions, singled out immediately before reference was made to the Branch? Why not single out Zerubbabel, the Davidic governor, rather than single out the high priest? Many interpreters believe that Zechariah 4:14 points to Zerubbabel and Joshua as the two anointed ones who will serve in this world, but no reference is made to the Branch in this passage. Zechariah 6:9-15, however, is explicit: Joshua the high priest is to be crowned--remember that only kings were crowned—and it is he who symbolizes the Branch: ‘Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: "Here is the man whose name is the Branch [once again, the Targum calls him the Messiah], and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord’" (Zech. 6:11-12). So, it is Joshua, not Zerubbabel, who is called the Branch, the high priest, wearing the crown, representing the Davidic Messiah…."
"What makes this all the more interesting is that this man Joshua is normally known by a shortened name in the Tanakh, just as someone named Michael could be called Mike. And what is that shortened name? Yeshua! And so, the one and only man directly singled out in the Bible as a symbol of the Messiah was called Yeshua. The Lord knew exactly what he was doing when he laid this all out in advance, giving enough clues along the way that, once discovered, the evidence would be indisputable…." [Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 3, pp. 144-145]
The shortened name for "Joshua", to which Michael Brown alludes, is used in three places in the book of Ezra, referring to the very same priest that was crowned, according to Zechariah:
"When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel to sacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses the man of God…." (Ezra 3:1-2)
"In the second month of the second year after their arrival at the house of God in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Jeshua son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from the captivity to Jerusalem) began the work, appointing Levites twenty years of age and older to supervise the building of the house of the LORD. Jeshua and his sons and brothers and Kadmiel and his sons (descendants of Hodaviah) and the sons of Henadad and their sons and brothers-all Levites-joined together in supervising those working on the house of God…." (Ezra 3:8-9)
"Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem. And the prophets of God were with them, helping them." (Ezra 5:2)
So, the evidence from the Old Testament demonstrates conclusively that the Messiah would be our high priest, forever after the order of Melchizedek.
On the surface, this seems to be at odds with other Messianic prophecies, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which indicate that the Messiah is to suffer and die to atone for sins (on this, see the links below). Thus, paradoxically, we are told that the Messiah would serve as both the Sacrifice AND the Priest, not to mention the King! So, how exactly is all of this possible? When we consider the ministry of Jesus, the matter becomes elucidated for us. We note first that he was crucified, serving as the perfect antitype to the various Old Testament sacrifices, associated rituals, and types. However, on the 3rd day, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead! Forty days later, he ascended into heaven to serve as our High Priest and King, sitting at the right hand of God until God consummates his Kingship in the great eschatological event to come. This exalted role for the one that suffers is also hinted at in Isaiah 52-53:
"See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness - so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand … Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all…. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:4-6; 9-12)
Note from the portions in bold that this suffering servant, despite dying as a guilt offering, will "prolong his days", a verse implying the resurrection, or at least some kind of vindication after death, and that he will be highly exalted, clearly on an international level (see the links below for more detail).
Consider now the following passages from the New Testament:
"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Hebrews 2:14-18)
"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." (Hebrews 4:14-16)
The 7th chapter of Hebrews is rich in describing the necessity of the change of priesthood, as well as the Old Testament foundation upon which it is based; so rich indeed that we will quote the whole chapter:
"This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means ‘king of peace.’ Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' ‘Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever." (Hebrews 7)
Although this chapter should be self-explanatory, let’s summarize the important data gleaned from this passage:
Thus, Christ is our High Priest. In fact, the book of Hebrews tells us that Christ, as our High Priest, is already at work in a tabernacle established not by man, but by God Himself:
"The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’ But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: ‘The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’ By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8)
And,
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant….This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.’ In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:9-15; 18-26)
Thus, under the New Covenant, we have 1) an ultimate, once and for-all Sacrifice; 2) an eternal High Priest in our risen Lord and King Jesus Christ; 3) a ministry by our High Priest in the Temple made without human hands.
We have demonstrated that, theologically, Christ’s sacrifice is clearly not in discord with Old Testament promises; in fact, it is perfectly in harmony with it. Some may wish to question our understanding of some of the Old Testament prophecies to which we have made reference, as well as whether or not we are on good historical ground for asserting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While these issues are beyond our scope for this article, the reader can see more extensive treatments of these matters in the following articles:
www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html
www.heartofisrael.org/chazak/articles/proph-response.html
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html
www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/hisjesus.htm
With the true Biblical paradigm for the Messiah’s sacrifice and priesthood
now established, we turn to a discussion of the author’s specific objections:
The author first notes:
FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).
RESPONSE:
It should be noted here that Jesus is our high priest, and so it would be inappropriate for a priest ordained according to the Old Covenant to administer the blood of Christ. However, it is interesting to note that, even if the author’s criterion for fulfillment was valid, Jesus actually did meet this criterion. When the soldiers came to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, they took him to the high priest (cf. e.g. Mark 14:53). At the end of Christ’s trial, detailed in subsequent passages, we are told that it was indeed the decision of the high priest that Jesus be condemned to die:
"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?’ But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest tore his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards took him and beat him." (Mark 14:60-65)
Jesus was turned over subsequently to Pontius Pilate, who gave the final authorization for Christ’s crucifixion to take place. However, it was ultimately the decision of the priestly council to condemn Jesus. Without their admonitions, Pilate would not have crucified Christ. In fact, Pilate could not find any evil in Jesus, and would have turned him loose had the council not been so vehement about condemning him:
"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?’ asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. ‘What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?’ Pilate asked them. ‘Crucify him!’ they shouted. ’Why? What crime has he committed? asked Pilate.’ But they shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’ Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified." (Mark 15:9-15)
In addition, it is interesting to note that Gentile involvement in the execution of Christ is perhaps even more appropriate than what it may appear at first glance, given that Christ’s death served as an atonement not only for Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (Cf. these three articles *, *, *.)
This takes us to the second objection:
SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.
RESPONSE:
This argument is invalid since the Bible indicates, once again, that it is the Messiah that is our high priest, and thus it would be inappropriate for an Old Covenant priest to administer the blood of Jesus. Moreover, the Bible indicates that Christ works in a "Temple made without hands," not the Temple where sacrifices were made in accordance with the Old Covenant. In fact, a miracle occurred when Christ was crucified, which signified that the Old Covenant, along with the earthly Temple, had been rendered obsolete, now that the ultimate sacrifice had been made:
"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." (Mark 15:37-38; c.f. also Matthew 27:50-51 and Luke 23:45)
Once a year, on the Day of Atonement (i.e.Yom Kippur), the high priest would enter into the most holy place, which was behind the curtain, and sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat. This was in order to atone for the sins of Israel of that previous year. The supernatural tearing of this curtain at the time of Christ’s crucifixion symbolized that atonement would no longer have to be made by a Levitical high priest going behind the curtain of the earthly Temple. Rather, now that Christ’s sacrifice had been made, sinners could receive atonement through the blood of Christ, as it is he that now serves as our eternal high priest, working in the "Temple made without hands." For an interesting quote from the Talmud, corroborating the historicity of this event, consider the following from Glenn Miller:
"Quoted from JCNT:84, re: Mt 27.51:
‘The parokhet in the Temple. Exodus 26:31-35 describes this curtain as it existed in the desert Tabernacle. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the cohen hagadol was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies; and that he could do only once a year, on Yom-Kippur, to make an atonement sacrifice for his sins and for the sins of the Jewish people. When it was ripped in two from top to bottom it symbolized the fact that God was giving everyone access to the most holy place of all in heaven, as taught explicitly at MJ 9:3-9, 10:19-22 [that's "Hebrews" for us goyim, ;>)].’
‘The Talmud bears an amazing witness to the work of Yeshua in altering the system of atonement. The background is that on Yom-Kippur, when the cohen hagadol sacrificed a bull (Leviticus 16), a piece of scarlet cloth was tied between its horns. If it later turned white, it meant that God had forgiven Israel's sin in accordance with Isaiah 1:18, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be white as snow.’
‘Our Rabbis taught that throughout the forty years that Shim'on the Tzaddik served,... the scarlet cloth would become white. From then on it would sometimes become white and sometimes not.... Throughout the last forty years before the Temple was destroyed... the scarlet cloth never turned white." (Yoma 39a-39b)’
‘Thus in the days of Shim'on Tzaddik the sacrificial system established by God in the Tanakh was observed, and it was effective. But afterwards Israel's spirituality declined, so that the sacrificial system was effective only sometimes. Finally, after Yeshua's death, forty years before the destruction of the Temple, it was never effective. The Talmud does not say it, but what had become effective for forgiving Israel's sin was the sacrificial death of Yeshua the Messiah.’" (Source)
Next, the author claims:
THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12).
RESPONSE:
The two NT verses listed are, in context, saying that physical circumcision is no longer necessary, as those under Christ are of the "true circumcision." See Philippians 3:3. Whatever one wishes to make of Paul’s comments regarding mutilation, it is obvious that the mere removal of the foreskin from the penis does not constitute "mutilation" as we commonly define it today. Furthermore, even relevant Old Testament passages implicitly contradict the author’s claim that circumcision counts as a "blemish." Obviously, the Levitical priests, living under the Jewish law, would have been circumcised, yet God commands that they are also to be without blemish:
"Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy." (Leviticus 21:17-23)
If circumcision actually counted as a blemish, then it would obviously have been impossible for any Levitical priest to fulfill this role as required by God, since all priests were to be circumcised. On the other hand, if God considered circumcision to actually count as a blemish, then, in light of this requirement for priests to be unblemished, we’d expect to see something in the Torah that exempted priests from having to be circumcised. We find no such command, nor indication that circumcision was considered to be a blemish. Therefore, the author’s statement about circumcision being a blemish is even contradictory to what is found in the Hebrew Bible.
As for Christ being beaten, whipped, and crucified, it is important to note that this occurred AFTER Jesus was placed in front of the Jewish high priest, just as the sacrificial animals were not killed until after being presented to the priests.
All of that stated, it is important to emphasize that the necessity of an unblemished sacrifice finds its relevant anti-typical fulfillment in the sinless life of Jesus Christ. Just like with the priesthood and the Temple, there exists a deeper, spiritual meaning underlying the physical requirements found in the Torah. Consider the following passage from Hebrews:
"The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:13-15)
We see here that the blood of goats and bulls, which was useful for "outward cleansing," is contrasted with the blood of the unblemished Christ, whose sacrifice made it possible to "cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death," which is, of course, sin. In other words, Christ’s sacrifice provided a spiritual, "inward" cleansing that the blood of animal sacrifices could not provide. Now consider the following NT passages affirming that Christ was without sin:
"We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (II Corinthians 5:20-21)
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." (Hebrews 4:15-16)
"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." (I Peter 1:18-20)
"
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (I Peter 2:21-25)
Notice that in the latter passage, the author of I Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:5-9 in order to confirm the theological significance of Christ’s sinless life. Below is the relevant excerpt from Isaiah 53:
"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:4-10)
Thus, in Isaiah 53, we see that a righteous individual is to suffer for the sins of others, and in context, it appears that this individual is to be "unblemished" in a moral sense (notice the portion in bold). This chapter gives us ample Old Testament evidence corroborating the New Testament authors’ appeals to Christ’s sinless life as the anti-typical fulfillment of a lamb that is without blemish.
FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).
RESPONSE:
While it is true that the Passover sacrifices were made on a per-household basis, it was necessary that all that were to escape the tenth plague participate in the Passover ritual. Those that followed the Lord’s instructions, participating in the Passover sacrifice and ritual, became exempt from the wrath of God’s death angel. Any that would not have done so were not exempt. This comports perfectly with Christian theology. Whether or not we escape God’s wrath on sinners is dependent upon our acceptance or rejection of the sacrifice that Christ provided on our behalf. It is an individual decision, not a national one, and that is very possibly why God instituted this ritual on a per-household basis rather than as a single sacrifice that was to "cover" all of the Israelites. See below as we discuss more Passover objections.
FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removal of sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under "Fourth" above and "Sixth" below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).
RESPONSE:
The New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb is actually the perfect way to convey the importance of Christ’s sacrifice. It was only the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb that prevented the death angel from claiming the lives of the firstborn sons of each family. Furthermore, it was the event of the Passover that led to the Israelites’ freedom from captivity under the Egyptians. Just as the Israelites obtained their freedom from physical bondage (i.e. slavery), the slaying of the anti-typical Paschal Lamb (i.e. Jesus) made it possible for sinners to obtain freedom from the consequences of their sins, namely death (see e.g. Romans 6:23). Consider the following comments from the 19th century Jewish Christian theologian Alfred Edersheim:
"Such views and feelings, which, no doubt, all truly spiritual Israelites shared, gave its meaning to the Paschal feast at which Jesus sat down with His disciples, and which He transformed into the Lord’s Supper by linking it to His Person and Work. Every sacrifice, indeed, had prefigured His Work; but none other could so suitably commemorate His death, nor yet the great deliverance connected with it, and the great union and fellowship flowing from it. For other reasons also it was specially suited to be typical of Christ. It was a sacrifice, and yet quite out of the order of all Levitical sacrifices. For it had been instituted and observed before Levitical sacrifices existed; before the Law was given; nay, before the Covenant was ratified by blood (Exod. 24). In a sense, it may be said to have been the cause of all the later sacrifices of the Law, and of the Covenant itself. Lastly, it belonged neither to one nor to another class of sacrifices; it was neither exactly a sin-offering nor a peace-offering, but combined them both. And yet in many respects it quite differed from them. In short, just as the priesthood of Christ was a real Old Testament priesthood, yet not after the order of Aaron, but after the earlier, prophetic, and royal order of Melchisedek, so the sacrifice also of Christ was a real Old Testament sacrifice, yet not after the order of Levitical sacrifices, but after that of the earlier prophetic Passover sacrifice, by which Israel had become a royal nation." [Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, pp. 183-184]
Edersheim also notes the importance that the date of the Passover has, according to Jewish traditions:
Jewish tradition has this curious conceit: that the most important events in Israel’s history were connected with the Paschal season. Thus it is said to have been on the present Paschal night that, after his sacrifice, the ‘horror of great darkness’ fell upon Abraham when God revealed to him the future of his race (Gen. 15). Similarly, it is supposed to have been at Passover time that the patriarch entertained his heavenly guests, that Sodom was destroyed and Lot escaped, and that the walls of Jericho fell before the Lord. More than that—the ‘cake of barley bread’ seen in the dream, which led to the destruction of Midian’s host, had been prepared from the Omer, presented on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread; just as at a later period alike the captains of Sennacherib and the King of Assyria, who tarried at Nob, were overtaken by the hand of God at the Passover season. It was at the Paschal time also that the mysterious handwriting appeared on the wall to declare Babylon’s doom, and again at the Passover that Esther and the Jews fasted, and that wicked Haman perished. And so also in the last days it would be the Paschal night when the final judgments should come upon ‘Edom,’ and the glorious deliverance of Israel take place. Hence to this day, in every Jewish home, at a certain part of the Paschal service—just after the ‘third cup,’ or the ‘cup of blessing,’ has been drunk—the door is opened to admit Elijah the prophet as forerunner of the Messiah, while appropriate passages are at the same time read which foretell the destruction of all heathen nations (Ps. 79:6; 69:25; Lam. 3:66). It is a remarkable coincidence that, in instituting His own Supper, the Lord Jesus connected the symbol, not of judgment, but of His dying love, with the ‘third cup.’ But, in general, it may be interesting to know that no other service contains within the same space the like ardent aspirations after a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple, nor so many allusions to the Messianic hope, as the liturgy for the night of the Passover now in use among the Jews." [Ibid., pp. 180-181]
Of course, it is important to re-emphasize that all sacrifices, feasts, and associated rituals prefigured the work of the Messiah in some manner. This would include Yom Kippur (i.e. the Day of Atonement). The author states that this feast would have been a more appropriate time for Christ’s death, yet it is important to note that the Day of Atonement ritual places great emphasis on the duties of the priest. The high priest was to choose two goats and a bullock as sacrificial animals for this ritual. The bullock served as a sacrifice to atone for the priest himself, as well as for his house. Of the two goats, by casting lots, one was chosen to be sacrificed in order to atone for all of Israel’s sins, while the other was chosen to be the scapegoat, upon which all of the sins of Israel were to be confessed, and which would subsequently be led away into the wilderness. This was the one day of the year in which the priest was allowed to enter within the veil, into the most holy place, and sprinkle blood upon the mercy seat in order to make atonement for all of the Israelites. See Leviticus 16 for more detail.
As discussed earlier, the Messiah serves also as our eternal high priest, and as such, he fulfills the anti-typical role of the priest of Yom Kippur. Of course, since Christ was sinless, unlike Aaron and the other priests, he did not have to make an atonement for himself to "enter within the veil," but the ultimate sacrifice that he also served as provided the means through which he could carry out his role as our eternal and faithful high priest. Consider once again the relevant passages in Hebrews 9:9-15; 18-26 (quoted above), where Christ’s priestly ministry in heaven, within the "tabernacle made without hands," as well as his entrance into the Most Holy Place (just as the Levitical priest did one time per year on Yom Kippur in the earthly Temple), is expounded. Thus, the Day of Atonement served as the type for Christ’s priestly ministry, but the Passover for his sacrifice, making it possible for sinners to be delivered from the bondage of sin.
SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exod 12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).
RESPONSE:
The consumption of the Paschal Lamb was a physical ritual intended to convey a deeper spiritual meaning. Indeed, what better way is there to indicate that it was the Paschal Lamb and its blood that saved one from death other than to consume the meat and put its blood on the door, over which the death angel had to pass? Similarly, it is only through Christ’s shed blood and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners that they may be saved from death. Interestingly, Jesus actually does institute an ordinance similar to the consumption of the Paschal Lamb the night before his crucifixion, established in order for his followers to bring into remembrance his great sacrifice on behalf of sinners:
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. ’This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,’ he said to them. ‘I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.’" (Mark 14:22-25)
The placing of the blood on the door symbolized the importance of the lamb’s shed blood, and the consumption of the lamb itself was a type of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners. Physical meets spiritual, once again. The Lord’s Supper ordinance, while performed in order to remember the once-and-for-all monumental sacrifice of Christ, demonstrates the importance of his shed blood and imputed righteousness perfectly.
EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for the sins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people who were born after he died.
RESPONSE:
This objection is a result, once again, of the author’s not taking into account the full scope of Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood. In Hebrews 7:20-28 (quoted above), we find that Christ’s priesthood is eternal, contrary to that of the Levitical priests who suffered death. With Christ always alive, he is there to always provide intercession for those of the past, present, and future. The reason that the other sacrifices had to be continually offered was because they were only of limited adequacy, and in fact, were merely pointers toward the ultimate sacrifice that was still to come, which would have the power to atone for all sins of all times. While Christ entered space and time nearly 2,000 years ago and provided us with that ultimate sacrifice, he can continue to administer righteousness, through his own shed blood, to sinners that accept it, for as long as time remains. In other words, the reason that Christ’s sacrifice was, to use the word of the author, a "super-sacrifice", is because it only needed to occur one time, unlike the "non-super-sacrifices" of the Levitical priesthood. On the basis of that sacrifice, and Christ’s role as our eternal high priest, he has the power to impart righteousness to those living before, during, and after the actual sacrifice had taken place.
Conclusion
This concludes our look at the Jewish author’s claims of how Christ’s sacrifice supposedly is out of harmony with the sacrificial system established in the Torah. However, in light of several relevant Old Testament passages and prophecies, and their New Testament counterparts, as well as a proper understanding of Jewish exegetical procedures (see once again the relevant article by Glenn Miller), we see that the author’s conclusions are based on superficial scholarship and mere proof-texting. We also remind the reader that Sam Shamoun has answered objections 7, 9, and 10 (which we didn’t touch upon here for that reason) in the article, Judaism and Human Sacrifice as a Means of Atonement.
The author concludes his article with the following statement:
It is simply astonishing that so many people believe what their preachers "feed" them, as well as how the New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.
RESPONSE:
What is truly astonishing is how some people think they’ve actually proven true disharmony between the sacrificial system of the Torah and that outlined in the New Testament by such superficial and misguided approaches.
Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Articles by Wildcat
Answering Islam Home Page