Bauer was definitely stupid to bring up the conspiracy theory that Isaiah 53 is removed from Jewish Bibles. The latter video is also wrong however, no you can't get around that the Suffering Servant is an individual suffering for the sins of the people. The Melchizedek Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls Interpreted it that way before the time of Christ. The Talmud cites it as Messianic at least once in Sanhedrin 98b, the Leper Scholar. The idea of it referring to the Nation doesn't show up till after 1000 AD.
Other criticisms the second video makes of the first are also valid, but not all.
For outside The Torah Zach should have referred to when David had seven sons of Saul hung on trees to appease the Gibeonites. That is clear Hebrew Bible precedent for people being executed not for their own Sins but for the Sins of a blood Kinsman. And five of them were maternal grandchildren interestingly.
The people in the latter video love to emphasize Repentance. The Problem is I don't believe Yahuah is going to Save only those who Repent. They love to point to Ezekiel 18, I point to Ezekiel 16 where even Sodom is promised to be restored.
The common claim that the Passover sacrifice isn't an Atonement Sacrifice I find to be rather semantic. The Passover is unique and doesn't fit into the other five general Sacrifice categories easily at all. But it sure as heck resembles Atonement more then it does offering something to Yahuah just out of devotion. God is carrying out a Judgment on Egypt for not letting Israel go, and putting The Blood on the Doorpost protects your Household from that Judgment. The Levitical Atonement Sacrifices also involved Covering things with The Blood. The Passover Lamb covers a Household not an individual, Jesus was offered for the Household of Adam.
The people in the second video say that Atonement Sacrifices have to be female, I don't know where they got that. The Yom Kippur Sacrifice is a male Goat in Leviticus 16. Leviticus 4:3 requires a male Bullock to Atone for the Sin of a Priest, and Leviticus 4:14 and Numbers 15:24 require it to be a male Bullock and/or male kid of the Goats if it's offered on behalf of the Community. And Leviticus 4:22-23 says if a Nasi sins the Atonement offering has to be a male of the Goats. And of course The Passover had to be a male.
The Trespass offering in Leviticus 5 is what requires a Female. However Jesus defined the Sins of Humanity as unknowing sins on The Cross. But at any rate, I believe Jesus was ultimately both male and female. Jesus also fulfilled the Red Heifer offering by being killed on the Mount of Olives, "without the Camp".
The second Video also got persnickety about saying you don't Anoint a Sacrificial Offering. You know Torah Only people love to say the only person who's Anointed in the Torah is the Priest, there is no Anointing of Kings. Jesus is both the Offering and the one Making the Offering. The Torah does say to anoint the Wafers of Unleavened Bread. Now they made it sound like your forbidden to Anoint the animal, but the Torah doesn't say that either.
Both Isaac and Joseph play the role of a sacrificial offering in narratives even though they weren't literally.
Now here is a subject many are uncomfortable with. Technically Yahuah demands Human Sacrifice in The Torah of all maternal firstborns.
Exodus 22:29-30.
"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me."However this situation is clarified in Numbers 18:15-17.
"Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto Yahuah, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. But the firstling of a bullock, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto Yahuah."This is not about the Firstborns losing their Priestly status to the Levites, Numbers 3:12 dealt with that. This is specifically about a demand for every First Born to be Sacrificed to Yahuah.
It's interesting that Humans are distinguished from unclean animals, even though when viewed as animals we lack both requirements for being Levitically clean. Humans aren't animals however. With animals these physical characteristics of cleanness are merely symbolic representations of moral purity. The only thing keeping most Humans from being an acceptable Sacrifice is being Sinful. Only someone without Sin can truly Atone for the Sins of another.
Moses' blessing on Joseph is the foundation of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine. Deuteronomy 33:17 says.
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."The Hebrew words for firstling and Bullock here are the same as in Numbers 18:17. It was firmly established in the minds of all Israelites that every Firstling Bullock was to be Sacrificed, no exceptions. So this passage has been taken even by non Christians as saying someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then risen again (the "Unicorn" representing him Resurrected), hence the Messiah Ben Joseph tradition.
The context is about Maternal Firstborns. Galilee in NT times wasn't just Naphtali anymore. I think Nazareth was possibly actually Jezreel, a site that can potentially be linked to Manasseh. And when reading about Hezekiah's Passover it becomes clear plenty of Manasseh was still left behind after the Captivity.
Manasseh was the firstborn of Asenath and Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel. It's interesting that Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 both emphasize that Jesus was the Firstborn of Mary even though the Virgin Birth already made that obvious.
And hey, I made that case without even addressing the awkward issue of Jephthah's Daughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment