The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Philo Sofee »

The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

While the New Testament can be gleaned (and ought to) for the basis of Jesus’s atonement, the theme itself, from the Early Jewish (were they Christian yet?) in the New Testament (hereafter New Testament) comes from their scriptures, the Old Testament (hereafter Old Testament). Unfortunately there is no systematic presentation of atonement in Jewish scriptures, and much that has been left out, or outright changed for theologically biased reasons, both ancient and modern.[1] We have some ideas though about how it worked, even though, we need to be alert that there is more than just one interpretation, and no single interpretation can possibly be labeled as “the correct one.”

Leon Morris noted the many views and scriptures interpreted which have interpreted animal sacrifice as the blood meaning “the life” which is supposedly the emphasis. After careful examination he concludes, properly so, that this is just incorrect, interesting though that is. Sacrifice is not about “offering up life,” it is not about “the bestowal of life,” it is in the whole offering, rather than just a blood offering that is involved. It is “dam [blood] in the Old Testament indicates that it signifies life violently taken rather than the continued presence of life available...in short, death rather than life.”[2]

The various animal sacrifices in Leviticus were for various kinds of issues of crime and guilt, one of which, the passover lamb was involved. This could have been the basis of symbolism which attached to Jesus as the lamb, but perhaps not. The problem here is it was never used in the manner of expiation of anything. On closer exegesis, Morris noted that, while true the passover was never used to take away sin, “there is evidence that all sacrifice was held to be expiatory, and this includes the Passover.”[3] The πασχα, the Passover, is “an exemption, immunity,” for the Jews remembrance of delivery from the Egyptians.[4] This was the meal Jesus held with his disciples “... the conception of Jesus’ Last Supper as the Passover meal goes back to the theology of the three Evangelists and that of the Christian groups behind them.”[5] “From the beginning the Lord’s Supper served to make present the salvation that came in Jesus in which the community symbolically shared in the celebration of this meal.”[6] The αιμα μου της διαθηκης - “my blood of the covenant,” of Matthew 26:28 compares with Luke 22:20 - η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου, “the new covenant in my blood.” The predicate nominative of a verbless clause, and the syntax here is the preposition phrase actually points to the means by which the covenant is initiated. It can mean “sealed” or “ratified.”[7]

This is a continuation of “important Passover allusions” such as - וַיִּקַּ֤ח משֶׁה֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וַיִּזְרֹ֖ק עַל־הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה דַם־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר כָּרַ֤ת יְהֹוָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם עַ֥ל כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה - And Moses took the blood and sprinkled [it] on the people, and he said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has formed with you concerning these words." (Exo. 24:8).
This supper also may well be alluding to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah - הִנֵּ֛ה יָמִ֥ים בָּאִ֖ים נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֑ה וְכָֽרַתִּ֗י אֶת־בֵּ֧ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאֶת־בֵּ֥ית יְהוּדָ֖ה בְּרִ֥ית חֲדָשָֽׁה: לֹ֣א כַבְּרִ֗ית אֲשֶׁ֚ר כָּרַ֙תִּי֙ אֶת־אֲבוֹתָ֔ם בְּיוֹם֙ הֶֽחֱזִיקִ֣י בְיָדָ֔ם לְהֽוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֖רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם - “The time is coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt…”
Interestingly, we may very well have two more generative texts behind this Last Supper at Isaiah 53:11-12, and Jeremiah 3:31-34. Zechariah 9:11 also refers to “the blood of my covenant with you.” “The actual Passover service revolved around the four promises of Exodus 6:6-7, each one coming to be associated with the drinking of one of the four cups of wine. The cup of Matt 26:27 appears to have been the third one, the one drunk just after the supper in conjunction with God’s promise to redeem His people.”[8]

“The paschal lamb, a year-old lamb or kid, slain as a sacrifice (Exo. 12:27). According to Josephus, the number of lambs sacrificed at Jerusalem in his time was 256,500. They were slain between the ninth and eleventh hour, which is from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Metaphorically used of Christ at 1 Corinthians 5:7. The whole Passover is sometimes called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the paschal festival.”[9]

Paul explicitly calls Christ “our paschal lamb, has been slain,” at 1 Cor. 5:7. Again it has been noted that “the Paschal victim was not a sin-offering or regarded as a means of expiating or removing sins.” And developing this further, we note that “the Passover is already associated with atonement in Ezek. 45:18-22.” Note however, this is the blood of the young bull and the atonement was for the spreading of blood all over the temple door, posts, etc., to cleanse the building of sin, פַּר־בֶּן־בָּקָ֖ר תָּמִ֑ים וְחִטֵּאתָ֖ אֶת־הַמִּקְדָּֽשׁ. In verse 15 we find they are to take the lamb for the banquet meal - וְשֶׂה־אַחַ֨ת מִן־הַצֹּ֚אן מִן־הַמָּאתַ֙יִם֙ מִמַּשְׁקֵ֣ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, and this specifically for atonement וְכִפַּרְתֶּ֖ם from the verb, kaphar - to cover over, pacify, from a primitive root to placate, translated in the majority of cases as “to make atonement.” Dunn, whose analysis I am using here, says the link was probably already forged by Jesus’ time with “the double association of the Last Supper with the Passover and with Jesus’ blood poured out for many (Mark 14:24). There the language is unavoidably sacrificial and signifies atonement.”[10]

Dunn further notes, in Paul, the several places of his using the phrase “in/through his blood,” cannot be adequately understood except as a reference to Christ’s death as a sacrifice.”[11] “Rev 1:5 calls Jesus the One who has redeemed, i.e. ransomed (λυσαντι) us from our sins by His blood. One cannot be more precise about Rev 1:5.[12]

Endnotes
1. Margaret Barker, “The Great High Priest,” T&T Clark, 2003: Ch. 3.
2. Leon Morris, “The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross,” Eerdman, 3rd ed, 1965, p. 112, 114, 119, 121.
3. Morris, p. 131.
4. Spiros Zodhiates, “The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament,” World Bible, 1992, p. 1126.
5. Gunther Bornkamm, “Jesus von Nazareth,” translated by Irene, Fraser McLuskey, Harper & Row, 1959: 162.
6. Jens Schrӧter, “Von Jesus Zum Neuen Testament,” translated by Wayne Coppins, Baylor Univ. Press, 2013: 68.
7. Martin M. Cult, Mikeal C. Parsons, Joshua J. Stigall, “Luke A Handbook on the Greek Text,” Baylor Univ. Press, 2010: 671; Robert Hanna, “A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament,” Baker Book, 1983: 140.
8. G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” Baker Academic, 2nd print, 2008: 90-91.
9. Zodhiates, “Ibid,” p. 1127.
10. James D. G. Dunn, “The Theology of Paul the Apostle,” Eerdmans, paperback, 2006: 216-217.
11. Dunn, “Ibid,” p. 217.
12. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” Eerdmans, reprint 1985: 4: 336.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Shulem »

There is a lot in your article. But let’s cut to the chase. Never fear, Shulem is here. First and foremost, let us be clear about one thing. The New Testament is a whole new religion in itself. The Old Testament is a completely different religion based on entirely a different kind of sacrifice. The Book of Mormon is a romanticized version of both Testaments and is thievery and plagiarism to the extreme. But getting to the point, Moses had NO conception, NO idea of a human sacrifice such as a future Jesus. He never saw that or even dreamed of it. Moses’s religion was all about animal sacrifice and that was the basis of the sacrificial rites of his religion to appease Jehovah through killing animals. Moses never had a vision of Christ. Moses had no idea that Christianity would usurp his religion.

Christianity and the New Testament throws Moses and animal sacrifice under the bus and uses every excuse and example to simply get rid of it and make a better atonement based on human sacrifice. Then we have the Book of Mormon that acts like Moses and the prophets saw it all coming down the pike and foresaw Christ. Smith invented his own version of the Christian religion while pretending to be a prophet.

BOTTOM LINE:

Moses intended animal sacrifice to be the ONLY kind of sacrifice that his people would practice forever and ever.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:50 am
There is a lot in your article. But let’s cut to the chase. Never fear, Shulem is here. First and foremost, let us be clear about one thing. The New Testament is a whole new religion in itself. The Old Testament is a completely different religion based on entirely a different kind of sacrifice. The Book of Mormon is a romanticized version of both Testaments and is thievery and plagiarism to the extreme. But getting to the point, Moses had NO conception, NO idea of a human sacrifice such as a future Jesus. He never saw that or even dreamed of it. Moses’s religion was all about animal sacrifice and that was the basis of the sacrificial rites of his religion to appease Jehovah through killing animals. Moses never had a vision of Christ. Moses had no idea that Christianity would usurp his religion.

Christianity and the New Testament throws Moses and animal sacrifice under the bus and uses every excuse and example to simply get rid of it and make a better atonement based on human sacrifice. Then we have the Book of Mormon that acts like Moses and the prophets saw it all coming down the pike and foresaw Christ. Smith invented his own version of the Christian religion while pretending to be a prophet.

BOTTOM LINE:

Moses intended animal sacrifice to be the ONLY kind of sacrifice that his people would practice forever and ever.
You sincerely need to come up to date man... Your last few posts on my new posts on the atonement are just so simplistic and inaccurate......sincerely.... I didn't say a thing about Smith, I am focusing on the New Testament/Christian view of the atonement, of which, apparently, you have ideas which do not match in any manner current scholarship and understanding...
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:01 am
You sincerely need to come up to date man... Your last few posts on my new posts on the atonement are just so simplistic and inaccurate......sincerely.... I didn't say a thing about Smith, I am focusing on the New Testament/Christian view of the atonement, of which, apparently, you have ideas which do not match in any manner current scholarship and understanding...

That's okay that you see it that way. I have no problem. My posts are in the threads to provide a viewpoint and perspective that can be appreciated by others if only myself, I’m fine with that too. I don’t expect to contribute too much to your threads other than a little here and a little there.

I love simplicity. I love black and white. Keeping it simple is the name of my game!
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:08 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:01 am
You sincerely need to come up to date man... Your last few posts on my new posts on the atonement are just so simplistic and inaccurate......sincerely.... I didn't say a thing about Smith, I am focusing on the New Testament/Christian view of the atonement, of which, apparently, you have ideas which do not match in any manner current scholarship and understanding...

That's okay that you see it that way. I have no problem. My posts are in the threads to provide a viewpoint and perspective that can be appreciated by others if only myself, I’m fine with that too. I don’t expect to contribute too much to your threads other than a little here and a little there.

I love simplicity. I love black and white. Keeping it simple is the name of my game!
No worries amigo! It's all good.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by huckelberry »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:50 am
There is a lot in your article. But let’s cut to the chase. Never fear, Shulem is here. First and foremost, let us be clear about one thing. The New Testament is a whole new religion in itself. The Old Testament is a completely different religion based on entirely a different kind of sacrifice. The Book of Mormon is a romanticized version of both Testaments and is thievery and plagiarism to the extreme. But getting to the point, Moses had NO conception, NO idea of a human sacrifice such as a future Jesus. He never saw that or even dreamed of it. Moses’s religion was all about animal sacrifice and that was the basis of the sacrificial rites of his religion to appease Jehovah through killing animals. Moses never had a vision of Christ. Moses had no idea that Christianity would usurp his religion.

Christianity and the New Testament throws Moses and animal sacrifice under the bus and uses every excuse and example to simply get rid of it and make a better atonement based on human sacrifice. Then we have the Book of Mormon that acts like Moses and the prophets saw it all coming down the pike and foresaw Christ. Smith invented his own version of the Christian religion while pretending to be a prophet.

BOTTOM LINE:

Moses intended animal sacrifice to be the ONLY kind of sacrifice that his people would practice forever and ever.
Hi Shulem, I think there is a place for detailed investigation such as Philo is pursuing. There is also a place for simple points as you present. I will follow your exapmple.

Moses does not own what is happening in the Judaic tradition. He is a contributer to an long ongoing human tradition. You will notice that Jews do not practice animal sacrifice and have no sense that God is requiring that such sacrifices should be made. This is an understanding of Jews from second third centuries. Moses was not asked as it was none of his business.

The atonement is not a human sacrifice. It is , as atonement, God dying for us. The human dimension of Jesus is the human participating by faith in that atonement in the same way we too may participate by faith.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Moksha »

huckelberry wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:16 am
Hi Shulem, I think there is a place for detailed investigation such as Philo is pursuing. There is also a place for simple points as you present.
Philo's points can be hard to understand since they are based on his voluminous readings and it includes writings in the Hebrew alphabet. On the other hand, I readily understood what Shulem wrote. Some writings are Symmachus-like in complexity and others are Moksha-like in simplicity.

Anyway, during this Feast of Unleavened Bread did anyone consider taking some of those 256,500 paschal lambs and making a sacrifice of gyros to the Lord, the Priests, and passersby?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Shulem »

huckelberry wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:16 am
Hi Shulem, I think there is a place for detailed investigation such as Philo is pursuing. There is also a place for simple points as you present. I will follow your exapmple.

Moses does not own what is happening in the Judaic tradition. He is a contributer to an long ongoing human tradition. You will notice that Jews do not practice animal sacrifice and have no sense that God is requiring that such sacrifices should be made. This is an understanding of Jews from second third centuries. Moses was not asked as it was none of his business.

The atonement is not a human sacrifice. It is , as atonement, God dying for us. The human dimension of Jesus is the human participating by faith in that atonement in the same way we too may participate by faith.

Yes, there is definitely lots of room when it comes to discussing Philo’s post because it’s vast and has far reaching implications. I tend to zero in on a single concept rather than try to cover so many points with a wide brush.

Animal sacrifice did not begin with Moses. It was practiced by Semites/Asiatics such as Abraham. Moses took animal sacrifice to a new level. Moses made it central to his new religion with all the LAWS and outward ordinances ascribed to the cult practice of offering various animals to Jehovah in order to gain mercy and forgiveness. Moses, literally, wrote the book on animal sacrifice. Details about how to perform the rituals are meticulously spelled out in the Old Testament law.

Jews today are not practicing the Law of Moses and are not disciples of Moses. Jews today practice another religion altogether which has become what it is today but it’s certainly not Moses’s religion which he personally set up and mandated. Actually, Moses’s religion has been extinct for a long time!

When you say that the atonement is not a human sacrifice but is God dying for us you are speaking as a Christian or a Book of Mormon believer – NOT a disciple of Moses. The sacrifices offered by Moses and the atonement affixed to them were animal sacrifices as described by Moses’s Law. There was nothing from Moses about God offering himself up. That is New Testament and Book of Mormon talk. Moses never discussed the offering up of God in ritualistic sacrifice. That comes from Christian religion that abandoned Moses’s Law. You see, the Christian religion is just another apostate religion having come out of another.

The Law of sacrifice was always about animals and man offering up the animals as a sacrifice to appease Jehovah and bring divine goodwill to his people. There was nothing about God coming down and becoming a so-called last sacrifice. That’s Christian talk, not Moses talk. You know as well as I, Christ and the Christians infuriated the Jews who were disciples of Moses albeit not able to fully practice their brand of religion because they were under Roman rule.

I hope that helps, a little.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by huckelberry »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:07 pm



Yes, there is definitely lots of room when it comes to discussing Philo’s post because it’s vast and has far reaching implications. I tend to zero in on a single concept rather than try to cover so many points with a wide brush.

Animal sacrifice did not begin with Moses. It was practiced by Semites/Asiatics such as Abraham. Moses took animal sacrifice to a new level. Moses made it central to his new religion with all the LAWS and outward ordinances ascribed to the cult practice of offering various animals to Jehovah in order to gain mercy and forgiveness. Moses, literally, wrote the book on animal sacrifice. Details about how to perform the rituals are meticulously spelled out in the Old Testament law.

Jews today are not practicing the Law of Moses and are not disciples of Moses. Jews today practice another religion altogether which has become what it is today but it’s certainly not Moses’s religion which he personally set up and mandated. Actually, Moses’s religion has been extinct for a long time!

When you say that the atonement is not a human sacrifice but is God dying for us you are speaking as a Christian or a Book of Mormon believer – NOT a disciple of Moses. The sacrifices offered by Moses and the atonement affixed to them were animal sacrifices as described by Moses’s Law. There was nothing from Moses about God offering himself up. That is New Testament and Book of Mormon talk. Moses never discussed the offering up of God in ritualistic sacrifice. That comes from Christian religion that abandoned Moses’s Law. You see, the Christian religion is just another apostate religion having come out of another.

The Law of sacrifice was always about animals and man offering up the animals as a sacrifice to appease Jehovah and bring divine goodwill to his people. There was nothing about God coming down and becoming a so-called last sacrifice. That’s Christian talk, not Moses talk. You know as well as I, Christ and the Christians infuriated the Jews who were disciples of Moses albeit not able to fully practice their brand of religion because they were under Roman rule.

I hope that helps, a little.
Shulem
I do not know why I should care that Moses did not predict Jesus or his sacrifice. Sacrifice is a world wide thing not just a Moses thing. I checked a Britannica article and found it had good comments about the meaning of religious sacrifice.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sacrifice-religion


here is a piece of the article , the whole is worth checking, it is not huge:
Although the fundamental meaning of sacrificial rites is that of effecting a necessary and efficacious relationship with the sacred power and of establishing man and his world in the sacred order, the rites have assumed a multitude of forms and intentions. The basic forms of sacrifice, however, seem to be some type of either sacrificial gift or sacramental meal. Sacrifice as a gift may refer either to a gift that should be followed by a return gift (because of the intimate relationship that gift giving establishes) or to a gift that is offered in homage to a god without expectation of a return. Sacrifice as a sacramental communal meal may involve the idea of the god as a participant in the meal or as identical with the food consumed; it may also involve the idea of a ritual meal at which either some primordial event such as creation is repeated or the sanctification of the world is symbolically renewed.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Backstory to Jesus’s Atonement

Post by Shulem »

huckelberry wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:26 pm
I do not know why I should care that Moses did not predict Jesus or his sacrifice. Sacrifice is a world wide thing not just a Moses thing. I checked a Britannica article and found it had good comments about the meaning of religious sacrifice.

The point that Moses did not predict Jesus or his sacrifice is very important. It means Moses was NOT a Christian. His beliefs were entirely based on Jehovah and the cult offerings through animals as a sacrifice to appease his God. That’s it in a nutshell. Moses was not a Christian! He did not prophesy to his people saying God would come down and be sacrificed for sins. He did not teach any other doctrine or rite outside the bounds of animals for sacrifice.

Much later after Moses, religious apostates would come along. Jesus was chief of them. Peter, James, John, and more especially – St Paul would desecrate the beliefs of Moses and slander his original beliefs with all kinds Christian creeds that had nothing to do with original Old Testament doctrine or theology. The Christians came along and invented another religion out of whole cloth. They usurped the principle of sacrifice and did away with the animals to introduce human sacrifice in the MAN, Christ Jesus, calling him divine and making HIM God. The religion of Moses was localized to the Hebrew nation. Christianity did away with that concept and went global. And here we are today, Merry Christmas! ;)

That’s what I’m saying. I’m sure you understand me. I don’t mean to offend but am making my points purely from a logical point of view.

I also don’t want to sink poor Philo’s thread into a place he doesn't want it to go. Philo likes to talk about deep things and details that go over my head. I just get to the point and stay on it. I am a laser, relentless too.
Post Reply