The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[Scrawly]

I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it. The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.

Jesus didn't have to die either, he could have run off or bowed to Jews and Romans. But he prayed in Gethsemane to align his will with God's and went on to be martyred. It wasn't made to happen in that sense, but an omniscient God knew it would happen.

So I have a problem with using "responsibility" in the same context since it amounts to arguments like this:

Parents are responsible for procreating children they know will probably do wrong and eventually die. Thus parents are responsible for wrongdoing and deaths of their children.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is absolutely multifaceted, however, I believe penal substitution is a critical component to a proper understanding of the gospel. Although at this point we are veering too far off topic, so I will just highlight a few verses that come to mind here, and take from it what you will:

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:22)

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:4).

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:28)

In the context of Hebrews 9:18-28 the author argues very forcefully that the animal sacrifices were necessarily inadequate; but that Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, which he bore the sins of many, was indeed sufficient for the remission of their sins and for securing their unshakeable hope of eternal salvation.

Some other verses you may wish to look at are: Romans 3:25-26; I Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; and Galatians 3:10-14.

This is as far as I will go on this off-topic though.

[JohnnyP]

I believe that the atonement of Christ is absolutely multifaceted, however, I believe penal substitution is a critical component to a proper understanding of the gospel. Although at this point we are veering too far off topic, so I will just highlight a few verses that come to mind here, and take from it what you will:

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:22)

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:4).

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:28)

In the context of Hebrews 9:18-28 the author argues very forcefully that the animal sacrifices were necessarily inadequate; but that Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, which he bore the sins of many, was indeed sufficient for the remission of their sins and for securing their unshakeable hope of eternal salvation.

Some other verses you may wish to look at are: Romans 3:25-26; I Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; and Galatians 3:10-14.

This is as far as I will go on this off-topic though.

I wouldn't say his sacrifice is a fulfillment of the Law though, the Law never called for Jews and Romans to sacrifice a human, so it's not as simple as replacing ourselves with a goat:

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

So rather than calling it a penal substitution, I'd explain it more like I said, Jesus obeyed the Father to the death so he'd be given the power to grant us mercy. Especially when discussing with non-believers who like to point out that ritual human sacrifice is something that turns most people off.

[Scrawly]

I wouldn't say his sacrifice is a fulfillment of the Law though, the Law never called for Jews and Romans to sacrifice a human, so it's not as simple as replacing ourselves with a goat:

So rather than calling it a penal substitution, I'd explain it more like I said, Jesus obeyed the Father to the death so he'd be given the power to grant us mercy. Especially when discussing with non-believers who like to point out that ritual human sacrifice is something that turns most people off.

1) We as human beings have no right to sacrifice another human being for our sins. Only God has the absolute right to give life and take it away. Because the penalty for sin is death (Ezekiel 18:4), God, in His great mercy, provided His own sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world. His own Son willingly suffered the death penalty for us.

2) The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son, foreshadows God’s willingness to sacrifice his own Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus.

[JohnnyP]

1) We as human beings have no right to sacrifice another human being for our sins. Only God has the absolute right to give life and take it away. Because the penalty for sin is death (Ezekiel 18:4), God, in His great mercy, provided His own sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world. His own Son willingly suffered the death penalty for us.

I still wouldn't explain it quite like that. The death penalty for humans is either going to be annihilation as I believe, or eternal torment as others believe, in the Lake of Fire. Most of us will probably die a physical death as Jesus did, one way or another.

So the deal still isn't a one-for-many punishment of Jesus and that's it, all done. There are also qualifications to it:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So I would still put it like I said, which is that Jesus obeyed the Father to the death even though his own humanity may have rather told him not to, so that he could be worthy of being Judge to give us mercy if we believe and ask for it.

2) The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son, foreshadows God’s willingness to sacrifice his own Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus.

In a way although circumstances were different. The omniscient God knew Jesus would live, Abraham had to go by faith. It's still not like an animal sacrifice.

[Scrawly]

Thanks for your thoughts JP. This is as far off track as I would like to take it. Thanks again.

[Scrawly]

knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pet. 1:18-19).

[JohnnyP]

knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pet. 1:18-19).

Yes, I agree that's a shorthand way of saying it, but since we're in the Judaism area I'll illustrate what kind of problems this can cause if we don't elaborate:

IN SHORT... What, EXACTLY does Gd say about human sacrifice in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible? In Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Gd calls human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him...This teaches that Gd would not accept Jesus' death on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that Gd would accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is unbiblical. -Rabbi Federow

---

So I'll elaborate again about it:

The Old Covenant sacrifice by the Levite Priesthood was only a shadow and symbolic of the New Covenant foreshadowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood ministering bread and wine to Abraham. Where bread/flesh is symbolic of the Word of God, and wine/blood is symbolic of the New Covenant:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The blood shedding here is the result of Jesus remaining obedient to the Father in the face of death:

Hebrews 5:8-10 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Then his obedience enabled him to be the author of salvation, that is, to be the Judge who can give us mercy and forgiveness for our sins:

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

So the longhand way to explain it is, the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus in obedience to the Father was a means to get into the position to minister a Melchizedek Priesthood of bread and wine where the real work of salvation begins:

BREAD/WORD OF GOD/MESSAGE OF REPENTANCE

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

WINE/NEW COVENANT/FORGIVENESS OF SIN

Abolishing the curse of death on everyone for Adam's sin:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Forgiveness of our own sins if we repent:

Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:34 ...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

[Scrawly]

Yes, I agree that's a shorthand way of saying it, but since we're in the Judaism area I'll illustrate what kind of problems this can cause if we don't elaborate:

---

So I'll elaborate again about it:

The Old Covenant sacrifice by the Levite Priesthood was only a shadow and symbolic of the New Covenant foreshadowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood ministering bread and wine to Abraham. Where bread/flesh is symbolic of the Word of God, and wine/blood is symbolic of the New Covenant:

The blood shedding here is the result of Jesus remaining obedient to the Father in the face of death:

Then his obedience enabled him to be the author of salvation, that is, to be the Judge who can give us mercy and forgiveness for our sins:

So the longhand way to explain it is, the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus in obedience to the Father was a means to get into the position to minister a Melchizedek Priesthood of bread and wine where the real work of salvation begins:

I think its best to highlight that the Hebrew scriptures, including the Talmud, teach that the death of the righteous has atoning power. Indeed, when Yeshua the Messiah, the totally righteous one, laid down his life, it was the ultimate act of atonement in human history. Feel free to read Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael brown deal with this Jewish and Islamic objection here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo...atonement1.htm

[JohnnyP]

I think its best to highlight that the Hebrew scriptures, including the Talmud, teach that the death of the righteous has atoning power. Indeed, when Yeshua the Messiah, the totally righteous one, laid down his life, it was the ultimate act of atonement in human history. Feel free to read Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael brown deal with this Jewish and Islamic objection here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo...atonement1.htm

I read that and the article you sent me, for example: "These Jews obviously believed that their deaths did have an effect upon the nation, and even beseeched God to accept their martyrdom as atonement for Israel’s sins!"

Yes but we have to consider, who is giving the atonement?

Source: KJV

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

© Copyright Original Source

If it is Jesus, then the atoning comes in as, he was obedient to the Father to the death, then Jesus was found worthy to be Judge of our sins and give us mercy, THEN we receive atonement.

We're saying the same thing, he died for us, except you're skipping the step of Jesus judging and giving atonement to the quick and the dead, and going right from death to atoning. If you insist that sins are atoned for by his death alone like a scapegoat, when does Jesus get a chance to judge or give mercy to anyone?

[Scrawly]

I read that and the article you sent me, for example: "These Jews obviously believed that their deaths did have an effect upon the nation, and even beseeched God to accept their martyrdom as atonement for Israel’s sins!"

Yes but we have to consider, who is giving the atonement?

Source: KJV

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

© Copyright Original Source

If it is Jesus, then the atoning comes in as, he was obedient to the Father to the death, then Jesus was found worthy to be Judge of our sins and give us mercy, THEN we receive atonement.

We're saying the same thing, he died for us, except you're skipping the step of Jesus judging and giving atonement to the quick and the dead, and going right from death to atoning. If you insist that sins are atoned for by his death alone like a scapegoat, when does Jesus get a chance to judge or give mercy to anyone?

Thanks for reading the articles! If you wish to further discuss the atonement it'd be best to start a new thread.

Thanks!

[JohnnyP]

Thanks for reading the articles! If you wish to further discuss the atonement it'd be best to start a new thread.

Thanks!

Ok I copied some of this to new thread in Apologetics:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-on-the-Cross

[shunyadragon]

Here is a great little article written by Daniel B. Wallace exploring the charge of Anti-Semitism in the NT, enjoy:

https://bible.org/article/jew-first-...-anti-semitism

I do not believe that the article nor the posts that follow successfully address the issues. The New Testament should not necessarily be called anti-semitic, but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present.

The article begins with this quote.

Source: https://bible.org/article/jew-first-new-testament-and-anti-semitism

In Rom 1.16, Paul tells the Christians at Rome that he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”

© Copyright Original Source

First problem is I do not consider this quote representative of the relationship between Christians and Jews in the NT since it only refers to Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ.

The controversy did not begin with Mel Gibson's Movie.

[JohnnyP]

...but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present

If opposition to mainstream Judaism alone means antisemitism then Bahá'í is as guilty as the NT of it.

That powers took control of much of the world and called themselves Christian doesn't mean anything. Powers took control of Jerusalem and were wicked and God sent Babylon and Rome to smite them. So God must be inherently antisemitic?

I think rather if we look at Jews with solemn respect for what they gave us while still disagreeing with the majority of them today, we are ok.

[shunyadragon]

If opposition to mainstream Judaism alone means antisemitism then Bahá'í is as guilty as the NT of it.

No that is not what anti-semitism represents in any shape or form.

That powers took control of much of the world and called themselves Christian doesn't mean anything. Powers took control of Jerusalem and were wicked and God sent Babylon and Rome to smite them. So God must be inherently antisemitic?

Sounds like grade D movie on the trilateral conspiracy and does not address the problem of anti-semitism in the history up to the present including Billy Graham. I guess you consider Christianity under control of the forces of the dark ones

I think rather if we look at Jews with solemn respect for what they gave us while still disagreeing with the majority of them today, we are ok.

OK, I commend you, but I do not think this addresses the problem either.

[JohnnyP]

No that is not what anti-semitism represents in any shape or form.

If it's not just opposing theologies...both OT/NT are Jews talking about Jews, what in the NT is more antisemitic than something like this, where God has Gentiles attacking Jews because they are idolatrous harlots?

Source: KJV

Ezekiel 23:11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

Ezekiel 23:22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Ezekiel 23:23 The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them: all of them desirable young men, captains and rulers, great lords and renowned, all of them riding upon horses.

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds like grade D movie on the trilateral conspiracy and does not address the problem of anti-semitism in the history up to the present including Billy Graham. I guess you consider Christianity under control of the forces of the dark ones.

Sure a lot of it has been, from Inquisitions to Hitler. Many Christians have behaved badly, many Jews have behaved badly like there in Ezekiel. Calling it like it is doesn't make one antichristian or antisemitic.

OK, I commend you, but I do not think this addresses the problem either.

It's not an OT or NT problem, it's a human problem.