There is a post I have come across which I like to provide a response to the Counter Missionary Voice. It was written by Yehuda Yisrael. Let us take a look. (italics mine)
~The "lamb" of G-d~
It's that time of year again! What's more, Pesach and Easter happened to coincide with each other this year. Many Christians look to these verses in Genesis to justify their faith that Jesus is their "Passover lamb":
Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.
The Christians assert that this reference to a "lamb" must refer to Jesus, since Abraham sacrifices a ram and not a lamb, later in the chapter. Never mind the fact that Jesus was not sacrificed as a burnt offering on a fire, as Isaac inquires. And never mind the fact that the Israelites sacrificed literal lambs in Exodus chapter 12 and roasted them over a fire, literally a burnt offering!
This misses the point of New Testament Typology arguments.
Obviously Christ wasn't burned, but what was the connection that was made by Christians between Christ and the binding of Isaac? Abraham saw a ram with it's head caught in a thorn bush. A ram was provided in the place of Isaac, just as Christ was a substitute for us, to cleanse us from transgression. The subject of the method of sacrificing is not an issue that Christians think about, it's what the lamb's sacrifice was pointing to, a righteous substitute. Another thing is the hill that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar on the very mountain that Jesus was crucified. The one who raises the point about Christ not being a burnt offering as an argument miss the entire point that Christians make regarding this point.
The Christian doesn't care to let the Torah speak to itself. This "lamb" must refer to Jesus!
What's even more incredulous about the Christian obsession with "the lamb of G-d" is that the Christians have the chutzpah to literally elevate this "lamb" to the status of a god! The ironic thing is, the Christians weren't the first to do this. The Egyptians beat them to the punch!:
Exodus 8:22 But Moses said, "It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?
Indeed, the Egyptians worshiped the lamb as a deity, just as the Christians do today, albeit in a roundabout way. The "lamb of G-d" was never meant to be elevated to the status of G-d, but rather to be transformed into an act of service to G-d. The Christians have reverted back to the ways of the Egyptians by deifying and worshiping the "lamb." May we all gain clarity and break free from the worship of "the lamb" and devote our worship to the One True G-d of Israel!
-Yehuda Yisrael
The "lamb of God obsession" from Christians has nothing to do with Egypt and even if Egypt did it first, there is literally no connection between the two and are different contexts.
On a side note from a previous article I wrote, The Lamb of God, There were other cases where Jesus is referred to as a lamb (which was raised to me by another Jew,) such as in Acts 8:32 and in 1 Peter 3:19. With respect to the point in Peter, I am aware that unblemished lamb in the Torah refers to blind lambs or crippled or any defect. This is a point I also address in my response to Eli Cohen:
"Leviticus 4:28 and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect.
Cohen rightly points out that a female goat doesn't mean the goat is sinless, but rather defects that the interviewer alludes to. I already know this, a defect in the lamb to me would of been something wrong with it's eyes, legs or any part of his body that is broken, bruised, or battered. I am already aware of this as are other informed Christians. He also goes onto say it doesn't have to be a rightous animal, just a wholesome animal. However, what Cohen doesn't realise is that the lamb is a picture or an antitype of Jesus being our vicarious atonement." (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html)
Peter is making the point that due to Christ's sinlessness, his atonement satisfied the wrath of God. He is using the blemish of the lambs to illustrate his point.
Answering Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment