Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

I’m sure that you can appreciate that “spiritual fulfillment” of scripture provides a great opportunity for mythic weaseling and outright fiction. Just look at a boatload of cults over time.

It is important to remember that the prophecies are messages from God to people in their own time. It betrays the dignity and integrity of their divine-human relationship to apply those prophecies in a way that replaces their plain significance to their actual audience.

Furthermore, it is highly questionable to attribute “spiritual fulfillment” to anything. The actual fulfillment of a prophecy can only be fairly understood as the accomplishment of its actual terms. The best that can be claimed for other “spiritual” things is that they draw upon similar values to the original prophecy. Technically speaking, such would not be a fulfillment of said prophecy; both the prophecy and the “spiritual” things would be fulfillments of their shared values.

Jesus said His words are "spirit and life" and i'm sure we can agree that God is spirit and Paul said "the natural (carnal) man can not understand the things of God" therefore i would not at all be surprised by spiritual fulfillments by God. It's true that spiritual fulfillments are more difficult for the carnal man to perceive but that's because of human deficiencies and not because these fulfillments are any less valid. The NT writers often pointed to spiritual fulfillments of physical literal sounding prophecies in the OT but that should not be so surprising in light of the fact that when God first told the jews about the kingdom of God it was at least in part a kingdom of the heart, "Now therefore IF you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people ,for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Exodus 19.5-6
And although the words of God were heard by the people of that particular time they are by no means only for the people of that time as God is eternal and His words are eternal.

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your posting.

...although the words of God were heard by the people of that particular time they are by no means only for the people of that time as God is eternal and His words are eternal.

God's words may last eternally, but like all words, their meaning is contingent upon the context in which they are delivered. It betrays the integrity of the words to wrest them from their initial context. Of course, the words can be valuable to later generations, but they are only fairly inherited if they are respected and harvested in accordance with their native environment. Instead, many interpreters manhandle them according to whim. The divine words become like penguins in a minivan - superficially appealing and very marketable, but neither productive nor viable in the long term (at least, without artificial support).

Consider for a moment Matthew 2:15b -- "{This was} to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son" [NASB]. This is applied to Jesus returning from safe harbor in Egypt, but a quick reference to the text of the prophet (Hosea 11:1) reveals that the "son" is Israel, and the event being referred to is the Exodus. There is no justification in the text for applying it to a messianic figure, or even for considering it to be a prophecy of the future. As such, what is the substantive power behind appealing to such a passage? It may be acknowledged that if a Mormon or Muslim attempted to claim such a flimsy example as a fulfillment of prophecy, they would find their ears soundly boxed for it by Christians.

However, the substitution of the "spiritual" for the "physical" can be a strong trend, and though it is a profound hermeneutical misstep, I should not expect to overturn its appeal. Of course, when the initial prophecy involves spiritual dimensions, then it is fully appropriate to find spiritual fulfillment. But when taken apart from careful attention to original context, I will reiterate that the hermeneutic of "spiritual fulfillment" opens the door to a gamut of half-baked theological concoctions that often can be neither demonstrated nor refuted. I came out of Egypt myself, once, back in 1995. At the border crossing the Israelis X-rayed my roommate's boots. Perhaps I was a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1? Who could prove otherwise? And if someone tried to, I could always dismiss them as too "carnal" to understand!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Consider for a moment Matthew 2:15b -- "{This was} to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son" [NASB]. This is applied to Jesus returning from safe harbor in Egypt, but a quick reference to the text of the prophet (Hosea 11:1) reveals that the "son" is Israel, and the event being referred to is the Exodus. There is no justification in the text for applying it to a messianic figure, or even for considering it to be a prophecy of the future. As such, what is the substantive power behind appealing to such a passage? It may be acknowledged that if a Mormon or Muslim attempted to claim such a flimsy example as a fulfillment of prophecy, they would find their ears soundly boxed for it by Christians.


Hi Emmet, "Divine words become like penguins in a minivan" , that is both amusing and even a little cryptic as i find it hard to imagine a scene like that.
However Matthew knew neither penguins nor minivans but he did know a parallelism and typology when he saw one and that's what he was referring to not a prophecy. He never really did call it a prophecy "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet saying "Out of Egypt i called my Son."
What exactly was fulfilled? Not a prophecy but a typology or parallel and how does Matthew know this you may ask?
Jesus speaking to his apostles including Matthew "And He opened their understanding ,that they might comprehend the scriptures." Luke 24.45

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you once again for your response.

Hi Emmet, "Divine words become like penguins in a minivan" , that is both amusing and even a little cryptic as i find it hard to imagine a scene like that.

I was thinking of the silly things we see in advertising. It seems like I recall some company's minivan ad that had real-life penguins strewn around their product. Cute, but pretty much irrelevant to the actual product or its purpose.

However Matthew knew neither penguins nor minivans but he did know a parallelism and typology when he saw one and that's what he was referring to not a prophecy. He never really did call it a prophecy....

I found this remark really striking, so I did some more research.

I could only find one place in the gospels where it is explicitly stated that a prophecy is being fulfilled. In this single case (Matthew 13:14), a special intensive form of "fulfill" is used that appears nowhere else in connection with fulfilled scripture. This is somewhat curious, and if one is inclined to quibble at points of detail, then it appears that the gospels only explicitly claim one specific prophecy to be fulfilled; besides this, it's not even a prophecy about Jesus! [A couple of other instances directly apply prophecies to the present (Matthew 15:7 // Mark 7:6; Matthew 24:15), but these don't have to do with Jesus, either.]

Otherwise, the gospels use somewhat less explicit terms to refer to fulfillment of scripture. Would you say, then, that all of these are mere typological references? If so, this is a pretty flimsy argument from scripture. Typology demonstrates nothing per se, except a great mind for cross-referencing. It can be applied easily and diversely to "undergird" almost anything. I have already mentioned how I came out of Egypt. I attended a certain denominational church out on Powell for a brief while; as such, it could be said that I was "called a Nazarene." I visited Galilee eleven years ago; it could be said of this visit that "the land of Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali ... Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light" (if I actually were a great light, of course). And so on.

Typology appears to have been a convincing argument for people in Jesus' time. It may be part of rabbinic interpretation at the time; I'm not sure where the basic hermeneutic came from. But typology is hardly proof for any claim. If that is the substance of New Testament "fulfillment" of the Hebrew bible in Jesus, then no single case is worth refuting - the whole passel is by nature insubstantial.

I do covet your thoughts on this issue. I am undoubtedly biased by modern thought and training.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Thanks once again for your posting. I apologize for my tardiness in replying. Your comments required some research and thought - which is great !

Happy to oblige. You give great answers and provide me with some fat to chew on also. Hopefully, I can keep up with the debate without getting in over my head. Sorry, for being so late with this response, but I have been buried at work and school has shown me no mercy.

I disagree. I believe that sacrifice is a ritual – a piece of kinetic poetry meant to be experientially cathartic and didactic. This experience can strengthen faithful relationship (perhaps more so in ancient Near Eastern culture). This is not substitutionary (at least, in a classic sense).

But I would be interested in your understanding of how substitutionary atonement works: how does it actually accomplish the reconciliation of God and human? How does substitutionary atonement solve the problem of sin and increase justice in the world?

The reason for the word “substitutionary” in OT terms is the blood sacrifice, which God required on a routine basis, on account of our sin. For a Christian, this was just a pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ which replaced the need for the traditional sacrifice. God is the one who requires blood to be the method of solving the problem of sin.

Increasing justice is the by product of one’s relationship with God. Once one understands the sacrifice being made and how they don’t deserve it, than that causes them to produce righteous acts. Instead of committing acts of righteousness out of some need to be saved, one now commits acts of righteousness out of love for the one who saved them.

(1)But human sacrifice is not sanctioned, because it is murder.

That would then make me wonder why God requested that of Abraham, if it was considered murder.

Also, let’s take a few other verses in consideration:

Isaiah 53:10 –
10But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

The passage seems to be indicating a human sacrifice and the word for “guilt offering” is the same as would be used in the Hebrew word, asham used in Leviticus.

Here is another passage:

Numbers 35:30-34 –
30 " 'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
31 " 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
32 " 'Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.
33 " 'Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.' "

How come one can flee to a city of refuge after the high priest has been put to death? Or is this passage saying something else?

(2) Where do you find the transmission of sinful nature through Adam’s seed?

Well, I am getting that mainly from the NT, which I know you don’t follow, but in case you wanted to know it is in Romans Chapter 5:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Now this seems to be a concept Paul has extracted from scripture, but here is a verse in Genesis chapter 8 where God seems, to me anyway, visualize the same concept:

21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

If man’s heart is evil from his youth, does that not seem to be an inherited trait? I know with my own children that I don’t have to teach them how to lie or cheat. That seems to come naturally to them; however, I do need to teach them how to do the right thing like tell the truth when they do something wrong, share their things, etc. Not that they don't do good things on their own, but if left alone their heart will always lean more towards the former instead of the latter.

It is my thought that sinful nature is a product of: (a) childhood/youthful ignorance and the formation of habit; and (b) our reckless pursuit of drives that are, in moderation, necessary for our health.

If the sinful nature is not inherited, but only gained through action, would it not be possible that someone can obtain a life without having sinned? On point (b), could you give me an example of a reckless pursuit (sin) which is necessary for our health?

(3) Isaiah 7, as is well-known and admitted amongst even Christian scholars, does not prophesy a virginal conception. This passage is but one in a constellation of prophecies from the Hebrew bible that have been wrested irresponsibly from their context and applied to the life of Jesus. The Hebrew text does not mention a virgin, and the context in the chapter reveals that the prophecy does not concern a Messiah some 700 years hence, but rather the impending doom of Aram and the Northern Kingdom.

Yes, it doesn’t specifically state a virgin, but you must admit that at the very least it implies a virgin. The Hebrew word being used is “almah” which means “a young woman of marriageable age”.

If the passage, in your opinion, does not represent the Messiah then who does the child represent?

You don’t – at least in an absolute sense. But Christians don’t “know” they have been atoned for, either; they believe.

Righteousness consists of having a heart that is fundamentally and preeminently committed to faithfulness to God. Beyond this, incidental imperfections do not rupture relationship with God, and thus do not require atonement; this is because God can deal with error easily enough, if one’s heart is in the right place.

Regarding the psychological issue of assurance, one must tend their heart in faithfulness, hope in God’s lovingkindness, and seek the comfort of his presence in prayer.

How do you know that “incidental imperfections do not rupture relationship with God, and thus do not require atonement”? Is there a verse that states this? Also, if God abhors sin, than why would he grant anyone atonement if they even have just one sin in their life without some sort of rectification for that sin?

Sacrifice is an integral part of the Torah construct. However, I am unaware of a passage that describes it as absolutely necessary for atonement.

Instead, there are passages in the Hebrew bible that indicate sacrifice is inadequate without righteousness (see Isaiah 1:11ff.; Jeremiah 6:19-20). Indeed, heedfulness and righteousness are described as preferential over sacrifice (I Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 21:3; cf. Mark 12:33), and the most extreme statement goes so far as to state that God delights in an attitude of the heart, and not sacrifice in itself (Hosea 6:6).

We may infer from these things that the heart/righteousness is a more essential factor, and sacrifice is an incidental factor; thus, sacrifice is not utterly necessary (although it should be fulfilled whenever possible). [A parallel to this in a Christian context: baptism should be performed whenever possible, but a person who is converted shortly before they die without water in the desert will not be damned for the mere lack of the ritual. Similarly, a person killed by bandits while journeying to sacrifice at the sanctuary will not be damned because they merely lack the ritual.] Accordingly, atonement pivots upon repentance, i.e., the turning of one’s self to righteousness (cf. Ezekiel 18 ). When man turns truly unto God, then God truly turns unto him.

Baptism is a one time event and is done out of obedience to Christ. Since the sacrifice has already been made by Christ then the believer’s sins are already forgiven. Baptism is not a requirement for forgiveness of sins. I also noted that in all the verses you quoted, sacrifice is not annulled. The verses state that forgiveness of sins requires both righteousness and sacrifice.

If, according to the way I am understanding you, a person can obtain atonement from the status of their own heart than why would God require a sin offering at all? Also, if the sin offering hasn’t been revoked than why is it still not being carried out today?

This verse [Leviticus 17:11] is highly sophisticated in the Hebrew text, and challenging to exegete. The verb rendered “make atonement” (kaphar) alone requires careful research and explanation.

But in any case, the text does not claim that blood is the only means by which to kaphar; rather, the text is addressing a particular circumstance, i.e., sacrifice on the altar. [To construct a parallel: God could say that he has given us food upon our tables to sustain our bodies, for it is food by means of calories and nutrition that sustains us. Such would not mean that only food could sustain our bodies - God can provide for our needs by other means.]

Neither does the text indicate whether the blood is an inherent means to kaphar, or an incidental means – which is to say: does the blood kaphar because of itself, or does the blood kaphar because it creates opportunity for what actually kaphars to take place? [To give a sorry parallel: does jewelry make a woman embrace you because the jewelry itself prompts her to give embraces, or because it expresses what is in your heart, which prompts her to embrace you? The actual answer reveals a lot about the depth of the woman, and our answer to what prompts God’s response to sacrifice – that reveals a lot about our understanding of the depth of God.]

How does what you describe explain Leviticus 16 in reference to “The Day of Atonement”? Here is a specific day set out to do this by the High Priest. It seems like this is an important event, more important than just giving jewelry. Also, if this atonement process is an individual thing how can Aaron make a sacrifice of atonement for others?

The extraordinary nature of his person would not make any difference. Each person is what they themselves are, in truth. Jesus’ righteousness cannot eclipse the true righteousness or unrighteousness of another person. God knows their heart, and knows what they choose to be, and he will neither be fooled nor live in denial.

The High Priest in the Numbers passage appears to eclipse the unrighteousness of another person.

I would be more than happy to engage each of the alleged prophecies of Jesus. It might be nice to start another thread for those, though.

Agreed. Although it looks like that has already begun on this forum.

I affirm that God is concerned about attentiveness to his word. But a huge quantity of the bible makes no claim to be God’s word; even the gospels make no such claim. It seems to me that if God is not being quoted in a passage, then it is not necessarily God’s word, although his inspiration may [or may not!] be behind what is being said to some greater or lesser extent. If a passage is not God's own word, then we need not ascribe his own perfection to it. Yet many people assume the entire text of their bible is the word of God, without clear grounds for doing so.

If one part of a passage is quoting God, than the rest of that book should be from God. It would seem strange to only believe the one part and throw out the rest when it was all written down by the same author.

Also, the NT does claim to be inspired by God and Paul even quotes from the gospels.

1 Timothy 5:18 -
18For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

Regarding "allow"ance: Different churches have bibles with different contents. For example, Catholics have books that Protestants don't have. Thus, it would appear that God has already allowed a certain measure of human interference with the bible, whether through adding or omitting. Beyond this, God has allowed many dozens of translations of the bible into different languages, many of which diverge from each other. Beyond this, God has allowed the bible to be written in languages that virtually nobody speaks any more, at least not in their ancient forms; everything from biblical texts has to be translated out of languages that even the best linguists today lack full fluency in. God has allowed a great deal when it comes to the bible.

Yes, but has the essence of scripture been changed? Are there only nuances, such as one versus two angels, or are there major differences in which the Bible at one point or another becomes completely contradictory?

Regarding accuracy: that can be assessed to some extent by comparison with other evidence. The easiest passages are those which have parallels in other texts, e.g., the gospels and Kings/Chronicles. But it is illogical and dangerous to take an all-or-nothing approach. If there is an error in Esther, should we give no heed to Isaiah? These books had an independent history before folks started lumping them together.

Has the truth been changed though? Is the error just grammatical or does it completely reconstruct one’s view of God?

I believe that God keeps the complete essence of who He is and what he desires from us. He may allow the grammatical errors, but the truth is still intact.

Thank you, Micah, for your ongoing dialogue.

Thank you very much. This has been a very enlightening discussion. Hopefully, I can keep this up. I won’t have time to write any long responses this week because I have a paper due Friday and I will be on vacation next week, but I look forward to reading your replies.

Take Care,
Micah