Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Is Substitutionary Sacrifice/Atonement Taught in the Bible?

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,567 posts

My contention is there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement in Mosaic law. 

 

Yes, and the verses above where something makes atonement "for you" in Lev. 23:27-28 and Lev. 16:29:30 demonstrates a substitutionary atonement.   If I pay your bill "for you,"  I am paying your debt on your behalf.  You owed it but I paid for you.  I paid it as your substitute.  That is what is happening in animal sacrifices.  

 

The substitutionary sacrifice for sin is the heart of the sacrificial system.   Even in Isaiah 53:5, it says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities..."    That is substitution.  There is no way around that.   When I stand in someone else's place and doing what they should have done, I am a substitute.

 

Jesus died in OUR place and he died for OUR sins.    Paul tells us in Col. 2:14 that Jesus paid for our sins by taking away the "handwriting" that was against us.  Our sins were nailed to Jesus' cross and

 

There is a big difference between atonement and substitutionary atonement. 

 

That is a false dichotomy.  The only times when atonement was not substitutionary is when atonement was made for inanimate objects, like the altar or the tent of meeting, etc. 

 

Atonement for sin was ALWAYS substitutionary.

 

Since there is no indication in the OT of substitutionary atonement and since God forgave the Isrealites numerous times without requiring a sacrifice and since animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, the concept of Jesus having to substitute for us or taking the punishment we deserve is on shaky ground.

 

There is plenty of evidence of substitutionary atonement.  You are simply not being honest about the text.   As for unintentional sins....   You are forgetting  something.  There were two kinds of "sin offerings"  one is the sin offering. But there was also the guilt offering, the asham. 

 

The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering is that the sin offering was for the root cause of sin.  The guilt offering deals with the fruit of sin and covers intentional sins and unintentional sins.   Isaiah 5310 says that Jesus, the suffering servant is our guilt offering thus his sacrifice of himself deals with both our unintentional sins and our intentional sins.  

 

The New Testament tells us over and over that Jesus died in our place and paid the sin debt that we owed.  To say that Jesus didn't do that or to claim that such claim is not made about Jesus is nothing short of intellectual suicide in the presence of overwhelming biblical witnesses in the New Testament.

 

Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew.  Why should his commentary trump the Torah?

 

 

Actually he was.  Only a Torah observant person would know that the golden altar of incense was behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement.  That little detail would escape someone else.

 

He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death.  I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary.  He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility.

 

 

 

Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew.  Why should his commentary trump the Torah?  He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death.  I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary.  He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility.

 

 

Here is how someone attains forgiveness for the sin of stealing someone's camel:

 

1) Repent

2) Have remorse

3) Give the victim 5 animals for every animal stolen

4) Ask forgiveness from the victim.

 

No animal sacrifice was necessary.

Actually when one stole something from another person, the Torah requires a guilt offering after you have made peace and restored what was stolen to the other person.  Even Jesus taught that.  So you are also wrong about that.

 

The guilt and sin offerings took care  of both the sin you committed either intentionally or unintentionally and the results of the sins you committed as well.  So you are basically wrong.

 

You know the first goat on Yom Kippur was released into the wilderness.  He was only killed if he came back(the villagers didn't want the goat to bring the sins back to the village)

 

 

That was the Azazel.  The other goat was killed on behalf of all of the people. It made atonement on their behalf for all of their sins.  Jesus was typified in both goats.  The goat that was slain and the goat that bore the sins of the people away.

 

One of the best pictures of a substitutionary sacrifice is in the story of the binding of Isaac and how God spared Isaac and allowed Abraham to sacrifice a ram in Isaac's place. (Gen. 21)



#2
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law.  My associate, who is a highly learned
 Jew has responded to your claims.

 
 
MESSIANIC JEW:  There is plenty of evidence of substitutionary atonement.  You are simply not being honest about the text.   As for unintentional sins....   You are forgetting  something.  There were two kinds of "sin offerings"  one is the sin offering. But there was also the guilt offering, the asham.  The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering is that the sin offering was for the root cause of sin.  The guilt offering deals with the fruit of sin and covers intentional sins and unintentional sins. 
 
Totally wrong.    He is totally misrepresenting the אָשָׁם asham when he says it was for intentional sins (as if it covered everything not covered by the cheit  - the "sin" offer).  The אָשָׁם asham was for three different types of very specific violations.  
 

1. unintentionally taking and using something from the holy Temple. The person must return the items, add 1/5th in restitution and bring an asham;

2. asham taluy is for when you aren't sure if you sinned or not, so just to be sure you bring an asham taluy. If later you discover that you did commit a cheit (accidental sin) you bring a chatat (sin offer);

3. asham g'zelot if you lied under oath defrauding someone of his things or money. In this case again you have to return the stolen things and add 1/5th to it as well as bring the asham g'zelot.

 
Your missionary is ignoring the fact that the worse sins could not be atoned for with blood sacrifice.  These include עוון avon (iniquity) or the פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha (transgression, willful rebellion against G-d)  your missionary totally ignores these more serious sins, trying to say that anything that isn't a cheit (an accidental sin) is an asham.  Totally not true. 



עוון Avon (translated by Christians as iniquity) is an impulsive act of lust or uncontrollable urges (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice).  An avon (unless it falls under the asham talu or asham g'zelot) cannot be rectified with a qorban, and neither can a pesha. Repentance and turning to G-d to seek forgiveness for sins against G-d and seeking forgiveness to any person that might have been harmed from that person are the methods of atonement;

פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha' is usually translated by Christians as "transgression."  It means to willfully go against G-d. It means "rebellion" (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice) -- but other things in this life do atone for them.  1 Kings 8:46-50 include chatat, avon, rasha (wicked or evil) and pesha are atoned for by prayer.
 
Ezikiel 18:21-32 speaks of sin, iniquity and willful rebellion against G-d all being forgiven through repentance.   chatat (18:21), pesha (18:22), chatat (18:24), pesha (18:28), pesha and avon (18:30) are all atoned through repentance.

"By loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).
"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).
This whole fixation on blood, blood, blood by missionaries is not supported by the Jewish bible.    The missionaries take the statement that blood can atone for SOME sins and somehow morph it into "you need blood for sins to be forgiven."  This is akin to eating a slice of pizza because you are hungry and then insisting that the only type of food that exists in the world is pizza.  How crazy is that?

Edited by OneLight, 30 May 2014 - 07:42 PM.


#3
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts

Shiloh, Another retort to your claims.

 

MESSIANIC JEW:  That was the Azazel.  The other goat was killed on behalf of all of the people. It made atonement on their behalf for all of their sins.  Jesus was typified in both goats.  The goat that was slain and the goat that bore the sins of the people away.

 

 You're right.  He's wrong.  He really needs to actually READ the bible!  

The first goat was a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer).    A cheit is an unintentional sin through carelessness -- a "missing of the mark."  A sin qorban (sacrifice) could not be brought for intentional, willful sins. 

The high priest brought a bull as a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer) for himself and his household.   The first of two identical goats was sacrificed as a חַטָּאת / chatat for the unintentional sins of the Israelites.  

The bull for Aaron and the priests and the goat which was sacrificed for the people were for mistakes (accidental sins, aka a "missing of the  mark") and for potentially defiling the Temple grounds (e.g., not being ritually pure by having bathed in a mikvah prior to entering the Temple).   Neither the bull or the goat atoned for "big" sins.  It begins with 

When Aaron enters [this inner] sanctuary, it must be with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3)

The bull is to cleanse the inner part of the Temple from ritual impurities that priests may have made during the year.  Remember that chatat (sin offers) are for mistakes, a "missing of the mark" -- accidental sins.  The bull in question is for Aaron (the high priest himself).   So ask yourself:  if two goats (one killed and one not) atoned for the sins of all Israel why the bull?  Why the ram?  Why the other requirements?  

What other requirements?  READ the chapter!

He must put on a sanctified white linen tunic, and have linen pants on his body. He must [also] gird himself with a linen sash, and bind his [head] with a linen turban. These are sacred vestments, and [therefore], before putting them on, he must immerse in a mikvah.

The high priest must have on very specific clothes.  Without these vestments the sacrifice is not acceptable.   Get that?  The blood sacrifice is UNACCEPTABLE if the priest does not wear the right clothes!

Now lest you think this is exaggerating -- go back and read the first line of chapter 16.    It speaks of the death of Aaron's sons.  They died because they brought an unauthorized fire (sacrifice) to G-d.  

He shall [begin by] presenting his own sin offering bull and atoning for himself and his family (16:6)

The high priest (in this case Aaron, Moses' brother) atones for his sins and for his family -- again accidental sins. 

Now read lines 15 and 16 which are about the bull Aaron sacrifices for himself and the goat which he sacrifices for the Israelites -- it is not that this goat atones for the sins of the Israelites in general (lumped with the goat for Azazel) -- but it has to do with ritual purity and accidental defilement of the Temple, as the bull did for Aaron himself.  READ the text!

He shall then slaughter the people's sin offering goat, and bring its blood into [the inner sanctuary] beyond the cloth partition. He shall do the same with this blood as he did with the bull's blood, sprinkling it both above the ark cover and directly toward the ark cover.  16 Thus shall he provide atonement upon the Sanctuary for the contaminations of the Children of Israel. . .

Contaminations refers to Israelites entering the sanctuary or eating sacrifice while ritually unclean (Rashi; see Leviticus 15:31)

You [Moses and Aaron] must warn the Israelites about their impurity, so that their impurity not cause them to die if they defile the tabernacle that I have placed among them. (Leviticus 15:31)

The people knew that those sacrifices did not atone for their serious transgressions.

The second goat (the scapegoat) is sent to Azazel in the wilderness.     

Keep in mind that a person can turn to G-d at any time seeking forgiveness.  The uniqueness of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is that on that day G-d comes to us.    This shows just how loving, forgiving and kind G-d truly is.   Not only are blood sacrifices not required for Him to forgive us -- He will come to us, the King from his Palace, to His creations.


Edited by LouF95, 30 May 2014 - 07:07 AM.


#4
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts

More...

 

(1) On Yom Kippur, the day itself serves to atone.

(2) A substitutionary sacrifice, where an animal suitable for an obligatory sacrifice is substituted for another is called temurah. Does it really work? No! God does not permit a substitute. (Lev. 27:9-10)



#5
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts

Was the author of Hebrews a Torah observant Jew?  Highly doubtful.

 

MESSIANIC JEW:  Actually he was.  Only a Torah observant person would know that the golden altar of incense was behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement.  That little detail would escape someone else.
 
That little "detail" is wrong.   His example proves your point that whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. 

Hebrews 9:3-7 says that the golden incense altar was “behind the second veil” in the holy of holies. 

 

“Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.”  NIV translation.

This is a mistake (which works against the missionary’s argument that an educated Jew wrote the Christian bible).   Sh’mot / Exodus 30:6 tells us that the golden incense altar was to the west – in front of the dividing curtain (not behind it as Hebrews says).  

 

“And you shall place it in front of the dividing curtain, which is upon the Ark of Testimony, in front of the ark cover.”  Judaica Press Translation

The incense altar was positioned inside the Mishkan, between the menorah (along the southern wall) and the table (along the northern wall), facing the entrance to the Holy of Holies.

The incense altar is mentioned in six places in Sh’mot (Exodus).   See 31:8, 39:38, 40:5, and 40:22-26 which says:

 

He placed the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the dividing curtain.  Judaica Press Translation

Which again disagrees with Hebrews as to where the golden incense altar was located.  Vayikra / Leviticus 16 goes on to say that after the high priest is inside the Holy of Holies he “comes out” (Vayikra / Leviticus 16:17) from the Holy of Holies (again disagreeing with the uneducated author of Hebrews):

 

And he shall then go out to the altar that is before the L-rd and effect atonement upon it:  Vayikra / Leviticus 16:18 Judaica Press Translation.

Rashi wrote:

 

 

“what does Scripture mean when it says, “And he shall then go out?” Since he had just performed the blood sprinklings on the dividing curtain, standing on the inner side of the altar to sprinkle [i.e., between the altar and the dividing curtain], for the applications on the altar, [Scripture] required him to “go out” to the outer side of the altar and to begin with the north-eastern corner. — [Torath Kohanim 16:45; Yoma 58b. See Mizrachi , Gur Aryeh. Also Chavel, who asserts that, according to the Reggio edition of Rashi, the Kohen Gadol did not stand beyond the altar, but alongside it, from where he commenced to apply the blood from the north-eastern corner.]”


#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,567 posts

 

Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law.  My associate, who is a highly learned

 Jew has responded to your claims.

Funny you would have to run to a Jew.    You purport to believe in the DH.   The DH says the Torah was written until starting at 850 BC.   The easiest argument for you would have been to argue that there was no Levitical priesthood and that Moses didn't deliver any commandments to Levites like Aaron because Aaron didn't really exist. 

 

Does the Jew you are running to for help understand that you don't really believe in the historicity of the Torah??  If not, I think it is a bit dishonest on your part to get him to refute me with a text you don't believe was written until after the Babylonian exile.  Does he know you are using him in like that?

 

Most DH proponents I have read believe that monotheism came about after the exile and that the Jews were monotheists prior to that.  I would think that since you claim you did your homework that you would have provided answer yourself rather than being someone else's parrot.

 

It's interesting that you don't know the Bible well enough to answer me so you have to have a Jew carry your weight in a debate.

 

I'll answer his comments a little later on.



#7
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts

 

 

Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law.  My associate, who is a highly learned

 Jew has responded to your claims.

Funny you would have to run to a Jew.    You purport to believe in the DH.   The DH says the Torah was written until starting at 850 BC.   The easiest argument for you would have been to argue that there was no Levitical priesthood and that Moses didn't deliver any commandments to Levites like Aaron because Aaron didn't really exist. 

 

Does the Jew you are running to for help understand that you don't really believe in the historicity of the Torah??  If not, I think it is a bit dishonest on your part to get him to refute me with a text you don't believe was written until after the Babylonian exile.  Does he know you are using him in like that?

 

Most DH proponents I have read believe that monotheism came about after the exile and that the Jews were monotheists prior to that.  I would think that since you claim you did your homework that you would have provided answer yourself rather than being someone else's parrot.

 

It's interesting that you don't know the Bible well enough to answer me so you have to have a Jew carry your weight in a debate.

 

I'll answer his comments a little later on.

 

No,  several Jews.  I cross reference what people tell me.  I have read a variety of materials.

 

*** Personal attack and acronym were removed.  ***

 

From the Terms of Service

 

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. ... (Eph. 4: 29)

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

 

The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. ... (Eph. 4: 29)


Edited by OneLight, 30 May 2014 - 07:33 PM.
Personal attack


#8
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts

shilohlife, don't bother replying.  I'm not interested in the rantings of a sad man whose mind is trapped in an unreal world.  Enjoy the prison bars around your mind.



#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,567 posts

 

 

 

Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law.  My associate, who is a highly learned

 Jew has responded to your claims.

Funny you would have to run to a Jew.    You purport to believe in the DH.   The DH says the Torah was written until starting at 850 BC.   The easiest argument for you would have been to argue that there was no Levitical priesthood and that Moses didn't deliver any commandments to Levites like Aaron because Aaron didn't really exist. 

 

Does the Jew you are running to for help understand that you don't really believe in the historicity of the Torah??  If not, I think it is a bit dishonest on your part to get him to refute me with a text you don't believe was written until after the Babylonian exile.  Does he know you are using him in like that?

 

Most DH proponents I have read believe that monotheism came about after the exile and that the Jews were monotheists prior to that.  I would think that since you claim you did your homework that you would have provided answer yourself rather than being someone else's parrot.

 

It's interesting that you don't know the Bible well enough to answer me so you have to have a Jew carry your weight in a debate.

 

I'll answer his comments a little later on.

 

No,  several Jews.  I cross reference what people tell me.  I have read a variety of materials.  Unlike you, the people I go to are highly educated and sincere.  They have earned my trust.  My BS detector goes off whenever it gets near your words.

 

I don't sense that you truly are "In Christ".

 

The bottom line is that you can't carry your own weight in this debate so I basically have to have an online debate with someone else.  You have to turn to sinners to support your position and even in their responses what I said was misrepresented.

 

That you have to resort  to profanity says a lot about you, BTW.



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,567 posts

shilohlife, don't bother replying.  I'm not interested in the rantings of a sad man whose mind is trapped in an unreal world.  Enjoy the prison bars around your mind.

Says the man who can't discuss the Bible without someone else telling him what to say.   Unlike you, I don't have to be someone else's intellectual puppet.

 

Well if that's how you want it, then I will close the thread.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network