After explaining sacrifice (after talking about Eminem . . . these are the jump arounds that I think lose some people) Bell explains where some of the explanations for what Yeshua accomplished on the cross come from in Scripture. He sums up:
“What happened on the cross?
is the cross about the end of the sacrificial system
or a broken relationship that’s been reconciled
or a guilty defendant who’s been set free
or a battle that’s been won
or the redeeming of something that was lost?
Which is it?” (pg 127)
His answer is “yes” to all of the above. Though I have to disagree with him a bit as he has (probably unknowingly) slipped into a traditional Christianese understanding of the sacrificial system. His explanations of what sacrifice was all about come from the pagan world and do not at all resemble God’s stated intent, purpose or experience of sacrifice within the ancient Israelite’s world. For one thing, the early believers continued offering sacrifices until the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. In the book of Acts Paul pays for the sacrifice of some young men who had taken a Nazirite vow (and some have suggested he also had taken the vow with them). The book of Ezekiel speaks of the sacrificial system existing in the Millenial Kingdom (another reason I don’t believe we are in it yet).
Yes, Yeshua is the *end* of the sacrificial system-in the same way he is the *end* of the Law. He is the ultimate goal, what they both point to, the final destination of the journey. But neither *ceased to be* because of him. Neither was ever the way to receive salvation, or atonement. They were the means through which one came to understand salvation and atonement. They were done so that the person participating in both would be walking in the practices of pictures that regularly refreshed their hope in Messiah to come. And just as Yeshua admonished his disciples to celebrate every Passover seder they ever participated in from that night on “in remembrance of” him, so any sacrifice offered after his ultimate sacrifice on the cross, when done in remembrance of him, would be a worthy sacrifice.
Of course who you understand the author of Hebrews to be (who Bell is referencing as saying the sacrificial system is ending), and when you believe they are writing, will determine a lot about what you believe of their message. I agree with Bell that it was most likely a woman, but I also believe it was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and that one of the purposes was to encourage the Hebrews (the Messianic Believers, more specifically) that it was okay that they could no longer offer the commanded sacrifices they had continued to offer. The author presents a beautifully Hebraic picture of the interconnection between the sacrifices being offered up until that point in the earthly Temple by the Levitical Priests and the ongoing sacrifices being offered in the heavenly Temple by the High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Yeshua HaMashiach! The comfort is given that Yeshua has accomplished what every single one of those sacrifices was a picture of him accomplishing and since he was the *end* of them-the goal, the aim, the bullseye, the destination-when you have received him as your savior, and his ultimate accomplishment on the cross is applied to you, then you do not need to offer the actual sacrifices in the actual Temple (that you cannot offer because it doesn’t stand). You are covered; you are good. What peace that must have given the readers of the letter to the Messianic Hebrew Believers.
What Bell is attempting to tackle with all of this, however, is the reality that the authors of the Epistles presented diverse metaphors for Yeshua’s death on the cross and what it accomplished. They used images that were meaningful to their audience and they used lots of different ones to explain the same things. At different times and in different parts of the world there has been preference for one image over another. Even within different individuals it is okay if one metaphor holds more meaning. An attorney may best understand the legal imagery while someone working in the world of finance may be relate to a debt being paid/cancelled. And that’s good.
He is also trying to make the point that there isn’t one “better” metaphor. All of the metaphors used in the epistles are good and meaningful. We do not have to feel obligated to stick with one over the others-especially if there is not as much cultural understanding for the meaning as there was in the time the letter was written using that metaphor. In the modern Western world we don’t really get the meaning and heaviness of living in a culture that offers regular sacrifices. Unless and until we study these things, it’s perhaps the hardest metaphor for us to relate to. This is one reason why I teach about the sacrificial system so that we can understand what the authors are talking about when they reference it.
And, Bell goes on to point out, his death wasn’t anything unusual or special. He died the way thousands of people died at the hands of Rome. Naked on a cross. What is unique about Yeshua is that he rose from the dead. I do understand that Bell is going with convention at one point-which I find ironic considering his almost obsessive need to challenge convention at most other points-but the cross was not accomplished on “Friday” with a subsequent resurrection on “Sunday”. Yeshua is clear earlier in the gospels that he would be “three full days and nights in the tomb” and Friday at sundown to Sunday at sunrise barely accomplishes a day and a half. Now, I know the general come back is “he just had to be in the tomb part of each of those days for it to count.” Which sounds like a good argument-except that it’s ridiculous. First, a day for the Jewish person would start at sundown and end at sundown; Second, it was not until the person had been dead for three FULL days that they were pronounced truly dead. My understanding is that something close to 80-90% of coma cases come out of the coma within the first 3 days. In the ancient world without our modern day medical technology it would be impossible to determine if someone was in a coma or dead-and since it was observed that lots of people woke up within 3 days, they waited 3 days to pronounce them dead. This gives a lot of background to all of the stories where Yeshua brought people back from the dead after seeming to intentionally wait three full days. So if Yeshua only spent part of 3 days in the tomb then he didn’t die and thus he wasn’t resurrected-in which case those of us who pin our faith on him and what he accomplished have a real, serious problem. Plus, this whole Friday to Sunday picture misses the whole connection between Yeshua’s resurrection and the Feast of Firstfruits that he was fulfilling in his resurrection. But since that isn’t where Bell goes, I suppose I digress . . .
Only Bell then goes on to try to make a point using John that is . . . I’m sorry to say after loving the book so much up to this point . . . juvenile and revealing how much Bell is missing in his study of the Gospel of John. Bell points out that Yeshua turning water into wine is called the first sign by John, and that healing the official’s son is the second, according to John, and then Bell starts numbering things so that raising Lazarus from the dead becomes number 7 and he talks about 7 being the number of the days of creation, etc. Except that the number 7 and its reference to the days of creation in the book of John is culminated in the miracle of turning water into wine-not begun there. Now I’m okay with layers of 7’s in John, especially because John is writing in the Sod level (the 4th level, the highest level, the secret level reserved for learned rabbi’s at least 30 years of age and found worthy of studying this level), but to then skip to the end of the gospel and make the 8th sign Yeshua’s resurrection and claim that is the “beginning of a new week” . . . it sounds good, but it does NOT work. Nice try, but missed the boat. Because in order for Yeshua’s resurrection to be the “8th sign” in the Gospel of John we have to jump ahead a LOT of chapters and ignore miracles and “signs” being done in each of them.
All to make a point that I partially agree with. NO-the old has not gone and the new come. The new is the same as the old-just interpreted correctly, explained, lived out instead of only hoped for. But *it* is the same. And, yet, I do agree that the story John is telling is “one about God rescuing all of creation.” (pg 134)
I do agree that when the Gospel message is presented only in terms of Yeshua coming to reconcile man to God via death on the cross for our sins we are making humans the center of the story. And I agree this is missing the bigger point. And it is true that Scripture presents Yeshua acting to reconcile all of creation to himself! Yes, our reconciliation is part of that-but the bigger picture is the bigger point.
And with all I’ve disagreed with Bell about in this chapter, I do agree with this:
“A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.
A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story.
A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the “in-ness” of one group at the expense of the “out-ness” of another group will not be true to the story that includes ‘all things and people in heaven and on earth.'” (pg 135)
I also agree with Bell that the intimately personal part of this whole story is that we are called to die to self in order to live with Messiah. We are called to die to our pride, our sin, our egos, our old selves, our ideas about how things should be . . . and then to live with the reality that Yeshua presents of how things are. Life comes through death. In fact, that is one of the reasons I love that the Hebrew days is sundown to sundown is that the day begins with night-death-and in the morning there is new life-resurrection; a picture of the Gospel is built into each and every new day-sort of gives new depth to choosing this day whom we will serve.
Speak Your Mind