Sin sacrifice? (254)

Translators most often pick the readings that support their theology. You need to be mindful about it. The better ones, like the RSV and the NRSV, provide the alternative readings in the footnote. The Isaiah passage has been translated as such by the Jews.

The theology of Jesus dying for the sin of the world cannot be correct. It is said he fulfilled the Torah, but human sacrifices are forbidden in the Torah. How could he fulfil it by breaking it?

Therefore, his sacrifice was a self-sacrifice - being faithful unto death. Those who mimic his life of obedience unto death, that is "walk as he walked" purify themselves of all sins.

Thus, the removal of sin is the outcome, not the goal of his death.

For this reason, you don't need to believe in him. It is possible to live his life of faithfulness by obeying the Torah of God without knowing about Yeshua.

Another issue I may raise is the idea of being "saved". Why the extensive use of it in the NT (correctly Renewed Covenant scriptures). The explanation is simple. According to the prophecies a terrible time called the wrath of God precedes the Kingdom of God. Hence the urgency of the message - the gospel of the Kingdom ("repent, the Kingdom of God is near") was preached to all living. It is this wrath one had to be saved from as the first century disciples expected these events to take place in their lifetime.

OK, then why did the disciples of John the Baptist and all other righteous Jews had to hear about the death of Yeshua? Exactly, because of corporate guilt. They had to repent from the sin of their leaders. They had to make a choice whether to agree with his execution or disagree with it. This message (Yeshua's death) is *not* the gospel, the gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom, check it out. But because of corporate guilt everyone had to hear about his execution as well and repent of it.

Since these leaders are not ours, I doubt we share in their guilt. That was only for the first century people. And since in 70AD the Kingdom offer was withdrawn because the Jews refused to repent and return to God, a few years after they murdered Jacov the Just, the brothes of Yeshua, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the people. Thus, the prophecy of Malachi became fulfilled:

Malachi 4:
4 “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. [ie, you should obey them]

5 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I will come and smite the land with a curse.”

The curse of the Torah is exile...

As it is said, "by the Torah is the knowledge of sin". For the Jews (and Yeshua was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi), sin was disobeying the Torah.

The Greeks had other ideas...

You find here Moshe Shulman's commentary on Isaiah 53:



There is another interpretation, which suggests that the servant in these servant songs is Moses, foreshadowing the second Moses, the Messiah.

Shulman works from the Masoretic Text. More ancients texts don't have "deaths" as in plural (if you read it you will come across this). Also, the term "seed" was used in spiritual sense as well as physical sense. Nevertheless, Shulman's commentaries are interesting. Warning!!! Christians might find them offensive.

Whichever interpretation you follow the servant is always the faithful one.

The Torah consists of 613 commandments that you can sum up in the ten commandments. Actually, you can sum the whole lot up in just two.

First the ten commandments were given. You can view these as ten laws selected out of all:

It is very hard to give sources. I have been studying this for the last 15 years and read heaps of documents, including a few books, engaged in online debates, etc. So my knowledge is sourced from a variety of places.

We were taught in church that "in the OT the NT is revealed, and in the NT the OT is explained".

So theologians start with the NT and read it back into the OT. Beyond this, being unaware they employ a Platonic/Zoroastrian interpretation of the NT they inherited from the early church.

In my view it is a wrong way to go. Yeshua and the first disciples were practising Jews. They started a new sect within Judaism (which was not really new, but rather, renewed), but not a new religion. Therefore, the Tanakh must be understood from their point of view and using that knowledge we can explain the NT.