Announcement

**rivkah** · 03-29-2002, 09:50 PM

G-d does his part. We do ours.

Without G-d's unmerited favor, there would have been no passover lamb. Without the people accepting that provision, taking the blood and putting it on the doorpost, even though he provided the means, it would have been for naught.

**Searching** · 03-30-2002, 04:14 AM

Happy Passover!

Peace Rivah,

Happy Passover! I am not sure when yours begins, but ours is soon. Saturday Sunset to be exact. It has been cloudy here in Missouri, so our sighting of the New Moon has been a bit delayed perhaps compared to others.

What you say is very true. The Father did not have to give us the ability to sacrifice. Fortunatly for us he did. What do you feel Messiah's Role is in all of this? In a way this will tie in to our disscussion that I will shortly pick up with you about the Red Hiefer in the Tzaddikim Forum. Peace.

Sincerely,
Searching

**hyssop** · 04-01-2002, 10:33 PM

Sacrifice

Hello, Mattew23:<BLOCKQUOTE>Matt<HR>about Micah 6...
Here is the comment for verse 6 in my NIV study bible:
"Micah does not deny the desirability of sacrifices but shows that it does no good to offer them without obedience." Makes sense to me.<HR></blockquote>It sounds like your NIV study bible is saying that Yahweh desires sacrifice . . . David seems to disagree:<BLOCKQUOTE>Psalm 51<HR>[16] For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise.<HR></blockquote>I think that I'll listen to David.

Now, I want to get your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 straight. Do you interpret "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission" to mean that Yahweh will not forgive a sinner without some sort of blood sacrifice?

**Matthew23** · 04-01-2002, 11:36 PM

Re: Sacrifice

Originally posted by hyssop
Now, I want to get your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 straight. Do you interpret "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission" to mean that Yahweh will not forgive a sinner without some sort of blood sacrifice?

Yep.

Matt

**Matthew23** · 04-02-2002, 12:03 AM

Christ paid the price for us

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

He said it Himself:
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Just like the sacrificial lamb of the OT, the innocent died for the sins of the guilty.

I hope I'm not coming across as being arrogant. This is just something I believe in with all my heart.

Sincerely,
Matt
What do you believe He died for?

**hyssop** · 04-02-2002, 12:42 AM

Sin Offering

Matt,

You have a good spirit; I am not offended by your comments at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Matt's Response<HR>

Originally posted by hyssop
Now, I want to get your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 straight. Do you interpret "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission" to mean that Yahweh will not forgive a sinner without some sort of blood sacrifice?

Yep.

Matt<HR></blockquote>Matt, please consider the following:<BLOCKQUOTE>Leviticus 5 KJV<HR>[11] But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. [12] Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the L-rd: it is a sin offering. [13] And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.<HR></blockquote>Hmmm . . . if (as you say) Yahweh requires a blood sacrifice to forgive the sinner, either this scripture is wrong or one can extract blood from fine flour . . .

Matt, I hope you do not take offense as we discuss this issue. I once believed as you do, and it is not easy to let go of the "in my stead" philosophy. But, trust me, there is another way of looking at the sacrifices, and it does not require a bloodthirsty G-d who can only be appeased by seeing the shed blood of His only obedient son.

Why Yahshua's death? Well, several reasons: 1) If I truly understand that He is my sacrifice, then I admit to taking part (through my sin) in His death. I killed Him; me and everyone else who has sinned. Once I realized that, I turned from my sin (by His stripes I was healed); 2) My participation in the death of Yahshua through my sin means that I have brought my Passover lamb, my sin offerings, and all of the sacrifices required by Yahweh. I can lay claim to having performed righteousness (the keeping of Yah's commandments) while I was yet a sinner; 3) When He died, I, the sinner, died with Him. So, I then buried my dead body in baptism and was resurrected a new creature (in the Messiah) who now wants to perform righteousness with all my heart (I have His laws written on my heart).

**Matthew23** · 04-02-2002, 07:43 PM

I knew it!

Hyssop,

I knew you were setting me up for something:-). I'll get back with you on this one. I'm scratching my head a bit.

I am enjoying this conversation very much. I was glad to see you use a little sarcasm (in your remark about extracting blood from flour). I am a pretty sarcastic guy, so I appreciate good sarcasm from others:-).

Matt

**Matthew23** · 04-04-2002, 09:11 PM

Okay, here's something I noticed...

Check out the NIV translation of verse 12:
He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It is a sin offering.

I have to ask you before going any further... Why do you think the priest was instructed to "take a handful of it...burn it...on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire?"

I think this is a legitimate question. Since the poorest person could only afford such an offering of flour, maybe the offering was then "cleansed with blood" upon being placed on top of the offerings?

Matt

**hyssop** · 04-07-2002, 10:17 PM

Matt,

I'm not ignoring you; I've just been studying, praying, and thinking about your last point.

I will get back to you soon.

**Matthew23** · 04-07-2002, 10:33 PM

Take your time

Take your time, Hyssop. This subject has had me up late some nights. I'm still thinking a lot about those verses in Lev. 5. Sometimes I'm tempted to "lean on my own understanding" and I forget to pray about this stuff.

Matt

**hyssop** · 04-11-2002, 09:05 PM

Cleansed with blood

Matt,

I checked out the Hebrew, and I believe that you are correct: the fine flour was offered on top of the burnt offerings on the altar. I have to say that I considered your comment about the flour being "cleansed with blood" a legitimate question worth investigating. I have given the subject a lot of thought, and I don't think one can consider the sin offering of fine flour a blood offering.

The first point that came to mind was the fact that the one who offers the sacrifice is in need of cleansing -- not the offering itself. So, the fine flour has no need to be "cleansed with blood."

Further, if Yahweh cannot forgive a sinner without some sort of blood offering, why confuse the issue by commanding a fine flour offering as a sin offering in the first place? If someone was too poor to bring an animal for a blood sacrifice, Yahweh could have had him bring a bucket or a cup full of blood as a sin offering. That shouldn't have been too difficult and probably would have been less expensive than an ephah of fine flour.

Although these points made sense to me early on, there is another point that occurred to me yesterday morning while pondering the issue: The meat offering upon which the fine flour was sprinkled had no blood; as far as I can tell, the blood of the offerings was poured out when the animal was killed.

You know, I've been thinking about how one can cleanse something (or someone) with blood. Can you picture the sprinkling of blood on everything? It really doesn't bring clean visions to my mind; it seems that everything would just be more "dirty" after being sprinkled with blood.

However, I do believe that we have a plausible explanation of the mechanics behind the cleansing with blood that we can explore if you'd like.

**Matthew23** · 04-11-2002, 10:08 PM

Re: Cleansed with blood

Originally posted by hyssop
Matt,

I checked out the Hebrew, and I believe that you are correct: the fine flour was offered on top of the burnt offerings on the altar. I have to say that I considered your comment about the flour being "cleansed with blood" a legitimate question worth investigating. I have given the subject a lot of thought, and I don't think one can consider the sin offering of fine flour a blood offering.

The first point that came to mind was the fact that the one who offers the sacrifice is in need of cleansing -- not the offering itself. So, the fine flour has no need to be "cleansed with blood."
I don't think that the purpose of the flour being offered on top of the offerings was intended to cleanse it, but just that it would be included with the other offerings that were made.

Further, if Yahweh cannot forgive a sinner without some sort of blood offering, why confuse the issue by commanding a fine flour offering as a sin offering in the first place? If someone was too poor to bring an animal for a blood sacrifice, Yahweh could have had him bring a bucket or a cup full of blood as a sin offering. That shouldn't have been too difficult and probably would have been less expensive than an ephah of fine flour.
Well, where is he going to get a cup full of blood? If he just say, wounds his own animal just enough to get some blood from it, but not enough to kill it, then it's not really a sacrifice. If he kills his neighbor's animal to get some blood for his own offering, he has just committed another sin.

Although these points made sense to me early on, there is another point that occurred to me yesterday morning while pondering the issue: The meat offering upon which the fine flour was sprinkled had no blood; as far as I can tell, the blood of the offerings was poured out when the animal was killed.
You're right. The flour, though, has been included with the other offerings which had been shed of blood. Hebrews 9:22 "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." It doesn't say "without the cleansing of blood." And another thing I find very interesting in this verse. "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood."

You know, I've been thinking about how one can cleanse something (or someone) with blood. Can you picture the sprinkling of blood on everything? It really doesn't bring clean visions to my mind; it seems that everything would just be more "dirty" after being sprinkled with blood.
It is a very gross way of cleansing things. But it doesn't matter what I think is gross or not. What matters is what God says.

However, I do believe that we have a plausible explanation of the mechanics behind the cleansing with blood that we can explore if you'd like.
Sure, I'd like to.
Matt

**hyssop** · 04-13-2002, 12:18 AM

Sacrifices & Fulfillment of Scripture

Matt,

Just to get an idea of where you stand . . . do you feel that the sacrifices are the forerunner to Yashua's crucifixion? In other words, were the sacrifices a shadow or type of Yashua's suffering and death that was to come?

I believe that this principle is at the heart of the gospel. Look at what Paul says in I Corinthians -
<BLOCKQUOTE>I Cor 15 NIV<HR>[1] Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. [2] By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. [3] For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that [Messiah] died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, <HR></blockquote>Now, these scriptures were Old Testament scriptures (obviously, since the New Testament had not yet been written).

Following is Luke's description of one of Yashua's greatest Bible studies with His disciples. He opened their minds so they could finally understand what He had been telling them all along:<BLOCKQUOTE>Luke 24 KJV<HR>[44] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved [Messiah] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:<HR></blockquote>Yashua was talking with His Jewish brethren. It wasn't like they hadn't heard these scriptures many times before; however, it was the first time they had applied these scriptures to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah.

Comments? Do you understand and agree with these premises?

**Matthew23** · 04-13-2002, 11:33 PM

I, Matt, hereby agree to the above said.

Matt

**hyssop** · 04-14-2002, 01:20 PM

Numbers 19

Great. Then, with fulfillment of scripture in mind, let's take a look at Numbers 19. Here is what Judaism has to say about these laws:<BLOCKQUOTE>Pentateuch & Haftorahs - comments on Numbers 19<HR>    This ordinance is the most mysterious rite in the Scripture, the strange features of which are duly enumerated by the Rabbis. Thus, its aim was to purify the defiled, and yet it defiled all those who were in any way connected with the preparation of the ashes and water of purification. 'It purifies the impure, and at the same time renders impure the pure!' So inscrutable was its nature--they said--that even King Solomon in his wisdom dispaired of learning the secret meaning of the Red Heifer regulations.   . . .   In brief, the attitude of Judaism as to the meaning of this law is not merely a confession of ignorance, but the realization that we shall never know why such defilement should be removed in that specified manner ('ignorabimus').<HR></blockquote>Whenever I read these comments, I can't help but remember these words of Paul:<BLOCKQUOTE>2 Cor 3 KJV<HR>[14] But [the children of Israel's] minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in [Messiah]. [15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. [16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the L-rd, the veil shall be taken away.<HR></blockquote>Paul says that Yashua Messiah is the key to understanding the Hebrew scriptures. Please take a moment (okay, a little more that a moment) to read Numbers 19, and remember to look at these scriptures with Messiah's fulfillment in mind.

All done? Okay, let's look at the first couple of verses:<BLOCKQUOTE>Numbers 19 KJV<HR>[1] And the L-RD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, [2] This is the ordinance of the law which the L-RD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:<HR></blockquote>Red Heifer - Now, our stated premise is that all the sacrifices pointed toward Yashua's crucifixion. If that is so, then we claim that He fulfilled the conditions of this sacrifice. One might ask, "How can Yashua, a man, fulfill the conditions of a female (Red Heifer) sacrifice?" Well, Gal 3:28 states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in [Messiah Yashua]." We are not looking for a woman to come as a "second Messiah" to fulfill the female laws of sacrifice; Yashua, in His death, fulfilled all of the sacrifices.
Without spot or blemish - (Heb 4:15 KJV) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
upon which never came yoke - A yoke forces the animal wearing it to submit to the will of its master. We believe that this reference to never being yoked is also a reference to a sinless state. (Mat 11:28-29 KJV) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. Mankind labors and is heavy laden with sin.<BLOCKQUOTE>Numbers 19 KJV<HR>[3] And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face: [4] And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:<HR></blockquote>Any thoughts of how these verses would apply to Yashua?