5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.6 We all, like sheep, have
gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was
oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her
shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth...10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him
to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will
of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be
satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53,
"Understand that the Torah, the books of Moshe, NEVER prescribe human sacrifice. The
idea of someone dying for (in the place of) the sins of another is foreign to the Torah concept of individual and collective
responsibility for sin (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20)."
(Raine Miller, Counter Missionary website at:
The verses she gives in her defense are these:
"16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die
for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24)
20 The soul who sins
is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The
righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Its interesting that Raine Miller wants to appeal to the relevance of scriptures like
these when she thinks they support her view but then claim that they don't apply when they don't.
These scriptures go on to say that if a man turns from his evil ways he will not die.
Now on to Abraham and Isaac.
If you don't want to read the whole story just read what is underlined.
1 Some time later God
tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son,
Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will
tell you about."
Note: Notice the word sacrifice and burnt offering is used here, though
this is prior to the giving of the Law which Raine quotes?
...9 When they reached the place
God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the
altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
Note: He almost did it and this pleased God, which shows that God's command
God does not tempt people with evil commands. (James 1:13 ff)
11 But the angel of the
Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy,"
he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only
son." 13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the
ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide.
And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided." Note: This is called a 'burnt offering'
15 The angel of the Lord called
to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done
this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their
enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis)
First, of all if the guilty one is the only one
allowed to pay the price then why were so many animal sacrifices made in their place?
The point of the verses that Raine offers are that only God can make these kind of decisions.
Secondly, what happened with Abraham and Isaac was primarily to find out how much Abraham
loved and believed God, but it was to be a human burnt offering.
God commended Abraham for going ahead with what He commanded before he stopped him,
so what He commanded couldn't have been wrong.
The scriptures that Raine gives are God's commands to man not God's commands to God.
Have you ever heard the saying, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out."
Well, its true, but only of God.
Raine's argument is a relatively simple argument to refute so here we go.
Its interesting that the Angel of the Lord considers Isaac, Abraham's only son.
If this was 'foreign to the Torah's concept of individual and collective responsibility
for sin' then why was animal sacrifice (a ram) acceptable here?
Why should an animal die for one's sin?
Because God said so!!
The animal was essentially sacrificed in the Jew's place throughout the Old Covenant.
Why was Abraham able and willing to sacrifice his son to the point of reaching out his
hand and taking the knife to slay his son?
This is expounded on in the New Covenant which says: "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.
He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."
Notice all the examples of faith given in this chapter, that are recorded
in the Old Covenant have some kind of connection to the life, death or resurrection of Christ.
faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered
him faithful who had made the promise. (Hebrews 11:11)-Like Mary and Joseph, God helps with conception.
2) Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back
from death. (Hebrews 11:19)-This is pointing to the resurrection of Christ.
faith he (Moses) kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the
firstborn of Israel. (Ibid, vv. 28)
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5)
Abraham being willing to sacrifice his only son as God commands
foreshadows what God did with his only begotten Son. (John 3:16)
This is Christ taking our place so we wouldn't be judged, but we must receive and believe
his report to make it applicable to us. (Isaiah 53)
The Son didn't pay for the sins of the father but the sins of the world. But this was
an eternal sacrifice that was far better than the sacrifice of animals which was the Old Testament system.
Man doesn't have the right to decide who pays for his sins, but God does as He did with
animal sacrifices throughout the OT, and with his eternal Son in the New Testament.
The New Testament gives the answer to what rights God has:
"Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he
did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:19) "
A human cannot sacrifice a mere human for their own sin because:
1) That's not their decision to make
2) They cannot raise them from the dead again.
In the case of Isaac and Jesus, God would raise them from the dead, should they die.
Hebrews says that figuratively speaking Isaac did raise from the dead.
"In Psalm 40:6 the Masoretic text (Psalm 40:7 in the Stone Edition) has purposely changed
the phrase body you have prepared for me, as properly quoted again in Hebrews 10:5, and verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This verse speaks of a man who has a special body prepared for Him by YHWH, to come to earth because the scrolls of Torah
testify of Him! Now if you were a Masoretic counter-missionary evangelist, you'd want this verse tampered with also. That
is exactly what they did. They changed Psalm 40:6 to you opened my ears. What does open ears have to do with a person coming
in a prepared body?"
(The LXX Factor in Stealing Your Faith)
Other translations read 'you pierced my ears' which doesn't make any sense at all.
Read all the translations that have been influenced by the Masoretic Text,
(used by Counter Missionaries) but not available during NT times and Psalm 40: 7 doesn't even make sense where they have hid
'the body' in the text.
The Masoretic Text appears to have been revised by Counter Missionaries after the NT
,Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls by about a thousand years.
What is interesting is that the majority of translations include 'the body' in the NT
reference, but don't include it in the Psalm that it is quoted from by the NT writers.
4 because it is impossible
for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice
and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you
were not pleased. (Hebrews 10, NIV)
13 The blood of goats and
bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God,
cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9)
Those Counter Missionaries, always trying to hide the body and what is even more astounding
is that many of the missionaries/translators fell for it.
BJ Maxwell 04/17/2006