How does this pertain to sin sacrifice?

 By "faith" here, what do you mean? Belief in God? If so, belief alone?

I'm going to answer as best I can, but have to ask: where is it found that "This is G-D's requirement given to the people and MUST be met in order for Jesus to become our sin sacrifice."?

As salvation history is in small stepping stages, Biblical Judaism was God's preparatory form of sacrificial religious worship before Christ came and was crucified for the sins of the whole world (not just those of the Jews!) and then a new and definitive stage brought about by Christ which completed God's revelation and structures of the Old Testament. We know the prophets prophecied the Messias and Christ fit everyone of them to a "T" including His death on the Cross, so that leaves me wondering where is it; how was it given that Jesus to be the sin sacrifice must have been burnt or sacrificed in the Temple?

--------------------------

God's promise of salvation, given in Paradise after the Fall of our first parents, Gen.3:15, was ratified by the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham Gen. 17, and renewed with Isaac and with Jacob Gen. 26; 28:12-15; later Moses sealed this covenant by offering victims Exod. 24:1-11.  In the New testament God keeps His promise: Jesus by His Death on the Cross, establishes the New and Eternal Covenant. The expression, "New Testament" is taken from the words Jesus uses when instituting the eucharistice Sacrifice St.Matt. 26:28; St.Mark 14:24; St.Luke 22:20 and 1Cor. 11:25. The Sacrifice Christ offers on the Cross is the new and definitive Covenant also known as the New Testament.  

Simply put, if you connect the dots, everything in Old Covenant Judaism leads to Christ's life, works, death and resurrection and thus to the New and Everlasting Covenant.

As you know there are various kinds of sacrifices....public and private sacrifices....public sacrifices were offered for the community as a whole...In Levit. 4:13-21, a young bull was offered as a sin offering for fault of the people. Christ's Atoning sacrifice was a very public and offered for the whole world.

Evidently sacrifices were offered in 4 different ways. In some cases with sin offerings (hattat) Lev. 4:1-5; 13; 6:24-33 and guilt or tresspass offerings 5:14-26; 7:1-6,  the sacrificial victim was partially burnt, the remainder being eaten by the offerer and the priests or by the priest alone.  

Lev. 1:3-9 demands a holocaust offering.....the most solemn form of sacrifice which involved the total destruction of the victim; only the victim's pelt was kept becoming the priest's property.....had to be a male, unblemished, and chosen from "pure" categories......victims could be offered by private persons as well as by people as a whole...  (We can easily see how this can be contrasted to Christ's sacrifice).

The OT contains many warnings that urged the Isrealite worshipper to greater obedience to the Lord than was occasioned by bloody sacrifices. Espeically with the prophets this is true. By their criticism of hypocritical, external worship, they paved the way for NT concepts of sacrifice. The prophet Osee 3:4; 9:4-5 considered the cessation of sacrifice a punishment for the nation. Jeremias envisioned a place for sacrifice in the purified worship of the future 17:26; 33:18.

Even though the prophets constantly called for more moral and interior religion, it wasn't coming becasue their attacks were part of the general criticism of a decadent and impious society.

Have you read Hebrews? It gives the most elaborate contrast of the Levitical sacrifices with the Sacrifice of Christ. For example Hebrews 7-10 depicts God as the initiator of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, but he also maintains that these were merely foreshadowings of Christ in which He was both High Priest and victim. This goes along nicely with Lev. 1:3-9 sometimes called the "scapegoat" but more likely the gesture proclaimed the union between the victim and the offerer. He argued that the sacrifices of the Old Law were temporary whereas Christ's was eternal and unique. 8:1-2; 9:25-26; 10:11-14; 12:2. The holocausts of Isreal 10:5-10, the covenant sacrifices, 9:15-28, the sin offerings 10:1-10 and the atonement sacrifices, 9:1-28 had all been replaced by the unique effecacious and eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Hebrews 9:1-14 does a good job describing how the rites of the Old COvenant prefigure those of the New. v. 11 on speaks of Christ sealing the New Covenant once and for all...v. 12 has it He entered once for all into the Holy Place...securing an eternal redemption...v. 24 has it "for Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made of hands (Temple), a copy of the true one, but into Heaven itself..."

The sin offereings in 10:1-10 speaks how the sacrifices of the OLd Covenant could not take away sins and that Christ's offering has infinite value...v. 8 has it that God didn't take pleasure in burnt offerings and sin offerings as far as satisfying His Justice.

Christ's Sacrifice on the cross is the paschal mystery and central event in human history. Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is the most perfect worshipful homage to God of all history and the Resurrection of Christ is the living testimony of God's accpetance to mankind's spotless Sacrifice.

In the paschal mystery, Jesus, Humanity's High Priest, offered Himself to God as an immolated Victim. Therefore, He fulfilled all the sacrificial foreshadowings of Calvary established by God's Old Covenant with men. He reconciled sinners to God by a lasting reconciliation and formed a new people cleansed by His redemptive Blood. His sacrifice on Calvary inauguarated the rite of the Christian cult and aptly set forth its Spirit sacramentally on the Cross.

Yes, because salvation is freely given.  Now Salvation is not to be confused with righteousness which then brings in the persons walk or works (regarding the Torah).  There is no other action that we can receive Salvation or else Salvation is by works (which we know is false).

Excellent Question: Deuteronomy 12 covers this issue probably the most directly.

"But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:"(Deut 12 5-6)

This is directly pointing that when the Temple is built all sacrifices will take place there.

"Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee." (Deut 12:13-14)

This is pretty clear that no other places are allowed.

And Lula this is the crux of the issue.  If he was to meet the jot or tittle of the prophecy then Jesus would also meet the criteria of the sin sacrifice for our atonement. 

Lula, The old Covenant didn't go away.  Lev, Ex, are full of 'Everlasting Covenant' just like the phrase that pertains to the Rainbow.  Did the Covenant with the rainbow go away? I think not.

All of the sacrifices you mentioned are burnt and offered INSIDE the Temple.  Christ did not meet these two requirements.

Exactly, and Jesus was neither burnt and not offered in the Temple as he was taken OUTSIDE the temple.

Don't argue that these are supposed to be foreshadowings, however, this affirms my stance that the sin sacrifice needs to be fulfilled.

There are so many verses in Torah that contain the word 'Everlasting' next to it.  I find it preposterous to consider the 'Old Law' (as you refer to the Torah) as a temporary when Torah clearly says it is everlasting.

Yes I know what Hebrews says but just because they say it is true doesn't make it so.  The Torah is clear about the sin sacrifices (burnt and in the Temple). 

The Pesach lamb was not a sin sacrifice.

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't mean it is true. 

Adventure-Dude, I love your investigative spirit!

Thank you, I accept this as quite the compliment coming from you. 

I was a little concerned as to whether you thought I was 'hijacking' your thread but thought this was an appropriate topic that coincided with the thread.

Can you tell me more about the hebrew word Khataw-aw and Ahvone?

The strongs leads me to believe that essentially the differences between these two hebrew words are.

Khataw-aw - sin, impurity, etc with regards to the sacrifice

Ahvone - sin, essentially the transgression of the Torah.

Hmmm.....first, you do know that even Satan and his demons believe in God, right?....and we know where they are going as far as spending eternity, right?   Therefore, it can't be that belief in God alone is all that God requires...He requires other things of us than just belief alone.

He requires obedience to His commands and a very specific way of worshipping Him...it stands to reason that if we disobey His commands we sin...and if we don't worship Him in the way He commands, we sin against His command to do so...

So, how do those Jews today, who believe in God but who don't obey His commands and sin, become righteous and acceptable before God when they are without the Temple, Altar, and bloody sacrifices, Aaronic priesthood to atone for their sins as the Mosaic Law prescribed?  

The passage you reference in James 2:19 is in reference to G-D being echad (one).  When I stated 'faith' in G-d, I was not refering to the recognition that there is a G-d but that through faith I can confidently recieve his Salvation.  Granted, yes there should be fruits of this 'faith' but Salvation does not come from the fruits nor the works but rather the acceptance that G-D is offering the gift of Salvation through my faith and commitment to follow HIM.  It came from the first step to receive the gift of salvation.

Lula, for the Jews today they would be in the same boat as Israel was when they were without the first Temple.  Look at King David.  He didn't have the Temple either but he had faith in the G-D of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The Psalms is full of David speaking of his salvation coming from the L-RD.  Again during the period he didn't have the Torah.  David broke most of the 10 commandments!

Lula posts:

I agree with your interpretation of these passages in Deut. 12. The Temple was the place designated for sacrifices....As far as the Temple is concerned, Temple is a place that reveals a sacred reality....Jesus' body was considered the Temple.

And in Gethsemani, the garden where Jesus, in incomparable agony sweat blood drenching His garments and trickling to the ground, by His completest, self-oblation in the humility of obedience and mortification, took the sins of the world upon His Body. At that moment, Jesus, the Lamb designated for a sin offering of this Great Pasch, God is now laying the iniquity of us all, "the sin of the world". Weighing Him down are all the sins of mankind, past and present and future, from the first in the Garden of Paradise to the last at the end of time. SIns of individuals, of families, of social classes, of states and nations; all the revolting crimes of pagans against the precepts of the Sinai code, all the criminal abominations of the Jews against each of the Ten Commandments even to the killing of prophets and idolatry.

If we look deeply into this moment we'll see that here was Jesus, the Lamb of God, weighed down with this load of sin, made sin, prepared to offer as a voluntary and free sin offering His Body, Blood and Life. St.Paul told the Corinthians, "Verily, Him, that knew no sin, for us God hath made sin, that we might be made the justice of God in Him."  

AD posts:

Where does this requirement come from that in order to accept Jesus as your sin offering He would have to have been burnt inside the Temple. (Deut 12 doesn't supply that answer).  Why are you placing this requirement on God?...that in order to accept Jesus as your sin offering He should have to have been burnt inside the Temple? Why do you attempt to even think that Almighty God would equalize the unsalvific sin offering of bullocks, lambs, etc. with that of Christ's Sacrifice? The former didn't redeem the Isrealites from sin and open the gates of Heaven and the latter did; infinitely so.

No offense, but your whole thing is based upon the wrong premise...it's not IF Jesus is our sin offering.

Lev 4 covers this. Deut 12 refers to the sacrifices being done inside the Temple and Tabernacle (while out in the desert).

Well, since G-D wrote the Torah, I'll say HE put the requirement on himself since it comes from HIS book?

This is the requirement for sin sacrifice, is it not?

OK now you are confusing salvation and the sin sacrifice.  No where in scripture does it say, "offer me a sin sacrifice and I'll give you salvation."  As I said before Salvation comes from the first step of faith in G-D.

Never said the sin sacrifice opened the gates of Heaven (ie salvation). 

No offense taken.  OK, 'since' Jesus is our sin offering, how come he doesn't meet that little requirement of Lev 4?

Indeed. Take Isaias 53, who prophecied v. 5 that He would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, v.6 that the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Jeremias 11:19 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter...v. 8 by oppression and judgment he was taken away...Isaias 53:10 explains what was the will of God......"Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief when He makes Himself an offering for sin,"....what more do you need AD?

He did meet the critieria, He met God's criteria...infinitely so. This is all so artificial.....Who are you (Jews) to set God's criteria?

Me need? Nah, it is you who struggles to answer the question. 

Again, this is written in Lev 4 and Deut 12 about the sacrifice for sin and that the sin sacrifices are to be burnt and performed inside the Temple/Tabernacle.  Unless you are telling me the Torah is not divinely inspired?

If he met it infinitely so, then it would be easy for you to point out why Jesus was taken outside the temple and was not burned as the sin sacrifice?

Yes, Amen...Almighty God wrote the Torah and He stated His specific requirements as per Lev. 4...the sin offering was to be only  that  of v. 3 a calf without blemish....v. 23 a buck goat without blemish...v. 28 a she-goat without blemish...it's never, ever been a sin offering requirement of a person....if it were, then God would be breaking His own commands of what was only to be offered.

Becasue the requirement of Lev. 4 specified certain animals and Jesus was a  Divine Person.

As it stands right now, it seems to be only your requirement (and perhaps other Jews, I don't know).

Did you just contradict your own theology? 

So Jesus can't be the sin offering because he was a person?  Hmm, interesting.....

What the heck?  Lula, I showed you the scripture texts and some how this is my requirement?  Oy Vey.

The short answer is that Almighty God did it His Way! The Cross with Christ fixed at the very heart of it tells the world that only God sets the limits of sacrificial love.

Christ Jesus is God made man. What did He do?

The man Jesus, His humanity united to the uncreated God, is the natural Mediator between God and sinful mankind. Hebrews 7 tells us that Christ is the one substantial holy Priest that the whole human race can claim for itself...and wow...that is something!

He came among men primarily to be the perfect adorer of God. All of His actions were empowered by measureless efficacy for reconciling sinful mankind with God.  The acts before Calvary lacked the specifically sacrificial meaning of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

From Christ's public identification by the Baptist until His final solemnization of the paschal meal He progressively revealed Himself as Victim-Messias, the true Lamb of God. He came to be "sanctified" st.John 17:19, He is an immolated Lamb 1 st.Peter 1:19, who expiates men's sins by His victimhood Rom. 3:25. In the heavenly liturgy He receives grateful testimony from the elect of God Apoc. 5:5-14 and in His glorified humanity the Lamb of God leads His people to the perfection of glory 7:7.

The precious Blood of Christ "as of a lamb without blemish or spot" redeemed the Isrealites from the "vain manner of life" handed down to them by its forefathers. 1st. Peter 1:19. Yes, Isreal was the chosen race, but like a faithless spouse needed to be reconciled anew by the redemptive sacrifice of the Cross---God's gratitious assurance of His own love for men. Rom. 5:8. The prophets promised a new covenant between God and His people Jer. 31:31-34; Ez. 37:26.

Unlike the Old Mosaic Covenant, the new covenant would reach out to all nations. According to Eph. 2:14, the Cross became a barrier breaker and the meeting place for the old Isreal and the new chosen race..."a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people". 1st.Peter 2:9. Christ Himself is man's passover. 1Cor. 5:7.   

Lula posts:

I haven't contradicted Catholic theology at all...why jump to that conclusion?

Lev. 4 demanded specific things 1---that sin offering be an animal and 2---that that animal be burnt inside the Temple.

So Jesus can't be the sin offering in this specific Lev. 4 context becasue 1---He is not an animal and 2---God forbids persons be burnt inside the Temple.

Oy Vey back to you!

It is entirely appropriate and I enjoy reading it. I find you have a very clear way of interpreting the Christian faith.

(Two weeks ago on the train to Haifa I was given a Christian Bible containing Tanakh and "Bris Hadasha" in Hebrew by what I assume was a Messianic Jew. I accepted the book with thanks but now don't know what to do with it.)

I think you mean חטא and עוון. I don't know what the second "aw" is.

I checked the roots with the Aramaic lemma lexicon:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

First root is: xT)

It means "sin", "offence", "wrongdoing". That's "hata" (Het Tet Alef, vowels guessed as I don't know the word). Words based on the same root include "to sin" (active verb), "to disinfect" or "to purify" (repetitive verb), and "to miss" or "to cause to sin" (causative verb). (The vowels for the verb forms are obvious.)

The second word is "awon" (Ayon Waw Waw Nun, the second Waw is a vowel). In Hebrew it simply means "sin" or "crime" or "offence" but also "punishment". I don't know any other words based on the same root. It's an old word and one of only a few that have a Waw as a consonent. The Aramaic cognate means "natural urge".

Second root in Aramaic lexicon: )wn

Here are the words:

חטא ("sin", "offence", "wrongdoing")

לחטוא ("liahto" = "to sin"; the "h" is a Het)

לחטא ("lehate" = "to disinfect", "to purify")

להחטיא ("lehahti" = "to miss", "to cause to sin")

Note that "liahto" ("to sin") and "lehahti" ("to miss" or "to cause to sin") have the same releationship as "likhtov" ("to write") and "lehakhtiv" ("to dictate" or "to cause to write").

עוון ("awon" = "sin", "punishment")

I don't know anything about the theological relevance. Your assumptions about their relevance seem correct to me since "hata" has a meaning related to purification whereas "awon" is simply about sin and punishment.

lula posts #28

AD POSTS

Sorry....I should be more specific when I speak of the Old Covenant....as there are lots of "covenants" mentioned in the Old Testament. So yes, the Abrahamic and Noah's covenant are everlasting, but the Old MOSAIC Covenant is no more. The beginning of the New and Everlasting Covenant in the Blood of the Savior meant the end of the religion of the Old Mosaic Covenant. At the moment of the Crucifixion, when the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom, Almighty God was making it known that the ceremonies and rites of the Old Mosaic law were to be abolished by Christ.  

The Isrealites didn't hold up to their side of the bargain..it was broken by the people's sins Jer. 31:32 and besides that read Leviticus 6:18 and you'll see that God put limitations on the Old Mosaic Covenant..."The males only of the race of Aaron shall eat it. It shall be an ordinance everlasting in your generations concerning the sacrifice of the Lord:..."

There are many OT prophecies of the Messias and all have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazereth. The oblation of the true Lamb, Christ, was the consummation of all of the sacrifices established by God's command. Heb. 9:1-14. Christ's sacrifice fulfilled all the sacrificial foreshadowings of the Old COvenant. Holocausts, sin sacrifices, and peace offerings were all signs (types) of worship demanded by the prophets of Isreal Am. 5:24; Os 6:6; and Mi 6:8. These sacrifices dramatized the duty of the need for God, of atonement for sin, and of the yearning for communion with God in peace. Christ's sacrifice at Calvary alone expressed all this in a way worthy of God's acceptance. Heb. 10:1-7.

Christ's sacrifice fulfilled all the moral, ceremonial and juridical precepts of the OT worship.

So do we agree that Jesus isn't the sin offering (ie sin sacrifice)?

If so then this is just one aspect that would yet need to be fulfilled to suggest that all ceremonial laws are 'fulfilled', right?

I grew up in a Christian Church (Assembly of G-D for the most part).  I have also indulged in many other denominations (Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc) only to find their theology wanting and anti-semitic.

Hmmm, that sounds like a very interesting Bible.  I consider myself a Messianic Jew.  I do believe that I have Jewish ancestry from my mother's side.  I haven't been able to confirm it due to some family history.  I have had many people look at me, pictures of my mom, and grandfather and state that they look very Jewish.  There are some other historical events that lead me to believe that I am.  Like for instance they left Germany during a period that was very high in anti-semitism (in the 1800's). 

I do accept the Brit Hadasha as being true but horrendously misunderstood by Christian theologists.  We have Marcion, Justin Martyr, and a few others to thank for this.  I would be interested in your perspective of the book of Luke (who wrote to Theophilus who was a former Cohen Gadol) and also the book of John (the comparison of the prophets of Elijah (John) and Elisha (Yeshua)).  These two books to me are written from a Jewish Perspective (IMO).

I imagine it would be interesting to read that Hebrew Brit to determine whether the Jewish context and writing styles were restored. 

All in all I would encourage you to read it.  What have you got to lose except time?

Thanks Leauki, I basically wanted to make sure what I was seeing was what I was seeing.  I was mainly interested in the definition meaning and then from there begin to build towards a theological relevance and understanding.  The definition of these two words have significant meaning and I'm finding that they have been misunderstood into their english translations of 'sin' or 'iniquities' depending upon their translators. 

If you are interested in the theological relevance and conclusion that this leads me to I'll be happy to PM you.

Yay we agree on the Abrahamic and Noah's covenant.

Any proof that the words 'everlasting' or 'perpetual' found in Leviticus and Exodus (ie Mosaic covenant) didn't really mean 'everlasting' or 'open to be changed later?'

Doesn't 'new' mean something similar to 'another?'  I mean when I write a 'new' reply it doesn't mean the 'old' reply is no longer valid does it?

Where do you get the idea of 'New' covenant anyways?

Riiiiiiiight, and that's why Jesus said, ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

And yet you still can't show me how the sin sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus based on the requirements of Lev 4.  I know Christian/Catholic Theology teaches this but yet they cannot answer this question.  Very peculiar don't you think?

If you want feel free to post your conclusions here. It is after all "Judaism before and after Jesus". And while I cannot call "Messianic Judaism" a form of Judaism (I don't have the authority as you know) I certainly think I can learn from all sects of all Abrahamic religions.

Or you can PM me. I am absolutely interested.

(And If G-d wants to change the everlasting covenant, He better send Moses back to clarify things for me.)

You overestimate my command of Hebrew.

The main problem is that if I read a text that is very very new (i.e. written in or translated into Hebrew today) but is supposed to be part of the Bible, I might learn the wrong things about what is Biblical Hebrew and what is Modern Hebrew. I find it difficult enough to read the Torah, let alone the other two books of the Tanakh (which I find more difficult).

I am also still busy with "Die Syro-Aramaeische Lesart des Koran" ("The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran") and am busy learning enough Arabic to understand the examples in the book (which are given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic).

And then all of this is just a hobby.

I'll see if I can squeeze it in. But it seems like I would have to know a lot about Jewish theology to give a useful perspective. And I don't know much about Jewish theology.

I accept as true a lot of religious writings, including Zoroastrian scripture. But I accept as relevant for me and as law only that which Rabbinical Judaism accepts and possibly less.

Depending on your reading of the text, I might agree with you about its truth. But I still wouldn't think that it is relevant for me.