A
reply to a fellow Christian author, scholar and Bible lover:
I
am thrilled that we agree that the Tanakh can not be contradicted.
Thus
if there is some text in the NT that contradicts it, or at least, our
interpretation of it, is contradictory, then we need to either reassess our
interpretation or identify this text as a corruption (if we agree that the
original autographs of the NT were in perfect accord with the Tanakh).
I
submit that the common understanding and interpretation of Hebrews 10:5 is
contradictory to the Tanakh, as it implies that sacrifices alone can bring
atonement (as opposed to a sacrifice being a loving act of a repentant and
obedient heart) and further that the sacrifice of Yeshua’s body of the cross
has brought atonement and salvation for all who call upon his name.
I
also contend that it is your prior acceptance of the ‘atonement sacrifice’
doctrine that leads you to read and interpret Hebrews 10:5 as you do.
I also
contend that, even the LXX version of Ps 40:7 quoted here (Ps 39:7 in the LXX) may
be being interpreted incorrectly.
That
is, while I believe the Hebrew version would have originally been used here,
even the LXX version, if read with a doctrinally valid mindset, is possibly still
acceptable and true to the Tanakh (though some of what is then implied is not).
Firstly,
to further put my case here I would like to accentuate the role or lack
thereof, of the LXX in the times and lives of the NT authors.
Firstly,
I assume you are aware and agree that Yeshua and his disciples and apostles
were:
1) not Essenes (though John the Baptist
may once have been one and Yeshua was clearly very aware of their existence and
teachings) – Yeshua certainly rejected their (Hellenistic) asceticism, as did
Paul;
2) essentially Pharisaic in
their doctrines. That is, they accepted the veracity and authority of the
Tanakh for teaching, training and good works (2 Tim 3:16).
In
this regard I have previously commented on the recent scholarship and
revelation that we have gained from the DSS’s (and not just the Qumran Cave
scrolls).
To
further highlight the implications I wish to re-enforce here, we read in ‘The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in
English’ (2004) and translated by Geza Vermes:
-
“most scrolls are written in
Hebrew, a smaller portion in Aramaic and only a few attest the ancient Greek or
LXX version of the Bible” (p 10/11)
-
“… Hebrew scriptural manuscripts
… are remarkable for their general conformity …” – compared to the fluidity of
the translations into Greek, Latin or Syriac. – [even] ‘extreme fluidity’. (p 11)
That
is, from these amazing finds and a great deal of study, we now know that only
amongst the Essenes scrolls do we find any Greek or LXX scrolls and even then
only small fragments. Only amongst the Essenes do we find significant
changes, both editorial and perhaps unintentional. Amongst all the other ‘DSS’
finds that date to the first century CE and earlier, we find a strong
conformity to the earliest Hebrew manuscripts.
The
evidence then is that Yeshua and the NT authors would not have trusted the
Greek, the LXX! (My LXX article on my website gives a lot more evidence for
this.). Therefore, even if some of the NT books as we have them today, were
originally penned in Greek, it still seems unlikely that the authors would have
utilised the LXX at all widely, if at all.
Given
this information, let us consider the understanding of Ps 40:7-9 in its
original context in the Hebrew Scriptures, before trying to understand and
interpret its use in Hebrews 10.
Firstly,
we need to note from the original context that this Psalm was written by an
author (David?) who ‘confesses his sin and pleads for an end the God’s
disciplinary dealings with him’ (FF Bruce[1])
Ps
40:6-12 (KJV): “Sacrifice and offering thou didst
not desire; mine ears hast thou opened:
burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I
come: in the volume of the book it is
written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. I have preached
righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have
declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy
lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Withhold not thou thy
tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth
continually preserve me. For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine
iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they
are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.”
Thus,
in the sense that the NT authors now make this a Messianic Psalm, we clearly
don’t read into it that Yeshua sinned. In this sense, I would agree that the
Tanakh has at times in the NT been used to bring new understanding, but never
to abolish Torah or previous introduced everlasting covenants.
The ‘THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY: A CRITICAL AND
EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS’ (By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,
D.Litt. Professor Of Theological Encyclopædia And Symbolics Union
Theological Seminary, New York And Emilie Grace
Briggs, B.D.), interestingly translates this portion of the Psalm thus:
“PEACE offering and
grain offering hast Thou no delight in; then had I the covenant; Whole burnt offering with sin hast Thou not asked; then didst Thou
command me. Lo, I am come, in the book roll it is prescribed to me. Thy will I
delight in, and Thy Law is within me. I have preached righteousness in the
great congregation; behold my lips.”
Some
of their very detailed commentary is worth quoting:
“Sin
vitiated all sacrifices; sacrifices were of value only as expressive of
righteousness. EVs. and most scholars, ancient and modern,
think of sin offering here rather than sin. This is tempting in order to
complete the enumeration of the great classes of offerings; but the sin
offering is not known in the Psalter elsewhere; it is not known to the
literature upon which this Ps. depends, especially in this verse; the Hebrew
word used here nowhere else has that meaning; and even with the sin offering
the list of offerings would be incomplete without the Asham already used Is. 5310.—Hast Thou no delight in]. Protasis of interrogative clause in order to
the apodosis of the last clause of v. This is based on Ho. 66: “For I delight in kindness and
not in peace offering; and in the knowledge
of God rather than whole burnt offerings;” cf. Is. 111 Ps. 5118, and especially 1 S. 1522: “Hath Yahweh as great delight in burnt
offerings and peace offerings as in obeying the voice of Yahweh?”—Hast Thou not asked]. This is based on Je.
722–23, “For I
spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
offerings or peace offerings; but this thing I command them, saying:
Hearken unto my voice,” cf. Ps. 50:8–10 Mi. 66–8. This is essentially
true so far as its antith. is concerned, but it needs qualification, for not
only the code of D, Dt. 12, 16‚ upon which this Ps. relies, but also the code
of E, Ex. 23:14–19, which antedates Hosea and Micah,
prescribes just these sacrifices as an essential part of the ritual of worship
from the earliest times. At the same time, all these sacrifices are primitive,
and antedate all Hebrew Law, and are common to the worship of Israel and all
his neighbours; so that they are not as sacrifices in any way distinctive of the
religion of Yahweh, or to be regarded as for the first time commanded in His
Law. They are incorporated in His Law and given a meaning, and that meaning is
His command, rather than the sacrifices themselves. This is the unanimous
consensus of the prophets from Samuel onwards. These questions as to sacrifices as such, as external ritual ceremonies, not being required, are in order to
the statement in the apodosis[2]
of what Yahweh did require. —Then didst Thou command me]. … “ears didst Thou bore me.” This strange
statement is variously explained. … The reference is rather to the creative power of God, who dug
out the ears and made them organs of hearing, in order that His people might
hear and obey Him, cf. Ex. 411 Mt. 139. The
emendation that I have proposed gives fine parall., and is especially
appropriate to the book of the covenant in the subsequent context.— Lo, I am
come], calling attention to prompt
obedience.—in the book roll], the Deuteronomic Code as written
on the roll, cf. Je. 362. 4.—it is prescribed to me], as RVm., Bä., Dr., Kirk., al., rather than “written of me,” concerning me, of G,
J, EVs.— 9. Thy will
I delight in], is in emphatic antith. to the offerings of v.7. The psalmist delights in what Yahweh delights in, and not in what He
does not delight in. The will of Yahweh is expressed in the Law, which is, as the previous context indicates, recorded in the
book roll. A scribe has made it more emphatic by prefixing, “To do,” which,
however, makes the line overfull. It is an unnecessary gloss. The Law of Yahweh was
written in the book roll; but more than that, the psalmist says, “it is within
me”], literally in the midst of my inwards, v. 2215; the
intestines being the seat of
the emotions, affections, and passions, according to the Heb. conception; and
so, “within my heart,”
In this interesting commentary Briggs agrees that the phrase in question
“mine ears hast thou opened” both indicates that
the Almighty has made the Psalmist able to hear and willing to hear.
Baigent[3] agrees. He
states: “Verse 6:
This is not a repudiation of sacrifice as such, but a recognition that doing
God’s will is more important than ritual observances … ‘my ears … opened’ i.e
you have made me obedient’.”
What I see in these commentaries as well though, is that ‘a body they hast prepared’ (i.e. the LXX
rendition, if this is what it originally was) can mean simply that we all have
body’s with ears to hear. That is, even the LXX version, if it also is not to
be contradictory in implying a sacrifice, is stating the same thing – a call to
obedience. And thus in Heb 10, this is the intention. The focus then is on the
LIFE of Yeshua being in total obedience, not on his death.
God has always wanted
a total; that is with the whole body; absolute loyal obedience to His will.
This is what Yeshua gave with his life to the very point of offering it up for
his friends just as he had said, ‘no greater love …’.
Turning now to
Hebrews 10 though, is this understanding consistent, and what about the further
commentary in Heb 10: 8-14 that seems fairly emphatic that the sacrifice of the
cross ‘offered for all time a single
sacrifice for sin’?
I would argue for two
main reasons that this section is corrupted and not original. These reasons
being a) the context and b) the false doctrine of complete atonement through a
single sacrifice.
The context:
Hebrews as a book
speaks of a new priesthood NOT a new covenant. Frank has very ably illustrated
this in his article, ‘The Covenant in
Hebrews 8 & 9‘[4].
Look even closer at the context of Chapter 10. It starts off speaking about the
failure of the sacrificial system, that is the Levitical priesthood, to bring
salvation and introduces the quote from Ps 40:7-9 which supports this comment.
In verses 15 onwards the author of Hebrews then speaks of obedience of the
heart being the way forward and how the new Priesthood of Yeshua enables this
(again, I try to explain this in my ‘Yeshua
the High Priest’[5] article).
The doctrine:
Just as an overview[6]
the concept of ‘original sin’ is seriously flawed as is also a number of
doctrines that this leads to, including the doctrine that a blood sacrifice is
critical and indispensable for the cleansing of sin.
Neither the Tanakh,
nor any common Jewish position, has ever argued that the shedding of blood is
the only and necessary ingredient for repentance and forgiveness of sin.
In fact, in the Tanakh
we learn that only after repentance and remedying of wrong, can a free will
offering for sin be presented on the altar. There is no question that Hebrews
9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything
is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no
forgiveness of sins. “(ESV) in a corruption (perhaps from a misreading,
misunderstanding or twisting of the words of Lev 17:11) in some way.
For a start, Mal 3:7
and Zec 3:4-5 clearly show the error of this statement. In fact, in the case of
‘intentional sin’ even a blood sacrifice is not enough.
Lev 5:11 also
declares that a grain offering (i.e. no blood) can bring atonement.
So, I would suggest
that the presupposition that the blood sacrifice of Yeshua was a necessary
event for the atonement of humanity leads you to misread and misinterpret this
quotation of the Tanakh.
[1] ‘New International Bible
Commentary’, 1986 (edited by FF Bruce). Psalm 40 commentary by John W Baigent.
[2] i.e the clause expressing
the consequence
[3] Footnote 1
[4] The Covenant in Hebrews 8 & 9 http://theolivetreeconnection.com/Articles/The%20Covenant%20in%20Hebrews%208%20&%209.pdf
[6] A good place to look for a
little more depth would be Section II: Salvation & Atonement of ‘The
Teacher and the Preacher’ by Moshe Avraham Kempinski
No comments:
Post a Comment