Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

This is a major point of the Akedah narrative, where God prevents Abraham from sacrificing Isaac and introduces a ram in his stead.

Sorry, to interrupt here late, but I am definitely enjoying the conversation. I do have a question on the above quote Emmet. Although it is true that God prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, did he not intiate the sacrifice? In your opinion why would God tell Abraham to do something against the law? Wouldn't Abraham question the sacrifice just like he questioned the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Guest]

Hello, Micah,

Thank you for your posting, and for your questions. I'll take each one in turn.

Although it is true that God prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, did he not intiate the sacrifice?

According to the narrative, absolutely. God did initiate the sacrifice.

In your opinion why would God tell Abraham to do something against the law?

At this point in the narrative, the Torah had not been given. If Abraham had been cognizant of the instruction given to Noah (Genesis 9:6), then he might have gathered that after killing his son, his own life would be forfeit. This would amplify the nature of Abraham's sacrificial obedience. But the explicit purpose of the instruction appears to be to test Abraham's fear of God (vv. 1, 22). This is a primary object lesson of the Akedah: everything must be secondary to the demand of God. There is also another lesson.

Wouldn't Abraham question the sacrifice just like he questioned the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah?

I find this a very interesting question. Perhaps it is telling that Abraham does not question this instruction. We know that child sacrifice was a part of some ancient religion in the region, and perhaps Abraham did not recognize the abomination inherent in human sacrifice. If this were so, we may be compassionate toward Abraham, because he had far less than we in the way of resources to teach him better; our resources are embarrassingly rich, and yet we still fall into the assumptions of our contemporary culture.

I very much appreciate your question, because it may highlight how novel God's behavior would be in a context where child sacrifice was normative. As such, God asks Abraham for what some people would consider a perfectly reasonable sacrifice. But when push comes to shove, God acts in a way that transforms the normative paradigm: he highlights the fact that the willingness to withhold nothing from God is the key element, and he shows that God is satisfied by that willingness alone, without the need for actual doom. This is a second lesson of the Akedah.

A final impression of the overall narrative is that, no matter what one expects, God ultimately spurns a human sacrifice. Indeed, one can argue that part of God's reason for suggesting the sacrifice in the first place was so that he could make an example by rejecting it in the telling moment.

Thanks again for your questions, Micah.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

1) In Jeremiah 3:8, when the bill of divorce is given to Israel, this is clearly referring to the northern kingdom of Israel, and not to the southern kingdom of Judah. Therefore, this divorce does not indicate the intent of God in opposition to the redeemer of southern Zion in Isaiah 59. Furthermore, in Jeremiah 3 itself, God proclaims his mercy toward Israel and calls her to return in repentance -- and there is no mention of an intercessor.

2) In Isaiah 59:20, "will come" may be an allusion to the separation mentioned in 59:2. Though there has been alienation between the southerners and God, he will return to their midst as an agent of justice and a defender of


Hi Emmet, As you know Israel constituted 10 tribes out of a total of 12 so in effect when God divorced Israel He divorced 5/6 of Zion. So if God were to be His own redeemer from Isaiah 59.20 it appears rather strange to me that shortly thereafter He takes such radically opposite action. It's true that earlier in Isaiah God was in fact his own redeemer but never before had he said that he was separated from his people or that he has "hid his face" from them. If God was speaking literally that sin did separate him from his people then at this point it is possible and logical that an intercessor was necessary at God's choosing. And the idea of an intercessor may not have originated here as Job said "i know my redeemer lives" certainly not referring to God and he bemoaned the fact that no one could intervene between him and God. I understand you could interpret this separation in Isaiah 59.2 as poetic and not literal but the actions that follow indicate to me it is literal such as the divorce of Israel and the fact that God decided it would be necessary to create a New Covenant in Jer 31.31 , a different covenant , a covenant of the heart.
Re your explanations of "As for Me" and "will come" i suppose how one sees these expressions depends on their prior beliefs therefore we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of this.

[Guest]

I don’t wish to hi-jack the thread here, but I have just one question for Emmet:

You wrote:

On your next point, I agree that the sacrificial law was never rescinded. I would argue, however, that the primary obstacle to resuming the ministry of the sanctuary is the willingness of the priests and the Levites. There is no reason that the sanctuary must be constituted upon the Temple Mount, and the ministry of the sanctuary can be resumed at any time

And also:

On your last point: I do not claim a mainstream opinion on the reestablishment of the sanctuary. Most who look forward to the rebuilding of a Temple probably do look to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But I do not see this as necessary, no even the construction of a temple as necessary. The tabernacle sufficed, and it can do so again. In fact, given a nation with diaspora, the tabernacle may be a preferred, mobile option, whereby the place where God has established his name can draw nearer to all of his people. But I am thinking outside the traditional box, here.

I’m just curious, where would you expect the fire to come from for these offerings? It seems to me that I remember God requiring His own fire to be used and none other. We see Nadab and Abihu, for example, coming under the judgment of God for offering incense with “strange fire” (Lev 10). We also see other examples of God’s fire from heaven being used for the offering (2 Chron 7, 1 Ki 18:38 ). It seems to me that sacrifices offered in a make-shift tabernacle would either be ineffectual at best, or perilous to the priests at worst. It also seems that many such tabernacles would be required to serve all of the dispersion, wouldn’t it? Would we expect fire from heaven in each of those? And how would you know how many God wants you to build?

What is your opinion on that? I may be totally missing your point here, but that’s the first thing that came to my mind anyways. I appreciate reading your posts.

Thanks, and Lord bless.

[Guest]

Thanks for your response Emmet.

So, if I understand what you are telling me, you feel that God is using an evil action (child sacrifice) for the testing of Abraham's faith, correct? If so, doesn't that seem contradictory to God's nature? I know there are times where God uses the evil intentions of people and turns it into something good for his glorification, but is there another time in scripture where God commands someone to do something evil in order to bring about a good intent? It just doesn't seem to me to fit with the description of God in the rest of scripture.

Also, as a side note...one of the lessons I feel being told is (btw..I don't speak for all Christians...this is just my own opinion)...that the sacrifice appears to be a foretelling of God sacrificing his own Son. As though God was showing that a human could be sacrificed for the foregiveness of sins, but that Isaac wasn't sinless and therefore would not be a suitable sacrifice.

Thanks again for your response. Take care.

-Micah

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your patience in responding!

As you know Israel constituted 10 tribes out of a total of 12 so in effect when God divorced Israel He divorced 5/6 of Zion.

I am unaware of a textual example of where "Zion" is used to refer to the aggregate 12 tribes, as opposed to a location or the community of Jerusalem. Do you have one in mind? Also, where in Isaiah 59 do you find evidence to support the idea that the prophecy is directed at an audience other than the southern kingdom? Because Isaiah's ministry was in the southern kingdom, unless we have explicit reason to think otherwise, we may expect that his audience is the southern kingdom.

So if God were to be His own redeemer from Isaiah 59.20 it appears rather strange to me that shortly thereafter He takes such radically opposite action. It's true that earlier in Isaiah God was in fact his own redeemer but never before had he said that he was separated from his people or that he has "hid his face" from them

On the one hand, the "radically opposite action" does not necessarily take place "shortly thereafter," depending on the timeline one ascribes to the prophecies. The northern kingdom was "divorced" ca. 722 BCE, while Isaiah's activity has been dated as beginning about 738 BCE and continuing until at least 701 BCE. Thus, even if you are correct in addressing chapter 59 to all 12 tribes, the reversal you have described does not necessarily hold. The prophecy of God as redeemer could be given quite a while after the "divorce" had unfolded.

In Isaiah 54:8 we have a parallel that emphasizes the way of God's heart: "In a small moment I have cut you loose; but in great compassions I will gather you. In a flood of wrath, I hid my face from you for a moment; but in everlasting kindness, I will be compassionate to you, says your redeemer, the LORD." This passage emphasizes that God himself is the redeemer of his people, and it testifies to God's ability to both move past his wrath and act to counter estrangement.

I think it is misleading to think of God as "his own redeemer." It seems to me that this phrasing betrays an assumption that the redeemer is an intercessory role between God and people. In Isaiah 59:20, the redeemer is not acting as an intercessor; rather, he is redeeming the people from the injustice that threatens those who repent. As such, God is not "his own redeemer"; God is the redeemer. Elsewhere, the role of the redeemer is to redeem the people from their dire straits, but I am unaware of an instance in Isaiah where the redeemer is acting as an intercessor between God and humans -- and naturally so, because the redeemer is God himself.

You have seemed to be rooted in the understanding that God requires an intercessor to resolve his alienation from his people. I would ask, then: where in the Hebrew bible would you find support for this idea? I have agreed that God was separated from his people relationally. What I fail to understand is why an intercessor is required to resolve that alienation. I can understand how you would derive such an idea from the New Testament, perhaps, but I am unaware of the notion appearing in the Hebrew bible.

I believe that God will have mercy upon whom he chooses, and his will in these matters is not hostage, dependent upon the intercessory agency of another. Rather, God is able to respond directly to repentant hearts; what is more, he is willing and able to act prior to repentance, in order to pave the way for the very repentance itself.

And the idea of an intercessor may not have originated here as Job said "i know my redeemer lives" certainly not referring to God and he bemoaned the fact that no one could intervene between him and God.

You may be right about the intercessor concept appearing in Job; I am unsure of the actual meaning to that verse. But it is neither here nor there, because Job is a touchy book to use for arguing a theological perspective. Job's comments, like those of his three buddies, are not necessarily reliable indicators of truth -- only of his personal perspective.

I understand you could interpret this separation in Isaiah 59.2 as poetic and not literal....

I do understand the separation to be more than poetic; I would understand it as relational, which is indeed a real separation.

Re your explanations of "As for Me" and "will come" i suppose how one sees these expressions depends on their prior beliefs therefore we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of this.

I am unsure whether you mean to agree to disagree regarding these two points, or regarding the entire line of discussion. Either way, thank you for the privilege of this dialogue, and for making me think and study!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Christopher,

Thank you for your posting.

On your first point, I am unaware of the fiery requirement that you are referring to. I would appreciate your assistance with a verse reference.

The Nadab/Abihu incident refers to some kind of malfeasance, but the precise infraction involved is unclear. The "fire from heaven" motif is also interesting -- and who is to say that it could not happen again? -- but I am not recalling such a miraculous inauguration for the burnt sacrifices in Aaron's ministry. Are you aware of a reference that indicates the fire for the sanctuary was heaven-sent?

I frown at your characterization of the tabernacle as "make-shift." It is worth remembering that the Torah itself does not ask for a temple; all of the sacred instructions have to do with the tabernacle. The temple structure is a later development in Israelite religion. As such, I foresee no reason to expect that the operation of the sanctuary as a tabernacle would be "ineffectual" or "perilous."

I am not suggesting the construction of multiple tabernacles. However, even a single portable option could extend the range of the sanctuary ministry. A weekend in upstate New York would significantly ease the participation of many Jews in the sanctuary ritual.

Thanks again for your posting.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Micah,

Thank you for your response.

You raise a very significant question in your posting. The divine command to do a wrongful deed does seem, on the face of it, problematic.


Before I attempt to respond directly, please allow me to introduce some evidence for consideration.


First, I Kings 22:19-23 seems to indicate that the LORD commanded a spirit to go and and be a liar in order to achieve the divine objective (see likewise its parallel in 2 Chronicles 18:18-22). This may qualify as "another time in scripture where God commands someone to do something evil in order to bring about a good intent...."


Second, it is apparent that human sacrifice violates established principles in the Hebrew bible. Ezekiel 18:20 asserts: "The soul that is sinning -- it will die; the son will not bear [the penalty] in the wrongdoing of the father, and the father will not bear [the penalty] in the wrongdoing of the son; the righteousness of the righteous one will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked one will be upon him [emphasis added]."

Micah 6:6-8 is still more pointed: "With what should I go before the LORD; [with what] should I bow myself down to the high God? Should I go before him by means of burnt offerings; [should I go before him] by means of yearling calves? Will the LORD favor by means of thousands of rams; [will the LORD favor] by means of myriads of streams of oil? Should I give my firstborn because of my crime, the fruit of my belly because of the sin of my soul? He has declared to you, O man, what is good, and what is the LORD asking of you except to perform [the appointed] legal decision, and to love lovingkindness, and to walk submissively with your God?"

God's desire is righteousness, not human death or sacrifice, and no person's death is to be in the stead of another.


Given these points, human sacrifice does not fit with principles in the Hebrew bible. I will acknowledge that it seems strange for God to command Abraham to do something that violates these principles. But God's behavior in the narrative sections of the Hebrew bible is sometimes curious. I myself would not claim that the narrative sections are always perfectly inspired. The covenant does not hinge upon the perfection of every narrative account.

However one chooses to approach the narrative, I think that the Akedah account illustrates that proper attitude toward God is what is desired, and that as such, the grave human sacrifice is unnecessary. But there are probably better resources for engaging this issue than the Akedah itself.

Thank you for your time and thought,
Emmet

[Guest]

On the one hand, the "radically opposite action" does not necessarily take place "shortly thereafter," depending on the timeline one ascribes to the prophecies. The northern kingdom was "divorced" ca. 722 BCE, while Isaiah's activity has been dated as beginning about 738 BCE and continuing until at least 701 BCE. Thus, even if you are correct in addressing chapter 59 to all 12 tribes, the reversal you have described does not necessarily hold. The prophecy of God as redeemer could be given quite a while after the "divorce" had unfolded.


Hi Emmet, Thanks for your responses as i am learning some interesting historical information.
Taking into consideration of what you said about hebrew not having capitalization an interesting point is that in the Tanach by Stone, Isaiah 54.8 translates Redeemer as capitalized because it clearly refers to God. But in Isaiah 59.20 "A redeemer WILL COME to Zion" is not . Now if the translators were Christians you could claim they were biased but these are hebrew scholars and experts in this field yet they must believe based on their understanding of the context that this redeemer is not God since they always capitalize his titles.
Perhaps you're right about the timeline but in Isaiah 59.20 it continues "and those of Jacob who repent" , i've always understood Jacob to be another name for all of Israel.
Re Job referring to a redeemer , i think when the opinions of his buddies are given it's obvious but in this case "I KNOW my redeemer lives" is more then opinion. IMO the story is an allegory inspired by God to give us much valuable information about many things therefore Job speaking under inspiration would not say "I KNOW" unless God inspired him to say that.
Re "As for me" and "will come" i meant we would have to agree to disagree on the meanings of these two statements since we are looking at them from different perspectives. Another words i see that the intercessor "will come" and you see God's action of redeeming again that "will come" i assume.
I admit that my perspective in seeing an intercessor is influenced by the NT because of the fact Jesus did appear and execute his ministry , he clearly believed he was the Messiah and he clearly believed he needed to voluntarily die for our sins and many people did believe he rose from the dead.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

You wrote:

On your first point, I am unaware of the fiery requirement that you are referring to. I would appreciate your assistance with a verse reference.

I’m not aware a specific verse requiring this either. I freely admit that my assumption about this is deduced by God’s response to offering “strange fire” and by Christian commentaries that I have found to be credible.

God just got through commissioning the tabernacle and ordaining the service of the Levitical priesthood by lighting the altar with His own holy fire. I assume from this that He intended this holy fire to be used hereafter for the sacrifices and not a man-made common fire.

There was a similar occurrence when Solomon’s temple was built, and the glory of God moved into the temple (2 Chron 7).

From a Christian standpoint, God likewise moved into His final “house” (the church) on the day of Pentecost with “tongues of fire”, the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). From that point on, all acceptable service to God could only be done by the power of the Holy Spirit, God’s own “fire”.

You wrote:

but I am not recalling such a miraculous inauguration for the burnt sacrifices in Aaron's ministry. Are you aware of a reference that indicates the fire for the sanctuary was heaven-sent?

Lev 9:23-24
Then the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people, 24 and fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.
NKJV

2 Chron 7:1-2
7:1 When Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
NKJV

Heaven-sent, from before God, whatever you’d like to call it, it was not a natural fire but one originating from God. That’s the way I read it anyways.

You wrote:

I frown at your characterization of the tabernacle as "make-shift." It is worth remembering that the Torah itself does not ask for a temple; all of the sacred instructions have to do with the tabernacle. The temple structure is a later development in Israelite religion. As such, I foresee no reason to expect that the operation of the sanctuary as a tabernacle would be "ineffectual" or "perilous."

I apologize for the characterization, I meant no offense. My point was that the original tabernacle was a structure specifically commanded by God to be built with precise specifications. This commandment came to a spirit-filled prophet (Moses, who was proved to be such with many miraculous signs), and even the artisans (Bezalel and Aholiab) were filled with the Holy Spirit and commissioned by God for the work (Ex 31-36). It seems to me that any tabernacle that was built today without this same specific command and empowerment by God would be completely arbitrary and void of any real credibility. That’s why I called it “make-shift”. For this reason, I would also suspect the efficacy of any sacrifices offered in it.

But that’s admittedly just my opinion, and I’m speaking from ignorance about modern-day Judaism.

Again, I don’t want to belabor this point or get your discussion off-track, I just wondered about the source (man or God) of ordination of the modern-day tabernacle you’re suggesting.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

Lord bless.