Jesus the final sacrifice?

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I find it interesting that in Acts 21:20-26, we are told about Paul joining in with others in a Nazarite vow. According to Numbers 6:1-21, the completion of the vow requires sin sacrifices.

Isn't it contradictory to say Paul/NT taught the efficacy of Jesus' blood, and yet he/they brought sin sacrifices, a ram/lamb, if everyone understood no need for sacrifices anymore?
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I find it interesting that in Acts 21:20-26, we are told about Paul joining in with others in a Nazarite vow. According to Numbers 6:1-21, the completion of the vow requires sin sacrifices.

Isn't it contradictory to say Paul/NT taught the efficacy of Jesus' blood, and yet he/they brought sin sacrifices, a ram/lamb, if everyone understood no need for sacrifices anymore?
That has often been noted by perspicacious evangelical preachers...and it highlights a NT principle that we too often ignore.

Paul is asked by the Elders of Jerusalem to demonstrate that he is still Jewish, and has not lived contrary to the laws. Paul submits to their request, because he is in Jerusalem, and willingly places himself under their authority. You know the passage. It did not prevent the riots and his arrest. In short it didn't work. ("The fear of man brings a snare.") But the Jewish believers who had accepted Jesus as Messiah were still worshipping side by side with those who had condemned Messiah to death. That relationship was precious, and purchased by Jesus' own forgiveness of His accusers as they nailed Him to the cross. ("Forgive them. They do not know what they are doing.") In other words, Paul indeed returned to pure Jewish practice, including the blood of sheep and goats, at the behest of the elders. This did not "undermine" the doctrine, but it underlined Paul's own admission that he was a "Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles" so that he could win as many as possible. The sacrifice was no longer required. That did not make it unpracticable.

In contrast, Paul was an elder in Antioch. When Peter came to visit, he joined with Paul and lived the practices of the church in Antioch, right up until Jews from Jerusalem came north, and insisted on their Jewish traditions and behaviors that they practiced in Jerusalem. Peter changed his behavior, and returned to the Jewish ways to please the newcomers. As a result, Paul rebuked him...as he should. The culture of Antioch was not the culture of Jerusalem, and Paul called the shots as an elder.

I've worked in dozens of churches on four continents in ten countries. Each building is unique in its internal culture...and different in many ways from the others. It's always good to learn to adapt to expectations before making careful and polite observations...
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
That has often been noted by perspicacious evangelical preachers...and it highlights a NT principle that we too often ignore.

Paul is asked by the Elders of Jerusalem to demonstrate that he is still Jewish, and has not lived contrary to the laws. Paul submits to their request, because he is in Jerusalem, and willingly places himself under their authority. You know the passage. It did not prevent the riots and his arrest. In short it didn't work. ("The fear of man brings a snare.") But the Jewish believers who had accepted Jesus as Messiah were still worshipping side by side with those who had condemned Messiah to death. That relationship was precious, and purchased by Jesus' own forgiveness of His accusers as they nailed Him to the cross. ("Forgive them. They do not know what they are doing.") In other words, Paul indeed returned to pure Jewish practice, including the blood of sheep and goats, at the behest of the elders. This did not "undermine" the doctrine, but it underlined Paul's own admission that he was a "Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles" so that he could win as many as possible. The sacrifice was no longer required. That did not make it unpracticable.

In contrast, Paul was an elder in Antioch. When Peter came to visit, he joined with Paul and lived the practices of the church in Antioch, right up until Jews from Jerusalem came north, and insisted on their Jewish traditions and behaviors that they practiced in Jerusalem. Peter changed his behavior, and returned to the Jewish ways to please the newcomers. As a result, Paul rebuked him...as he should. The culture of Antioch was not the culture of Jerusalem, and Paul called the shots as an elder.

I've worked in dozens of churches on four continents in ten countries. Each building is unique in its internal culture...and different in many ways from the others. It's always good to learn to adapt to expectations before making careful and polite observations...
It didn't work because Paul was a teacher of lawlessness and the crowd knew it. You just need to look at Romans and Galatians to see how his theology evolved.

Still, the fact remains that the early believers didn't think Jesus' did away with sacrifices. They even brought lambs for sacrifices. ;)

Edit per mod Rule 25.3, This is a Christian Forum and you may not material that challenges the Word of God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

docphin5

Well-known member
I find it interesting that in Acts 21:20-26, we are told about Paul joining in with others in a Nazarite vow. According to Numbers 6:1-21, the completion of the vow requires sin sacrifices.

Isn't it contradictory to say Paul/NT taught the efficacy of Jesus' blood, and yet he/they brought sin sacrifices, a ram/lamb, if everyone understood no need for sacrifices anymore?
Yes, it is a total contradiction of what Paul wrote in his epistles, and that is not the only one in Acts of the Apostles. Which is why Acts of the Apostles is not a historical document. It serves one purpose only, that is to reconcile Peter and Paul who were at odds during Paul’s ministry.

Whoever wrote Acts saw the separation of Gentiles from Judaism as a bigger threat to Jewish-Christianity (probably due to the rise of Marcionism) than maintaining Paul’s complete abrogation of the Mosaic Law (replaced by the New Covenant). so he fudged the history a bit to make Paul and Peter appear as co-equals in the preaching of the Good News, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yes, it is a total contradiction of what Paul wrote in his epistles, and that is not the only one in Acts of the Apostles. Which is why Acts of the Apostles is not a historical document. It serves one purpose only, that is to reconcile Peter and Paul who were at odds during Paul’s ministry.
Could be.

Whoever wrote Acts saw the separation of Gentiles from Judaism as a bigger threat to Jewish-Christianity (probably due to the rise of Marcionism) than maintaining Paul’s complete abrogation of the Mosaic Law (replaced by the New Covenant). so he fudged the history a bit to make Paul and Peter appear as co-equals in the preaching of the Good News, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews.
The problem with this is that there is only one law for the native and stranger. So, there shouldn't be two different messages.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Could be.


The problem with this is that there is only one law for the native and stranger. So, there shouldn't be two different messages.
Peter, like many Jews, was holding on to the Jewish idea of Jewish particularism, that there was something special being a Jew, so he did not want to give it up. Paul was like, Peter, if you want to tell the Jews that believing in Christ AND performing outward rituals like circumcision, food purity, etc. is necessary then you do you, but if you start telling Gentiles the same then I will oppose you. You will become my enemy, my Adversary, which Paul records in his letters and the Gospel records in its narrative.

Not until after Paul’s death and the destruction of Jerusalem did Peter understand what Paul meant. Outward rituals have no efficacy for salvation. They only have a figurative meaning for celestial events. Hence the Gospels have Peter, etal. FINALLY understanding the Jesus (or Holy Spirit working through Paul.) after his death.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Peter, like many Jews, was holding on to the Jewish idea of Jewish particularism, that there was something special being a Jew, so he did not want to give it up.
If anything, Peter was holding to what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-20, which contradicts any attempt at abrogating the law as Paul was teaching.

Paul was like, Peter, if you want to tell the Jews that believing in Christ AND performing outward rituals like circumcision, food purity, etc. is necessary then you do you, but if you start telling Gentiles the same then I will oppose you.
Comment removed for violation of Rule 25.3 You have NO unspoken right to speak in a perverted, offensive, profane, foul, or blasphemous manner. This is a Christian website, and you may not post words in mockery of Christian beliefs or terms offensive in descriptions of our Lord God.

You will become my enemy, my Adversary, which Paul records in his letters and the Gospel records in its narrative.
Rightfully so, he should be his enemy.

Not until after Paul’s death and the destruction of Jerusalem did Peter understand what Paul meant. Outward rituals have no efficacy for salvation. They only have a figurative meaning for celestial events.
It is all obedience to the law and necessary.

Hence the Gospels have Peter, etal. FINALLY understanding the Jesus (or Holy Spirit working through Paul.) after his death.
It doesn't look like it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
It didn't work because Paul was a teacher of lawlessness and the crowd knew it. You just need to look at Romans and Galatians to see how his theology evolved.
Not quite. Paul was not a "teacher of lawlessness", but one gifted to harmonize the Tenach with the gospel, like Apollos. The false accusations came from folks who had already chased him all over Europe with their lies, because they, like you, could not accept that Jesus came in a way they had not been taught to expect. When tradition becomes the full measure of expectation, you will always have a stumbling block to faith. You prove that with every post.

Paul was with a Greek friend in Jerusalem, and the false accusers lied and said he'd brought him with into the Temple. Total lie.

edit per mod
You saw that I agreed. This was the practice in Jerusalem.

This was no longer the practice anywhere else, but as long as the Temple stood, the sacrifices continued. The full implication of the Jesus' propitiation had not been realized until Titus took the Temple down. You had that long, by God's mercy, to understand what Jesus had done.

You chose to invent a new religion bereft of Temple and priest, like Jeroboam had in the North, because you had no Temple nor City to go to.
That's just a lie...

I mean, I get that you have to say it. Insulting intelligence is part of your posts...but Paul was called, and he was set aside...and his education with Gamaliel availed him much...after he stopped persecuting those whom he later served with his own life. His travels alone attest to the responsibility he took for the gifts he'd received. Paul was an exemplary steward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

docphin5

Well-known member
If anything, Peter was holding to what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-20, which contradicts any attempt at abrogating the law as Paul was teaching.


One law for the native and stranger. Paul was a false teacher.
One law, spiritually understood, for the world. Paul was an anointed prophet, like others, rejected by his own people because they were too blind and deaf to understand their own scriptures.
Rightfully so, he should be his enemy.


It is all obedience to the law and necessary.


It doesn't look like it.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
He was the teacher of lawlessness. Eusebius documents what the early Nazarenes thought of him in EH.
Eusebius wrote one hundred years later, and spoke nothing of lawlessness, but of his accomplishments. The Early Church Fathers are not considered scripture. They fall into the category of delightfully debatable history.

They weren't false accusations. Just look at his teachings in Romans and Galatians.
Wish you would...Especially the first nine chapters of Romans. Paul grasped the significance of the Son and His work of sacrifice. And of you and your rejection. He also understood what it meant to promote you to the jealousy you display. Abraham was sent to be a blessing to the nations...and Paul makes it clear, so that we become a blessing to you in return.

Despite our failure, that has always been the plan.

Rotfl... you prove you don't have a good defense.
No...I prove that tradition artificially and deliberately sets expectations way too low. I have nothing to defend.

Look to his teachings regarding clean and unclean foods.
Trust me...I do daily. I'm going through scripture OT/NT six or seven times a year. You need to understand that God was doing more than proscribing bacon with the food laws. The epistle of Barnabas had interesting insights as well...that never ended up in scripture, but it shows how folks were thinking.

And still elsewhere. Paul started his false churches every where even though he had zero authority. He definitely didn't abide by the Jerusalem Council nor the Spirit which guided it.
Paul did not start "false churches." And he had the authority of the Spirit by the laying on of hands at the behest of the Holy Spirit in Antioch. He quoted the Jerusalem council, and held to in in those churches that disputed. In Corinth...he even clarified the intent of the Jerusalem council, and his writings were approved later in Peter's epistles.

Of course it was. Until heaven and earth...
Hmmm...Rabbinical traditions do not resemble Temple practice...pragmatic substitution is not exactly the same...is it?
Nope. There was no change.
Clearly...Not with your people. It's sad but true. But also foreseen. As Paul said: "until..."

Daniel didn't have a temple either. We just follow his example.
There is no testimony of scripture as to his practice, beyond three times a day prayer.
Actually, Gamaliel taught a acceptance approach to Nazarenes, while Paul persecuted them. Quite different than his Nasi, which shows Paul wasn't under his tutelage.
Beyond the testimony of Acts, what do you know? What is written? We know of persecutions after Stephen was martyred (Gamaliel's reticence didn't help there much, did it?
Paul was an apostate.
Paul was a hero who never gave up on you...and was willing to let his own life be anathema for your sake.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Eusebius wrote one hundred years later, and spoke nothing of lawlessness, but of his accomplishments.
Eusebius wrote how Paul's writings were ignored. You just need to look at Romans and Galatians to see the lawlessness.

The Early Church Fathers are not considered scripture. They fall into the category of delightfully debatable history.
You're right. Neither is the NT.

Wish you would...Especially the first nine chapters of Romans. Paul grasped the significance of the Son and His work of sacrifice. And of you and your rejection. He also understood what it meant to promote you to the jealousy you display.
Read Romans 14 and how he teaches lawlessness.

Abraham was sent to be a blessing to the nations...and Paul makes it clear, so that we become a blessing to you in return.
That hasn't happened.

Despite our failure, that has always been the plan.
Understood. That's what Israel strives for as well.

No...I prove that tradition artificially and deliberately sets expectations way too low. I have nothing to defend.
Maybe you don't understand it then.

Trust me...I do daily. I'm going through scripture OT/NT six or seven times a year. You need to understand that God was doing more than proscribing bacon with the food laws.
Of course, but he did say ham is off limits.

The epistle of Barnabas had interesting insights as well...that never ended up in scripture, but it shows how folks were thinking.
Sorry, you shouldn't consider this as a source as you disregard most things Jewish.

Paul did not start "false churches." And he had the authority of the Spirit by the laying on of hands at the behest of the Holy Spirit in Antioch.
The HS doesn't lead one to lawlessness.

He quoted the Jerusalem council, and held to in in those churches that disputed. In Corinth...he even clarified the intent of the Jerusalem council, and his writings were approved later in Peter's epistles.
The Jerusalem council was limited to some churches. That's a false teaching.

Hmmm...Rabbinical traditions do not resemble Temple
practice...pragmatic substitution is not exactly the same...is it?
Well, God substituted prayers for sacrifices in Hosea and in Daniel's time.

You want to substitute Jesus for sacrifices though his blood wasn't applied on the altar?

Clearly...Not with your people. It's sad but true. But also foreseen. As Paul said: "until..."

There is no testimony of scripture as to his practice, beyond three times a day prayer.
Then where did he make his sacrifices?

Beyond the testimony of Acts, what do you know? What is written? We know of persecutions after Stephen was martyred (Gamaliel's reticence didn't help there much, did it?
Because Paul wasn't really his student and the Sadducees were the ones persecuting.

Paul was a hero who never gave up on you...and was willing to let his own life be anathema for your sake.
He was an apostate.
 
Last edited:

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
I find it interesting that in Acts 21:20-26, we are told about Paul joining in with others in a Nazarite vow. According to Numbers 6:1-21, the completion of the vow requires sin sacrifices.

Isn't it contradictory to say Paul/NT taught the efficacy of Jesus' blood, and yet he/they brought sin sacrifices, a ram/lamb, if everyone understood no need for sacrifices anymore?

Paul said this, '19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;'
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Paul said this, '19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;'
Doesn't answer the question. Sacrifices were still brought because Jesus' blood didn't satisfy the law.
 

Fred

Well-known member
I find it interesting that in Acts 21:20-26, we are told about Paul joining in with others in a Nazarite vow. According to Numbers 6:1-21, the completion of the vow requires sin sacrifices.

Isn't it contradictory to say Paul/NT taught the efficacy of Jesus' blood, and yet he/they brought sin sacrifices, a ram/lamb, if everyone understood no need for sacrifices anymore?

Paul sinned. Peter sinned (Galatians 2:13).

So yes, Jesus is the final sacrifice.
 
Top