Discourse: Christian Pastor to Sinaite – 11

[And so the Discourse between Sinaite “VAN” and “CP”  long time friend and Head of a very successful metropolitan church continue.  Their spouses, partners in life and in ministry, are included since they all worked together under the umbrella of Christianity.  Until we have their permission to reveal their identity, for now we use ‘aliases’.

 

For those who have not read the previous exchanges, hereunder are the posts: 

Original text has been reformatted; our color coding helps our readers to know which part of the Christian Bible is being quoted:  red for NT verses, Israel blue for TNK verses.—Admin1]

 

———————————

 

 

Dear VAN and BAN,

 

We share in the hope of keeping this exchange of thoughts open. For nothing can lead us to the truth but the diligent study of God’s Word. As the Lord Jesus has said and promised it is “the truth that shall set us free.”

 

So, let me humbly respond to some of your questions.

 

First, a quick reply on you inquiry regarding the discrepancy on the number of books in the Hebrew and Christian Bible: I am sure that in your studies you have also noticed how the Hebrew Old Testament grouped together several books that Christian Bible kept apart. The Hebrew canon grouped the 12 Minor Prophets into a single book. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the dual books of Kings and Chronicles were united in a single book as well. The 24 books in it are but the equivalent of the 39 in the Christian Bibles. I hope you were also able to notice the interesting symmetry found in the Christian arrangement of the OT books.

Let me focus more on the question of sacrifices to God and the legitimacy of human sacrifice as it keeps on surfacing in your replies to me, as well to several titles ascribed to Jesus that you wished to discuss.

 

1.  You mentioned before on why only fasting and repentance was required by God of the people in the city Nineveh. Can we not consider the simple fact that Nineveh was a pagan nation and does not have the Mosaic laws and regulations for sacrifices of atonement required by God from the Israelites? What else could God possibly require of them that is within the range of their current understanding of appeasing God’s displeasure?

 

Regarding the Exodus narrative where the Passover seems to speak nothing of a sacrifice and that the lamb was offered not as a sacrifice and its blood as atonement for sin, I may have to remind you that the nature of ‘offerings’ in the Old Testament evolved and developed over time. It need not be confined to only sacrifices for the purpose of propitiation or atonement. Please notice how from the earliest times of the Bible, ‘offerings’ have also been given as a sign of gratitude or thankfulness to God and even supplication (take the case of Cain and Abel’s, Noah’s, Abraham’s, etc.). As noted by the OT scholar G. F Oehler, observing the above-mentioned distinction is crucial in properly understanding the nature and purpose of ‘offerings’ in the Old Testament.

 

In the case of the Passover in the Exodus story, at that moment the Mosaic Law and the regulations for atonement have yet to be in place. That would be given when they are already out of Egypt. That the book does not indicate the idea of ‘atonement’ is not surprising and is actually ought to be expected. What the text wishes to express, however, is that the blood of the lamb is instrumental for the Israelites to be spared from the ‘sword’ that shall strike the first-borns in the whole of Egypt. Nonetheless, the careful nuances made by the writers of the Old Testament shows that even they have a concept of what Christians called as “progressive revelation.”

 

2. In any case, in your previous letter, we seem to be coming to an agreement that sin would require sacrifices for its atonement. Your concern has more to do with the concept of ‘human sacrifice’ as related to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and whether a person dying for someone else’s sins is required, or even allowed, by the Old Testament. Again, as I mentioned in one of my replies to you, I don’t presume to be able to make a better and more persuasive case than what is written in the book of Hebrews. I rest my case on the written testimonies of the early disciples. They are in a better position than us to set forth a case for their arguments, in view of their proximity to the events they are describing and the claims that comes with it. In Hebrews 9:23, it clearly tells us that a sacrifice better than the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law is needed:

 

That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals.  But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.

 

You have mentioned that since in the Mosaic Law human offerings are strictly forbidden and are considered an abomination from the Lord, the practice of human sacrifice must have no Scriptural support and must have come from a source other than the Hebrew Scriptures. You find it problematic that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was found acceptable in the NT.

 

 

Now, I wonder really, if that is so, then the Jewish scholars during the time of the twelve Apostles and Paul would have easily refuted the core message of their preaching especially that it is anchored on Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. Apostle Paul, for an instance, clearly said:

“God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. “ (Romans 3:25).
Likewise, Apostles Peter and John themselves refer to Jesus’ shedding His blood for our sins (1 Peter 1:18-19, 2:24, and 1 John 2:1-2).

knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

(1 Peter 1:18-19)

 

But if you will observe the apostles’ disputes with the Jewish Rabbis of their time, the issue never was on what Jesus did but instead on who Jesus claims to be –the very Messiah of God and the much awaited Redeemer.

 

Notice also, that though not expressly commanded in the Mosaic Law, the Jewish people did not find it disturbing, on the contrary considered it a noble act, God’s command for Abraham to offer Isaac. Even the prophet Micah played on such admiration for Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son when rebuke the Israelites of their neglect for what really matters to God (see Micah 6:6-8 for the range of offerings the Israelites were willing to bring to God).

 

More so, in his desire to set forth a well-written account of gospel they preached (Luke 1:1-4), Luke records in the book of Acts how Paul and Apollos vigorously reasoned from the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, His resurrection, and Him being the promised Messiah. That Luke wrote his books (Luke and Acts) only 30 years after Jesus’ death is worth noting in light of the obvious fact that should he be merely manufacturing stories and weaving flimsy arguments to bolster the claims in his writings, their contemporaries from the Jewish Sanhedrin would have readily used it against them and the message they are preaching. The early disciples would have then been pinned in a great disadvantage brought about by corrupted and flawed arguments. But Luke bravely wrote the truth: the apostles effectively defended their claims to their fellow Jews and was even shown to be fruitful for many Jews of their time, including Jewish leaders and teachers, were actually persuaded and did come to faith in Jesus (please consider Acts 9:22, 13:43, 14:1, 17:1-4 and 12, and 18:28).

 

You question the ‘hermeneutical’ basis of Apostle John’s claim that Jesus is the Passover Lamb of God in John 1:29,

 

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him. John said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

 

 and Paul’s similar reference to Jesus as the Passover Lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7,

 

“For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

 

Both verses confirm nothing to you. But for me, I rest my case, with the Apostles who have seen Jesus, touched Him, and died passionately defending the truth they were instructed to proclaim.

 

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

 

 

VAN, it was the story of the Passover Lamb and the blood of the lamb that saved the firstborn Israelites from death which God used to open my eyes to help me see and understand that the blood of Jesus brings about my salvation from the judgment of God. It was when I was reading this story that I realized, when God looks at us, He doesn’t see our sin anymore because the blood of Jesus has paid the penalty of our sins.

 

VAN, I make no presumptions to be able to craft a ‘witness’ better than what they have already laid down. As Paul remarked in I Corinthians 2:20, the faith I have and continue to share with you is —

 

“built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the chief cornerstone.”

 

Be reminded, VAN that Paul studied under the respected Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3-5B) and was a Pharisee of good standing (Phil. 3:5-6). We are not. You may feel superior to him or the Apostles John and Peter in the way they interpret the Old Testament, but I could not argue any better than what they have written in the pages of the New Testament.

 

You doubt why they extended the application of the ‘Passover Lamb’ to Jesus. Can’t we consider that the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration and the concept of progressive revelation allows for deeper insights into passages of the Old Testament? Apostle Peter reminded us of the fact that ultimately it is God who is the Author of His Scriptures and it is He, not the human authors (prophet he may be), who holds the meanings behind His words (see 1 Peter 1:19-20). Should the Apostles find, as led by the Spirit of God, depth of meanings in certain texts of the Old Testament concerning how Jesus was actually its fulfilment is not a problem for me. After all, standard Jewish practices of interpretations afford varying degrees of level of interpretation and meanings that can be gleaned from a particular text (i.e. ‘Midrash’ allows for instances of ‘typology’ and ‘Sod’ even secret and hidden meanings). No wonder, the apostles’ Jewish opponents, who are Rabbis themselves, objected not to their method of interpretation but to the conclusion of their interpretation. Luke records Jesus, himself, telling His apostles,

 

“When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And he said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day. It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’ You are witnesses of all these things.” (Luke 24:44-48)

 

 

That the Old Testament is the fulfilment of the New Testament is no problem for Jesus, then it is no problem for me.

 

VAN, my dear friend, I hope you will re-consider that the testimonies of the early Apostles were written with their very lives at stake. They were not merely playing and testing marketing strategies of religious kind that might ‘sell.’ You wrote at length about ‘conversion testimonies’ and ‘life-changing experiences’ in your previous letter, then, doesn’t the martyrdom of all the Apostles speak vividly of the ‘message’ they defended to their deaths –that Jesus is the Messiah and only through His death on the cross could forgiveness of sin come to humanity?

 

3. You also mentioned how the much awaited Messiah in the Old Testament is a human being from the line of King David. That he is not a God like what was claimed by Christians for Jesus and that the deliverance he will bring is actual and physical freedom to the nation of Israel. Let me just say at the outset that the relationship between these three things (Messiah, King, and Son of God) need to be considered carefully.

 

That these elements are closely tied to each other is strongly attested by Old Testament passages (Psalms 89:26-29). Perhaps most clearly, Psalm 2 talks of the coming chosen ‘King’ who is also at the same time God’s ‘Son’.  He says,

 

“I have appointed my own king

to rule in Jerusalem on my holy mountain, Zion.”

 

Now I will tell you what the Lord has declared: He said to me,

 

You are my son. Today I have become your father. If you ask me, I will give you the nations; all the people on earth will be yours.” (verses 6-8)

 

Worship the Lord with reverence… Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way…How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (verses 11-12)

 

It should not then come as a surprise when, in Matthew 26:57-68, we would notice how in the mind of the high priest Caiaphas and the rest of the Jewish scholars, there is a close connection between being a Messiah (God’s anointed King) and being God’s Son. To them, laying claim to royalty is to claim divinity as well, hence their charge of blasphemy to Jesus.

 

It is indeed unfortunate that save from some prophetic verses, the storyline of Israel and the Jewish people as well as their expectations of things to come is so often disjointed from the storyline of Jesus as both Messiah and God’s Son. Nevertheless, recent scholarship in the field of New Testament has been paying more attention to the strong link between Jesus and His Jewish roots –that the story of Jesus is actually the continuation of the story of Israel. As today’s leading Bible scholar N.T. Wright puts it, “the story of Jesus is the story of Israel’s God coming back to his people.”

 

I could not go at length about this but suffice to say that a casual reading of the book of Psalms would reveal a deep longing on the side of Israel for God to be their king again (i.e. Psalms 24, 47, 145) –a favor they lost after asking Samuel for a human king (1 Samuel 8:6-9). God told Samuel that it was He whom the Israelites rejected as king. True enough, Israel went through and suffered under a series of human and imperfect kings. Hope for redemption, then, came to be tied-up to the aspiration of God ending their “Exile” and Him returning in glory to Israel as King with the kingdom fully restored (see Acts 1:6). This is an expectation that Matthew, in writing to a Jewish audience, masterfully addressed by carefully presenting Jesus, verse after verse, as the true King that is to come–God Himself.

 

The idea assumed an interesting twist for the Jews when the Roman Emperors, the Caesars, started to lay claim on the title “Son of God” and demanded worship from its constituents. In fact, the common and official title of Augustus Caesar (the current Emperor when Jesus was born) in Greek documents was “Emperor Caesar Augustus, son of god.” It was then when the Jews faced an instance where the concept of kingship and divinity were fused into one personality and rivals what they have held as a religious conviction. Hence, a movement was born among the Jews, the Zealots, who opposed the Roman Empire’s rule and vowed never to take another king but God. Below is an example of a Roman coin during the time of Augustus Caesar. The inscription “Divus Filiu” means “son of god” in Latin.

 

It is interesting that in Mark 15:39, a book written with the Roman audience in mind, it was a Roman centurion at the cross of Calvary who acknowledged that Jesus is the “Son of God.” This is despite the fact that every coin in his purse says otherwise.

 

There is much to be said about rethinking the notion of a purely human Messiah, but let me just refer you to N.T. Wright’s book “How God Became King.” Please tell me then what you think. In any case, it is my hopes that reading such recent scholarship remind you that you are not the first one to be baffled with the nature of the promised Messiah in the Old Testament. Recall that even the Jewish leaders themselves were muted by the Lord Jesus in one time that He asked them of the meaning of Psalms 110:1.

 

Luke 20:41-44 narrates the story:

Then Jesus said, “Why do people say that the Christ is the Son of David? In the book of Psalms, David himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit by me at my right side, until I put your enemies under your control.”’ David calls the Christ ‘Lord,’ so how can the Christ be his son?”

 

In confining yourself to the notion of a purely human Messiah, aren’t you also taking the very position of the Jewish leaders silenced by the Lord Jesus himself?

 

4. Lastly, you asked me of what I mean by ‘Son of God’ and why there is a need for a mediator or advocate (middle-man). I can only give you what Apostle John has explained,

 

“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (John1:18)

 

 

John continues,

 

“There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:6-11, 14)

 

 

The Beloved apostle is simply telling us that only the ‘incarnate’ Son of God could reveal God fully and bridge the persistent gap on human beings’ understanding of who God is and what He is like. People, even the Israelites, have shown to always be in need of some sort of mediator that will bring their concerns to God and who will deliver God’s message for them. Moses tried to fill that role as well as the judges and the prophets that came after him.

 

In light of that context, the author of the book of Hebrews wrote of a more superior way to bridge the persistent gap in ‘knowing God’:

 

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

(Hebrews 1:1-3)

 

 

By claiming to be the Son of God, the Jews got very angry at Jesus because they understood the implications of the claims of Jesus.

 

 

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

(John 10:33)

 

 

VAN, would you really think the apostles, being Jewish people themselves with much reverence for the Scriptures, waste their lives holding to a belief that cannot be supported by the very Word of God? I hope you realize that almost all of the apostles died a martyr’s death because they confessed and witnessed to the fact that Jesus died and rose again. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. Would someone be willing to die for something knowing it is not true? The apostles did not fabricate this story. They were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus and who died for their faith. To my mind, only an encounter with the risen Christ who triumphed over death and lived to sit at the right hand of God would sustain a conviction as strong as that of Stephen’s in Acts 7. Don’t throw away the eyewitness accounts as written in the New Testament.

 

In the end, my friend, you and I are faced with a choice:

 

  • to trust the logic of the Jewish Rabbis or
  • to trust the testimony of the Apostles.

 

It is with much prayer that I urge you to reflect again on the depth of wisdom behind their confession that the Lord Jesus is—

 

 “the way, the truth, and the life.”

 

 

God bless!

 

 

“CP” & D”

 

 

 

Next:  Discourse: Christian Pastor to Sinaite – 11

Join the Conversation...