Gethsemane and Golgotha

[Pyreaux]

I'm a self-taught, wannabe scholar of Royal Cult studies and various Pseudopigraphal materials, and applying them to my Gospel studies. I have no relevant degrees in the subject, and yet I'm trying to write several papers, subjects mainly involving the Melchizedek Priesthood throughout the Bible and eventually tracing royal ideology from Egypt and Mesopotamia, to the Patriarchs, Kings and Christianity, to its heavy influences on Free Masonry and even Tolkien. I'm trying my best to bring together all the information I can, I can always use more. So far, I've been feeling like Moroni, just writing to myself, I could probably use some feedback for this unfinished paper. Most everything looks good to me, but I'm sure I'm making mistakes. This is one of the many papers that I think is close to being done. Tell me if I'm compacting too much, or if I'm confusing or simply confused. Tell me to focus on certain things more. Perhaps my scriptures are in the wrong places. Or just tell me that I can't write. But if there is a chance a monkey can create a Shakespearean play maybe if I just keep typing I can accidentally say something profound.

Gethsemane and Golgotha
The Atonement of Christ and the Ritual of Atonement

What Does it Mean to Atone?

There are a Billion Christians, those who may believe in Jesus Christ and that His primary task was to atone for us, because at least that much the New Testament says plainly. They believe by the Holy Spirit that the New Testament contains something true in it, though its apparent many don't have the skills to understand its full meaning. Surely one then can still make use of it and benefit from it without fully understanding it, but the Atonement of Jesus Christ has to be one of the most important events in recorded history. Yet there is a lot of disagreement over how Christ’s atonement worked. Why? We are too far removed from its ancient context. There is just as much disagreement among believers today over what even ancient temple's Atonement rite was about. There is no Temple theology in the Bible. There is no explanation for the acts or signs or symbols, at least not in written form. If the Temple priests kept it as an oral or secret tradition, that information would have been lost when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed and the practice of Atonement ceased. As ancient sources were discarded and Hebrew became a dead language.

The Hebrew word for “atone” which is “kpr (H#3722)”, and is actually very common and ordinary in its meaning. to be understood a context needs to be given to it. The religious meaning only comes from using it in a religious context. It general it means “to cover”, but more specifically in a purpose to “recover” or “make good” a “torn” or “broken covering”, it’s to fix, patch or replace something that has ruptured due to rot or piercing. The normal context involves something that normally has a covering to it, like a replacing a drum covering, mending clothing or patching a tent. When giving it other contexts it can mean to “repair a hole” or “cure a sickness”. In the context of the “atoning” blood, atone means to “smear (to cover)”, “to smear blood” to repair something. “Atoning for sins” does not mean to “cover sin”, in the sense you are attempting “to hide” sins from God, rather it is to mend or replace something that has ruptured, in this case it is a covenant that has ruptured due to sin.

How does blood cover, or rather repair, a Covenant? A normal Covenant is known as an agreement between God and men, usually ratified with the swearing of an oath, and the conditions of breaking the oath have been agreed to. The standard sort of oath sworn in the Bible was a blood oath, a statement or jester, indicating they’d rather die than break the oath (Jeremiah 34:18-19). Blood was believed to be “life” (Leviticus 17:14), your life was often promised as recompense for violating the terms of a covenant. Such was the Everlasting Covenant (Genesis 15:9-10)  a blood ritual was done to “seal” the promises made, after the manner of a royal land grant treaty (Genesis 12:2-3). As fundamental to Israel the Everlasting Covenant was, few today know exactly what the original everlasting covenant entailed. The sins that break the covenant depend on the laws a covenant is under, it is not a set of universal morals but the conditions of a specific covenant. Hence it was a sin for a Israelite under the Mosaic Covenant to break the Sabbath, in contrast to a Gentile under the Noahide Covenant, for whom observing the Sabbath is a sin, unless you were converting. As Jesus says divorce wasn’t a sin under the Mosaic Law but it was a sin under an original law from the "beginning" (Matthew 19:7-8). Sin causes ruptures to the everlasting covenant or can even cause the covenant to collapse (Isaiah 24:4-6), and atonement, covering or smearing blood on the Ark of the Covenant (Leviticus 16:14) mended it. When the Everlasting Covenant broke, the earth and the people suffered, and a priest must atone, or else the blood of the sinners, the guilty human's blood, was accepted to appease the covenant (Numbers 25:7-13).

The origin of the Everlasting Covenant is debated; as the common answer is that it began with Abraham, except the commission and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant are the same as those promised to Adam and Noah. The First Book of Enoch is an ancient book found among the oldest known collection of the Biblical texts found today, called the Dead Sea Scrolls. For Chronological reasons, I’ll cite the Book of Enoch first as it gives us insight as to the origins of the Biblical Everlasting Covenant. Enoch says the Covenant originates from the Creation. To summarize, the act of creation was when primeval chaos was brought into habitable order by a series of bonds or seals. The mixed elements were separated and bound to stay separated by a great covenant or “oath” (1 Enoch 69:16-25). A good explanation of the less clear details the Bible makes references to. The “bonds of the covenant” are referenced as a way to prevent variant forms of chaos and suffering (Ezekiel 20:37; Psalms 2:3). The Biblical Creation accounts found in pieces outside Genesis tells similar details, the elements were mixed until the light was separated from the darkness, upper water from the lower waters, the land from the sea, animals separated into each their own kinds, etc. For instance, God had separated the sea from the land, and how He set the sea apart from that land was by a seal or bond (Job 38:8-10; Jeremiah 5:22; Psalms 104:9). This was until, as Books of Enoch and Genesis accounts, the sea heaved beyond it bonds in the Great Flood of Noah, because the harmony of creation was disrupted by rebel angels that corrupted the people and in turn corrupted the earth (Genesis 6:1-7; 1 Enoch 6-11). The breaking of the everlasting covenant by anything, be it human or divine, leads to natural disasters and suffering, because the Bonds that brought Peace to Creation is unmade. Breaking the everlasting covenant results in creation returning to its former chaos (Isaiah 24:5; Jeremiah 5:22). Thus we see after the flood, Noah renews the “Everlasting Covenant” (Genesis 6:8), because it involves the peace of creation, and so it’s also called Noah’s “Covenant of Peace” (Isaiah 54:9-10).

When Moses attempted to renew the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham and to give the priesthood after Melchizedek among every Israelite in his own household, Israel was found unworthy with the golden calf and the Covenant is amended into the Mosaic covenant and a new inferior Priesthood is forged for Israelite, but for the Levites only, whose main role is to make atonement any time anyone gets too close to the sanctuary and thus risking disasters and plagues upon the people (Numbers 8:9). The Tabernacle (and Temple) is a microcosm of all creation. When an apostate Israelite fornicated with a Midianite, it was the cause of a plague. Phineas famously kills both, and the spilling of the sinner’s blood is what stops the plague. The sinner's blood atoned and mended the covenant, Noah’s “Covenant of Peace”, and because it was Phineas who made a successful atonement consecrated him to the High Priesthood, so they initiated him, despite not being the proper bloodline. The “everlasting covenant” is the “covenant of peace”, and it is also called the “covenant of the everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:10-13). There was also a yearly atonement, called the “Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur]” (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16; 23:26-32; Numbers 29:7-11).

Ritual Proxies

There is no Biblical explanation of the theology behind the atonement ritual. We know covenants made with blood oaths demands the life of the oath breakers. The innovation of such a ritual system is so a High Priest could stand in proxy for sinners, oath breakers, in rituals. He hears the confessions of the people, and then he bears them and takes their place offering up his life instead. Fortunately for the Priests, the rituals also accepted a goat as a proxy. He’d confess sins over it, through laying on of hands and even give it a crown with the name of Lord upon it, the goat is effectively a priest, and pays with his own life or blood. Blood was believed to be “life” of a creature (Leviticus 17:14). This is an important distinction, a sin offering was not completed upon the death of the goat but by offering of its “blood” (Leviticus 17:11). If they had only sacrificed the goat and drained its blood, but then failed to deliver that blood to the temple and sprinkle it there, nothing was achieved by the animal’s death. The smearing blood is what was important or else the temple and all creation was not renewed and purified. Once the blood is sprinkled about the temple, it is purified and the priest absorbs and bearers the sins of the people (Leviticus 10:17). Once the sins were all collected, he transfers them on a second goat, referred to as a “scapegoat”.

The two goats were to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) because they were ritually the same goat. Two aspects of what was to be accomplished by one person. The scapegoat is the lead from the Temple of Jerusalem, to the Mount of Olives, then on a marked path out of the city, (Leviticus 16:21)  preferably by the hands of a gentile (m. Yoma 6:8).

Setting the Stage for an Atonement

If Jesus Christ’s Atonement was an Atonement rite, is there any sign or indication this was official? Firstly, who would have been the High Priest to perform the rite? The Epistle to the Hebrews makes great pains to explain how Jesus Christ was an official High Priest, after the “order [taxis (G#5010), meaning succession from one person to another]” of Melchizedek. It was a historically valid priesthood, obtained by succession and by swearing of an oath, not by lineage which Christ didn’t possess, as we are told. It was a type of priesthood far more ancient and powerful than the Priests of Levi, who depend on a Levitical lineage (Hebrews 7:6-10, 14, 27-28). As a High Priest, Christ is said to have made the final atoning sacrifice, having made an actual atonement with his own human blood (Hebrews 13:12).

The purpose of Atonement wasn’t just about forgiving sins but to purify and cleanse the people and the Temple (Leviticus 16:9). If Christ’s Atonement is the Day of Atonement Ritual, a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. What was Christ’s venue for the Atonement of Christ? The Temple of Jerusalem was under the control of the Seventy Jewish High Priests, the Sanhedrin, comprised of a majority of Sadducees High Priests and some Pharisees High Priests. As a new sect of Jews, possessing an extinct priesthood, whom only obtained access to the temple by submitting to the Jewish priests in charge there, like when Paul had to submit to the Jewish priests (Acts 24:18), the Temple was likely inaccessible for Christ’s self sacrificial Atonement that he planned to host in the springtime. However, the Temple of Jerusalem is quintessentially an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. Before that temple was built, the Patriarchs built up more rural kinds of temples, utilizing the more natural features of those areas, like pitching at tent on top actual mountains with actual trees in their midst (For examples of mountain-grove sanctuaries: Bethel – Genesis 28:19; 35:8; Sinai – Exodus 15:7; 3:2, etc). Because these features at temples and sites are mere imitations of the original Holy Mountain-Grove in Eden (Ezekiel 28:13-14) a grove of olive trees (Zechariah 4:3).

            Every day, during the day light hours, Christ could be found teaching the masses outside the Temple of Jerusalem, while at night, Christ taught only to his disciples on the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). At the bottom of the Mount’s Eastern slope was the city of “Bethany [(G# 963) "House of the Poor", or "house of affliction" or "house of figs"]” (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11), the home of Mary Magdalene, Martha and Lazarus (John 11:1-46; 12:1) and Simon the leper, in whose house Mary Magdalene anointed Christ with expensive oil (Mark 14:13; Matt 26:6). While on the Mount of Olive’s western slope was a grove of olive trees “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36) Where Christ visited before his crucifixion, and where he seems to perform a traumatic ordeal. The olives that grew there were pressed under gigantic stones to extract its oils. Poetic as, it would be here that Christ would felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17) and “blood” would be extracted from him.

          If these New Testament details are not nearly enough, the Mount of Olives was always a holy and distinguished and mountain. It is where King David himself worshiped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32). When the Temple of Solomon was razed, Ezekiel had a vision during the Babylonian captivity in which, “the glory of the Lord” vacated the Temple mount and came to rest of the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:22:23). The Messiah was prophesied to appear there to save his people, God will send the nations to Jerusalem, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives  (Zacharias 14:3-5). After the resurrection, Christ ascended into a “cloud” there and angels frequented (Acts 1:9-12; Luke 22:43). A similar cloud that overshadowed the presence of God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:9-13; Mark 9:9-13; Luke 8:9-10). It is the function of artificial “clouds” of temple incense to shield people from the radiant and deadly glory of God (1 Kings 8:10). For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thud Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the mountain was a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531).

            The Garden even had a Temple-like Tripartite division, three main areas. On the Day of Atonement, the Israelites stood out in the Temple Courtyard, Priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place, and the High Priest was to go into the Holy of Holies alone (Leviticus 16:17). For other Temple-like sites like Sinai, Moses was a priest (Psalm 99:1) was attempting to renew the original covenant anew (until Israel sinned), and blood atoned for it (Exodus 24:8). For this they utilized Mount Sinai as a tripartite Temple, the Israelites stayed at the Bottom of the Mount, Aaron and the Seventy were able to go Midway Up, and Moses as a High Priest had to go to the Top alone (Exodus 19:17). In Gethsemane, the Disciples gathered in the main area of the garden where Christ instructs them to stay there, only taking the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John, as Priests with Him into an Interior area of the Garden until He asks them to wait there , while then Christ “went a little further” alone into a third Innermost area alone (Matthew 26:39; Luke 22:41). Christ was a High Priest of a new covenant (Hebrews 7), while he bled and died on Calvary’s Hill, He was not alone, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

The New Bread of the Covenant

An Aaronic High Priest’s two most important duties were to first carry the blood for atonement and the second, offering of bread every week. The scene of Gethsemane was the same night Christ hosted a Passover Meal and the Last Supper. While the Passover was a spring time festival, the Day of Atonement was an autumn festival. For one of many reasons Paul called Christ the “Pascal” lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) but his actions were not merely Passover crossovers. Paul also calls Christ the goats of the Day of Atonement, the “sin offering” goat (1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:11-13; 13:11-17) and the second goat, the sin bearer (Hebrews 13:13).

After the Passover Meal, “after supper”, Christ institutes what people consider to be a new religious sacrament, what Paul would refer to what is clearly a religious and clerical ordinance observed by the Christians as the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). The Christian breaking of bread was not a Passover meal. As the breaking of bread is not a Passover practice, as the most essential part of a Passover’s bread is that it is to be a whole offering (Exodus 12:46). The Last Supper’s bread was broken up and it was the bread of his body (Matthew 26:26). Under the idea that it was some new bloodless sacrifice, it is still not a Passover, as Passover’s lamb sacrifices are the only ones not offered by priests (Exodus 12:6; m. Pesahim 5:5).

            This was a Temple rite, this is the polluted bread of the corrupt Levitical priests with be replaced with a pure offering of bread “administered among the Gentiles” (Malachi 1:11; Isaiah 66:13). The Temple Shewbread was the “bread of God”, not bread “for God” (Leviticus 21:6), eaten as a holy communion to priests as a memorial of the “everlasting covenant” (Leviticus 24:8) along with a cup of libations. Just like the Lord’s Supper, which the cup was the “blood of the [covenant]” (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). The Lord’s Supper is linked to the renewal of the covenant (Hebrews 19:11-15). Bread and wine were the offerings of King Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18).

            While it is not a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant, but it is the Abrahamic Covenant (Hebrews 6:11-15). Christ was a High Priest, not after Aaron but after Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:6-17) by the swearing of great oath of the “testament [covenant]” (Hebrews 7;20-22). While the Covenant of Christ is the prophesied “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31), the word “new [(H#2319) from the root of 2318, to be new, rebuild, repair]” we know it is still the original covenant, the new covenant like the old still involves the fixed order of creation (Jeremiah 31:35-36) Just like when sin breaks the everlasting covenant of Abraham, the everlasting covenant of Noah’s peace (Genesis 9:16; Isaiah 54:9-10), the breaking of the peace returns things to chaos, the earth is corrupted and the people suffer (Isaiah 24:4-6). The Everlasting Covenant must still exist, as it continues to break is why human suffering still exists, until a new king comes possessed with the Spirit of the Lord to return the world to original Edenic harmony (Isaiah 24:21-23).

            New or renewed everlasting covenant and the riddance of the old or mosaic covenant.  After the meal, they sang a hymn before going to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30). Music was very important part of temple worship in invoking the presence of God. The Psalms is a book of Temple hymns (2 Chronicles 29:27-30) sung by priests and prophets (1 Chronicles 25:5; 29:29). Traversing from the building with the Upper Room, to front of the Temple, to Gethsemane, they had to traverses across the brook Kedron, where the Temple’s sacrificial blood was washed away.

Fear and Trembling during a Blood Atonement

Gethsemane must be something important, for no other reason than that it is even mentioned in the Gospels at all. One notices that Christ seems to have his own will apart from the Father’s while asking for the bitter cup’s removal. Trinitarians consider Christ to be the same being of God the Father, because of his dual nature he his Body’s will is separate will from His Spirit, and he is fearful of death. The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross. Though being afraid to be crucified is out of his character in previously or after, and would place him below the heroism of the Christian martyrs who anticipated harsh persecution and death, even crucifixion, for Christ’s sake with joy. The point of the scene is not a mere display of Christ’s humanity, weakness or fears of death.

Instead of Christ being fearful of death on the cross, it was the custom for High Priest who approached God (such as during ordinances) to do so with “fear and trembling” (Genesis 9:2; Psalm 55:6; Judith 2:28; 4 Maccabees 4:10; 1 Enoch 13:3; Narsai, Homilies 17A). When the High Priest preformed an Atonement ritual, the proper thing to do was to approach the Holy of Holies with the attitude of fear and trembling showing reverence and respect. The High Priest would then open his mouth, praying in devotion until He knows his prayer has been accepted. The content of the Atonement Prayer is unknown, but we know it was repeated three times as some kind of formula (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 8:15; 16:18; 17:18). Christ trembled and opened his mouth to pray in Gethsemane, and does so three times “O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never the less not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44). Christ did not fear or tremble or cower or open his mouth during the Passion, but he was calm and was lead as a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:31).

            It appears that maintaining his efforts in Gethsemane became increasingly difficult, as he keeps asking for the cup’s removal, and an angel had to come to strengthen him to keep praying, and he was in such “agony” that his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44)

There is enough material by Christian scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of Christ’s Atonement are not known and the exact purpose for Christ’s experience from Gethsemane to Golgotha is not well understood by Christians. So to state “this position” is correct while “that position” is wrong isn’t established. Most traditional studies don’t even consider Gethsemane. They prefer to focus only on physical aspects of atonement dubbed “the passion” (Acts 1:3), of the indignity, suffering, scourging, and with not transcendent meaning than its basic elements, they merry depict it as horrifically as they can. Not to diminish it, it was horrible, but to frame Christ’s Crucifixion as the height of human suffering, but alone it is not. His suffering on the cross wasn’t unique; many of other saints were crucified also. Some of the horrible actions of the Romans could actually be seen as acts of mercy. If a Roman must execute someone by crucifixion, it was often preceded by scourging until the blood flowed. That is not to needlessly add to the cruelty of being crucified, but to hasten death, thus prevent prolonged suffering. Nails would make it even quicker, and Christ was even speared in the side and for this the Roman Longinus was declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church for this act of mercy. Being forced to carry one’s own cross was also common and practical, it was to break their will and accept their fate, reduce emotional trauma.

How about explaining Christ’s non-physical suffering, doesn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the messiah’s suffering as “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17). So when exactly did Christ suffer “sorrows for sin” of “carry” the weight of grief? During his Passion, Christ didn’t complain or expressed his pain but kept his mouth shut (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:3). In contract, in Gethsemane, he did express how he was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”. Such emotional distress, he sweat was “as blood”, and one might argue that Gethsemane was the scene of Christ’s greatest “agony” (Luke 22:43-44) he didn’t express his agony in on the cross (Mark 14:61; 15:3).

            Was it really blood? It's been debated. Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament (1849; Moody, reprinted 1958), I:648, contends that the text "like drops of blood" requires the idea "colored with blood." Luke reported it looked like blood. Luke was not an apostle, but Paul’s missionary companion, who was with him in prison (1 Timothy 4:11) and he wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts in 61 A.D. Luke was also a doctor, “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14) and in his writings gave special attention to medical details only a doctor would say, medical terms like “full of leprosy” (Luke 5:12). When Luke is the one who describes Christ’s sweat as blood, one would tend to assume it wasn’t an embellishment.

            The final rite of the first portion of the Atonement in the temple was to purge the temple, the artificial garden, all creation, with blood on the ground (Leviticus 16:15). As he purifies the sanctuary, the High Priest took upon himself the sins of the people who confessed to him, he became the sin bearer, at least until he has the chance to transfer them on head of the second goat. During that time, the High Priest, is like Christ who is to have borne the sorrows and sicknesses of His people (Isaiah 5:4, 10; Matthew 8:17). Interestingly, excess blood from the temple's blood sacrifices was sold to gardeners to use as fertilizer in their gardens (Mishnah, Yoma 5:6).

            If the Atonement of Jesus Christ has to do with the Atonement rites of the Day of Atonement, do both goats not encompass the events at both Gethsemane and Golgotha? One goat makes an atonement with is blood in a sancutary, the second goat is cast out of the city, ideally lead by the hand of a foreigner, in hopes it will die, eaten by a lion, away from Jerusalem and not wonder back? Later times it would sometimes wander back and so they resolved to push it backwards off a cliff. But the basic concept is the same in Christ’s atonement, performing what amounted to an execution in exile outside the city walls and even employing the hands of foreigners to do the dirty work for them.

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Isaiah Scroll - The Suffering Servant Song

Christ predicted his crucifixion (Mark 8:31; 10:33-34) saying it was a divine necessity, a “must” (Mark 9:31). After his resurrection, Christ rebukes the Apostles for not believing the scriptures that the Messiah could suffer and then enter into glory (implying a transfigured or resurrected state). “O fools, and slow in heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?... He explained unto them all the scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27). There is one problem. There is no such scripture in the present Bible predicting the coming Christ/Messiah, the Anointed One, would suffer.

            Traditional Christians have interpreted Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song as a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Despite an\uncanny parallel, it's been long held to be a purely Christian innovation, as nowhere does Isaiah call his subject a Messiah. However, only by the chance discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have this interpretation finally been vindicated. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a pre-Christian Isaiah, the Isaiah Scroll. In that scroll, the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:14) is just one Hebrew letter different than the Masoretic text the Modern Theology Bible’s Old Testament is based on. The Bible is usually translated in to English as “marred [H#4893]” or “disfigured” but with the extra letter it becomes “[masahti (H#4888) anointed]” as that is the meaning of the word in Numbers 18:8, so the Isaiah servant originally was a Messiah.

What the Isaiah Scroll says is exactly what Christ claims, “My servant… shall be exalted… I have anointed him more than any man in his appearance and he shall sprinkle many nations” (1Q Isaiah^a 52:14). This would also explain why the Targums (Jewish Translations of the Torah in Aramaic, valued for its added commentary to help readers understand the meaning), indicates the subject was a Messiah in the previous verse, “My servant the Messiah shall prosper” (Targum, Isaiah 52:13). The New Testament Jesus Christ presupposed the Dead sea Scrolls are the scriptures the, not the Masoretic texts the Bible is made from.

Isaiah also says the Messiah will be “exalted and extolled very high” (Isaiah 52:13). Interestingly, when John says Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness (in Numbers 21:9) “so must the Son of Man be  lifted up [(G#5312)]” (John 3:14) is considered Greek word play. That Greek word has another meaning, to be exalted (John 8:28; 12:32-33). The act of being lifted up on the cross is a type of being exalted on high. Other than being lifted upon wood, how did a serpent, the Brazen Serpent of Moses, symbolize Christ’s exaltation? Ancient symbolize, serpents were symbols of wisdom (Matthew 10:10). Like serpents, wisdom (the Spirit’s divined secrets) is usually something hidden (1 Corinthians 2:7), concealing a secret power that can be used to destroy, but also to heal depending on the wisdom of the administrator (venom utilized venom to sure illnesses). A serpent also sheds its skin, renewing itself, just as a disciple is expected to ritually shed his flesh and become a new creature, born again, resurrected (2 Corinthians 5:17). Because the serpent’s new skin is shiny, one of the Hebrew words for “serpent [(H#8314)]” also means “shiny one” and that also describes the transfigured state, “wisdom maketh his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes 8:1), like the shine of transfigured Moses and Christ (Exodus 34:29; Matthew 17:2).

Isaiah Servant, the Messiah, will suffer, become exalted, but will also perform an atonement rite, he shall “sprinkle [rhantise (H#5137)] many nations” (Isaiah 52:15) the same verb for the Atoning blood (Leviticus 16:19). The next chapter says the Servant will have “carried [yazzah (H#5445)]” our grieves and sorrows and upon him “laid” the “iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). He was “oppressed”, just as Christ was arrested, but ”opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7) just as Christ would not open his mouth to the High Priests or to Pilate (Mark 14:61; 15:3). The Servant shall be ‘taken from judgment… cut off from the land of the living, made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death” (Isaiah 53:8-9), just as Christ died amidst two criminals and was entombed in a rich man’s tomb (Luke 23:39, 50-53). The Servant was “wounded [hll (H#2490)]” (Isaiah 53:5), this word means to “‘pierce” (Isaiah 51:9), pierced for transgressions and the “chastisement [mwsr (H#4148)] for our peace” was upon him (Isaiah 53:5). He means the “bonds [of the covenant] of peace’, as it’s the same word in Ezekiel, “bonds of the covenant [msrt hbryt]” (Ezekiel 20:37; Jeremiah 2:20; Psalm 2:3). Which is also in parallel to the next verse, “with his stripes [hbrt (H#2250)] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5), which is the same word in Exodus and there it meant to “join” or “unite” the curtains of the tabernacle, as “[hbr’]’s” primary meaning is to unite (Exodus 26:4). In Hebrew poetry, chiasmus, the literary style of the Bible, parallel chiasmus puts two different words with similar meanings together. Since the first part of the verse, has a word that means a type of bond, the other line contains a word that also is a type of bond, though it also means a type bruise, which results from wearing  bonds. These are references to the Everlasting Covenant. The Servant pours out his “soul [‘sm (H5315)] for a sin offering” (Isaiah 53:10), a “[sm’]” is something that redresses as “[m’l]” a violation of the covenant. Christ offering is to repair the covenant.

In the previous verse of Isaiah’s Servant Song, Isaiah describes the Messiah’s suffering as a scapegoat, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard. I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6). Now this is what happens to Christ, who was smitten and mocked for claiming to be a king, and they placed upon him a scarlet robe, a crown (of thorns), and put a reed in his hands which they would take and smite him with, and spit on him (Matthew 27:28-31) a lot of spitting (Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65; 15:19). This is the treatment seen with the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah, a red wool yarn weaved around its horns, and either a priestly crown with the name Azazel was placed on his head, or the actual lot stone with Azazel inscribed on it was tied to his head (m. Yoma 6:4).

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Epistle of Barnabas - The Goat

The Epistle of Barnabas is document from the Apostolic era, attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite, one of the Seven Assistants to the Apostles, and Paul’s Missionary Companion (Acts 4:36; 13:2). It was lost and then rediscovered in 1859 in the Sinai Codex. Now whether or not it was written by the Biblical Barnabas or another Barnabas, it is a First Century document written by a first generation Christian with valuable insight. Barnabas quotes from Old Testament era texts we don’t have, “Spit on it, all of you, thrust your goads into it, wreath its head with scarlet wool and lead it be driven into the desert,” “when they see him coming on the Day, they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel between him and the goat,”  “they shall see him on that Day, clad to the ankles in his red woolen robe and will say, ‘is this not he whom we once crucified and mocked and pierced and spat upon?” (Epistle of Barnabas 7).

Now, Isaiah had such a vision of the Lord on the Day (of Vengeance) come in a red robe and he asked the Lord why. He replies the robes are bloodstained red from when he had troddened the winefat “alone, and of the people, there were none with me” (Isaiah 63:2). Jesus Christ has a bloodstained red vesture in the Second Coming (Revelations 19:13). Isaiah’s quote seems to have foreshadowed Gethsemane, because while Christ was not alone at Golgotha (Luke 23:39), he was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). Christ was customarily wearing an High Priest’s expensive, seamless and brilliant white robe before he went to Gethsemane, and if he had sweat blood in it, it would have become bloodstained red, a robe that he was not wearing when he was crucified (John 19:23-24; Psalm 22:18).

Barnabas makes a unique claim, that the first goat, the sin offering goat, in the Day of Atonement ritual was originally eaten. The people ate the carcass and the Priests ate the fat and bloody sacrificial portions, unwashed, in vinegar (sour wine). Barnabas quotes from an unknown quote from Christ who is quoting the Books of the Prophets (Old Testament scriptures), “What does it say in the prophet? ‘Let all the priests but nobody else eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.’ Why was this? Because, ‘When I am about to give my body for sins of this new people of mine, you will give me gall and vinegar to drink’” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). The New Testament authors were careful to note that Christ was given “vinegar to drink mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34, 48; Psalm 69:23), though they don’t explain the significance of this.

Books of the Law, like Leviticus, seems to contradict Barnabas’s quote, saying in the Atonement, the High Priest did remove the fat and enthralls, kidneys and liver, but claims they were burned on the alter while the carcass was burned outside, not eaten (Leviticus 4:8-10) and consumption of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 3:17), as Jews of the first century say in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:7). Though the Mishnah doesn’t represent the views of all first century Jews, the Mishnah mentions those they refer to as “Babylonians”, presumed to be a derogatory term for other Jews, perhaps the Alexandrian Jews, who performed the Day of Atonement rites and did eat the sin offering, and if it was the Sabbath, they ate it raw, because they couldn’t cook (m. Menahoth 11:7). What is interesting about this is, if Barnabas is correct, and the sin offering was eaten unwashed, raw, and in vinegar/sour wine, then there was blood consumption/drinking in the Temple by priests on the Day of Atonement. Implication is that having Christ drink vinegar with gall in it on the cross, though some think it to be another act of Roman mercy (an attempt at pain relief or for hastening death), was the event foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement ritual. It gives Christ’s Sacramental cup another context. As the Sacrament is believe to be the foretold new Temple bread and libations reestablished (Malachi 1:7, 11) Christ insisted that the contents of his cup of fruit of the vine was his blood, which Leviticus forbids (Leviticus 3:17). Blood drinking while not Kosher, may have been Kosher during Atonement Day practice. Leviticus maybe, as some think, a late document. Some scholars think this Atonement practice is valid as it would be the origin of the Christian traditions to remove the inner portions of the sacramental loaf (the inward parts of the Body of Christ) and mingle it with the sacramental wine of the Eucharist (M. Barker, The Great High Priest, pg70).

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Book of Enoch - Azazel

One might question the authenticity of Barnabas’s unbiblical sources, because it is an unbiblical source. Sighting other unbiblical sources, though one of these unbiblical sources ended up being discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Book of Enoch. Barnabas quotes, “It will come to pass in this last days that the Lord will deliver up destruction, the sheep of the pasture, with their sheepfold and their watchtower [1 Enoch 89:56]” (Epistle of Barnabas 16). As a side note, the watch tower is the temple (Isaiah 5; Assumption of Moses 2:4; Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 3:2:4; 9:3:1; 9:7:1).

The New Testament sites the Book of Enoch as scripture (Jude 14). The Jews burned all Hebrew copies of that book, it was rediscovered in Ethiopia in 1770, but by then it was considered a late Christian written Pseudopigrapha (a Writing under a False Name), but once we found the a piece of a pre-Christian Enoch in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, proves that it is a Jewish Scripture. Burned for being used as a Christian proof-text. Enoch’s first parable has a pre-incarnate Christ-like figure, called the “Son of Man”, the Anointed One, and other titles found in Isaiah’s Servant Songs. In the Parable, the “Righteous One” uses his blood to take up to a heavenly temple to meet the “Lord of Spirits”, a title Enoch uses to refer to God the Father, The Most High God, El Elyon (1 Enoch 47; Daniel 7).

Enoch says that all creation is sustained by a great oath, or covenant, “This oath became dominant over them; they are preserved by it” (1 Enoch 69:26). However, the angel “Azazel” sins, breaking the covenant and corrupts the earth (1 Enoch 6-11; Genesis 6:1-5). So, “Enoch [(H#2585) initiated]”, was initiated with robes and oils as a High Priest by angels, a “translated” (Hebrews 11:5), angelic “Son of Man” (1 Enoch 71:14-17 Genesis 5:22-24; Hebrews 11:5). Where in the heavenly temple, he attempts to make Atonement and intercedes on the behalf of the sinners, the sinning angel (1 Enoch 15:2) but returns with a judgment for Azazel. This is where Enoch becomes important to understanding the Day of Atonement.

Azazel is found in the Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. There are two goats, one is chosen by a cast lot, “for the Lord [l-yhwh] while the other is chosen by lot “for the scapegoat [l-azazel]” (Leviticus 16:8). It could be that with no explanation in the Bible of the theology of the Atonement rites, the Book of Enoch maybe the origin for the atonement ritual if Azazel is a part of it. Azazel is a well known archdemon among Jews and student of Jewish lore, begging the question, why are the Israelites offering a goat up to a demon in the desert? Though the goat isn’t necessarily “for” Azazel. The Hebrew word for “for” is the same word as “as”; “For [le (H#3807.1) for/as].” The goat that atones for all creation with its blood isn’t being offered “to” the Lord, it is doing so “as the Lord”. The goat that bears the sins and gets cast out isn’t offered to Azazel, it is being cast out “as Azazel” who was cast out. This aligns with the crowns the goats are given with those names on them (m. Yoma 4:1). A priest wore a crown with the Lord’s name on it, indicating that is who they are, or represent, while atoning, they are representing the Lord, in the Lord’s place.

In Enoch, Azazel was bound by the Archangel “Raphael (Healer-of God)”, he was pierced and was hung from a tree, down inside a canyon (1 Enoch 10:5). Azazel could possibly the origin of the Jewish saying to be “hung from a tree” means they are the “accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). With no small irony that the Christians see the Crucifixion as Christ having “hung from a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:38-39). In Enoch, what purpose did Azazel’s punishment serve? It was a Blood Atonement to give life to the earth, “he will proclaim life for the earth, that he is giving life to her” (1 Enoch 10:7).

The scapegoat is exile to the same place Azazel was imprisoned. The Bible only says the goat was cast out into a “solitary land” (Leviticus 16:22) the first century Jews detail how the goat was taken from the temple’s eastern gate, to the mount of Olives, on a marked path from the city into the wilderness, and pushed off a cliff preferably by a foreigner (m. Yoma 6:8). The name the Jews gave this canyon they cast the goat into was “Beth Chaduda” (Targum, Pseudo-Johnathan Leviticus 16:22). The name of the canyon Enoch says Azazel was cast into was “Dudael” (1 Enoch 19:5). While there is debate over the exact location of “Calvary’s Hill” and “Golgotha [(G#1115) the skull]” where Christ hung from a tree (Matthew 27:33). There is only one main detail that the scapegoat foreshadows Christ’s Atonement, Christ was cast outside the gates of the city, by the hands of foreign soldiers no less (Matthew 28:11; Hebrews 13:12).

Azazel’s name may appear in the New Testament. When Christ explains to the Pharisees how he exorcised devils, he says one must first “bind” the “strong man” before entering his house to take his possessions (Matthew 12:25). Whom Christ meant is the “strong man” became very confusing to later Greek Gentile Christians. When later Christians preformed exorcisms, they resorted to tying down the physical body of the possessed person. Even though we see when Christ exorcised devils, he didn’t bind the person, rather was "binding" devilish spirits by power and authority he had (Luke 13:11). What Christ is talking about the Melchizedek Priest’s sealing or binding power the Pharisee’s Aaronic Priests didn’t possess. The bonds are covenant priesthood bonds, one must spiritually bind the devilish spirit first before attempting to take its possessions away, the physical body. Under this context, Christ should be referring to the devils as the “strong man”. Why say it that way and confuse people? Matthew was written in Greek, but it’s quoting Christ who spoke Aramaic. In Hebrew, “Azazel (H#5799)” would translate into as the “strong one”. The strong man may originally been Azazel, whom he is calling a devil.

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Assumption of Moses - Exile of Evil

If the Atonement’s exile of the Scapegoat is the exile of Azazel and the reason is to exile the people’s sins. Why is Christ still the sin bearer and not Azazel/Satan? The two goats were to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) because they were ritually the same goat. Two aspects of what was to be accomplished by one priest. While the High Priest ritually resurrects when he enters the Holy of Holies, the goat could not be resurrected once made the sin offering, being that it was drained of all of its blood/life, and especially so if its body was eaten, both body and blood. Once eaten the High Priest took the sins, as a representative of the Lord, and is the sin bearer (Micah 7:8; Job 7:21). The Lord bears the guilt (Romans 4:7-8). There is some ambiguity between the High Priest and the Scapegoat. Jesus Christ became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6). However, a High Priest is only the sin bearer until he can transfer them upon the Azazel goat (Leviticus 16:21-27), just as sins were transferred on him (Leviticus 1:4; Numbers 8:10).

While Christ as a scapegoat was exiled by the people of Jerusalem on the cross, but he isn’t to remain in exile, so that isn’t the conclusion of the atonement. Satan still waits to be exile at the end of days. The Banishment of Azazel/Satan as part of the Atonement of the Lord is foretold in other books. And there is evidence in the New Testaments that its authors quote as scriptures items found were among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just as Jude quotes from the First Book of Enoch as a scripture (Jude 14), he also references to another non-Biblical source called The Assumption of Moses. This is the source for Jude’s non-Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses) account of the Archangel Michael contending with Satan over the claim to the body of Moses that was taken it into heaven (Jude 9).

The Assumption of Moses expands on Deuteronomy 32:43 as the coming of the Lord on the Day of Atonement. Featuring an angel High Priest, from a holy habitation emerging from there, then the “evil one will have an end. Sorrow will be lead away with him” (Assumption of Moses 10:1-3). Just as a High Priest emerges from the Holy of Holies recently hallowed (Leviticus 16:19), he doesn’t take away the sins, he just carries them until they can be places on the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21), it’s the Azazel goat that takes them away for good (Leviticus 16:22). He removed them from the people and the land to preserve them and renew the covenant. Christ’s Atonement is not concluded because it has not yet taken effect.

The Book of Revelations foretells in the Second Coming, the Millennial Reign of Christ, an angel will bind Satan and put him in a pit for a thousand years (Revelations 20:1-3). This is very Enochian; an angel bound Azazel and put him into a canyon for a thousand years (1 Enoch 54:67). In Revelations, Christ is seen as a High Priest officiating in a Heavenly Temple (Revelations 1:3) on “the Lord’s day” (Revelations 1:10) which a reference to the Day of Atonement. The Lord’s Day is the First Day (Sunday) in Enochian literature (2 Enoch 28:4). The next day after the Day of Atonement, is the First Day, “The Great Day” (LXX, Isaiah 1:13), when the High Priest emerges from the Holy of Holies and pronounces judgment on Israel. John sees angels dressed as priests, and Christ, emerge from heave to judge the earth (Revelations 19:11-13). After the thousand years, Satan is loosed, continues to deceive and then cast into the lake of fire (Revelations 20:10) and hell/sin goes with him (Revelations 20:14). The sign of the Atonement has taken affect, thus undoing the original sin of Adam, is the moment when Earth returns to its original Edenic harmony (Isaiah 65:17-25; Revelation 22:2).

=============

Again, this is not finished, help me, review, correct, disagree. Perhaps the part about blood consumption is too long and distracting. If you know me by now, you know my spelling and grammar is awful.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm a self-taught, wannabe scholar of Royal Cult studies and various Pseudopigraphal materials, and applying them to my Gospel studies. I have no relevant degrees in the subject, and yet I'm trying to write several papers, subjects mainly involving the Melchizedek Priesthood throughout the Bible and eventually tracing royal ideology from Egypt and Mesopotamia, to the Patriarchs, Kings and Christianity, to its heavy influences on Free Masonry and even Tolkien. I'm trying my best to bring together all the information I can, I can always use more. So far, lie Moroni have been writing to myself, I could probably use some feedback for this unfinished paper. Most everything looks good to me, but I'm sure I'm making mistakes. This is one of the many papers that I think is close to being done. Tell me if I'm compacting too much, or if I'm confusing or simply confused. Tell me to focus on certain things more. Perhaps my scriptures are in the wrong places. Or just tell me that I can't write. But if there is a chance a monkey can create a Shakespearean play maybe if I just keep typing I can accidentally say something profound.

Gethsemane and Golgotha
The Atonement of Christ and the Ritual of Atonement

 

What Does it Mean to Atone?

 

There are a Billion Christians, those who may believe in Jesus Christ and that His primary task was to atone for us, because at least that much the New Testament says plainly. They believe by the Holy Spirit that the New Testament contains something true in it, though its apparent many don't have the skills to understand its full meaning. Surely one then can still make use of it and benefit from it without fully understanding it, but the Atonement of Jesus Christ has to be one of the most important events in recorded history. Yet there is a lot of disagreement over how Christ’s atonement worked. Why? We are too far removed from its ancient context. There is just as much disagreement among believers today over what even ancient temple's Atonement rite was about. There is no Temple theology in the Bible. There is no explanation for the acts or signs or symbols, at least not in written form. If the Temple priests kept it as an oral or secret tradition, that information would have been lost when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed and the practice of Atonement ceased. As ancient sources were discarded and Hebrew became a dead language.

 

The Hebrew word for “atone” which is “kpr (H#3722)”, and is actually very common and ordinary in its meaning. to be understood a context needs to be given to it. The religious meaning only comes from using it in a religious context. It general it means “to cover”, but more specifically in a purpose to “recover” or “make good” a “torn” or “broken covering”, it’s to fix, patch or replace something that has ruptured due to rot or piercing. The normal context involves something that normally has a covering to it, like a replacing a drum covering, mending clothing or patching a tent. When giving it other contexts it can mean to “repair a hole” or “cure a sickness”. In the context of the “atoning” blood, atone means to “smear (to cover)”, “to smear blood” to repair something. “Atoning for sins” does not mean to “cover sin”, in the sense you are attempting “to hide” sins from God, rather it is to mend or replace something that has ruptured, in this case it is a covenant that has ruptured due to sin.

 

How does blood cover, or rather repair, a Covenant? A normal Covenant is known as an agreement between God and men, usually ratified with the swearing of an oath, and the conditions of breaking the oath have been agreed to. The standard sort of oath sworn in the Bible was a blood oath, a statement or jester, indicating they’d rather die than break the oath (Jeremiah 34:18-19). Blood was believed to be “life” (Leviticus 17:14), your life was often promised as recompense for violating the terms of a covenant. Such was the Everlasting Covenant (Genesis 15:9-10)  a blood ritual was done to “seal” the promises made, after the manner of a royal land grant treaty (Genesis 12:2-3). As fundamental to Israel the Everlasting Covenant was, few today know exactly what the original everlasting covenant entailed. The sins that break the covenant depend on the laws a covenant is under, it is not a set of universal morals but the conditions of a specific covenant. Hence it was a sin for a Israelite under the Mosaic Covenant to break the Sabbath, in contrast to a Gentile under the Noahide Covenant, for whom observing the Sabbath is a sin, unless you were converting. As Jesus says divorce wasn’t a sin under the Mosaic Law but it was a sin under an original law from the "beginning" (Matthew 19:7-8). Sin causes ruptures to the everlasting covenant or can even cause the covenant to collapse (Isaiah 24:4-6), and atonement, covering or smearing blood on the Ark of the Covenant (Leviticus 16:14) mended it. When the Everlasting Covenant broke, the earth and the people suffered, and a priest must atone, or else the blood of the sinners, the guilty human's blood, was accepted to appease the covenant (Numbers 25:7-13).

 

The origin of the Everlasting Covenant is debated; as the common answer is that it began with Abraham, except the commission and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant are the same as those promised to Adam and Noah. The First Book of Enoch is an ancient book found among the oldest known collection of the Biblical texts found today, called the Dead Sea Scrolls. For Chronological reasons, I’ll cite the Book of Enoch first as it gives us insight as to the origins of the Biblical Everlasting Covenant. Enoch says the Covenant originates from the Creation. To summarize, the act of creation was when primeval chaos was brought into habitable order by a series of bonds or seals. The mixed elements were separated and bound to stay separated by a great covenant or “oath” (1 Enoch 69:16-25). A good explanation of the less clear details the Bible makes references to. The “bonds of the covenant” are referenced as a way to prevent variant forms of chaos and suffering (Ezekiel 20:37; Psalms 2:3). The Biblical Creation accounts found in pieces outside Genesis tells similar details, the elements were mixed until the light was separated from the darkness, upper water from the lower waters, the land from the sea, animals separated into each their own kinds, etc. For instance, God had separated the sea from the land, and how He set the sea apart from that land was by a seal or bond (Job 38:8-10; Jeremiah 5:22; Psalms 104:9). This was until, as Books of Enoch and Genesis accounts, the sea heaved beyond it bonds in the Great Flood of Noah, because the harmony of creation was disrupted by rebel angels that corrupted the people and in turn corrupted the earth (Genesis 6:1-7; 1 Enoch 6-11). The breaking of the everlasting covenant by anything, be it human or divine, leads to natural disasters and suffering, because the Bonds that brought Peace to Creation is unmade. Breaking the everlasting covenant results in creation returning to its former chaos (Isaiah 24:5; Jeremiah 5:22). Thus we see after the flood, Noah renews the “Everlasting Covenant” (Genesis 6:8), because it involves the peace of creation, and so it’s also called Noah’s “Covenant of Peace” (Isaiah 54:9-10).

 

When Moses attempted to renew the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham and to give the priesthood after Melchizedek among every Israelite in his own household, Israel was found unworthy with the golden calf and the Covenant is amended into the Mosaic covenant and a new inferior Priesthood is forged for Israelite, but for the Levites only, whose main role is to make atonement any time anyone gets too close to the sanctuary and thus risking disasters and plagues upon the people (Numbers 8:9). The Tabernacle (and Temple) is a microcosm of all creation. When an apostate Israelite fornicated with a Midianite, it was the cause of a plague. Phineas famously kills both, and the spilling of the sinner’s blood is what stops the plague. The sinner's blood atoned and mended the covenant, Noah’s “Covenant of Peace”, and because it was Phineas who made a successful atonement consecrated him to the High Priesthood, so they initiated him, despite not being the proper bloodline. The “everlasting covenant” is the “covenant of peace”, and it is also called the “covenant of the everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:10-13). There was also a yearly atonement, called the “Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur]” (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16; 23:26-32; Numbers 29:7-11).

 

Ritual Proxies

 

There is no Biblical explanation of the theology behind the atonement ritual. We know covenants made with blood oaths demands the life of the oath breakers. The innovation of such a ritual system is so a High Priest could stand in proxy for sinners, oath breakers, in rituals. He hears the confessions of the people, and then he bears them and takes their place offering up his life instead. Fortunately for the Priests, the rituals also accepted a goat as a proxy. He’d confess sins over it, through laying on of hands and even give it a crown with the name of Lord upon it, the goat is effectively a priest, and pays with his own life or blood. Blood was believed to be “life” of a creature (Leviticus 17:14). This is an important distinction, a sin offering was not completed upon the death of the goat but by offering of its “blood” (Leviticus 17:11). If they had only sacrificed the goat and drained its blood, but then failed to deliver that blood to the temple and sprinkle it there, nothing was achieved by the animal’s death. The smearing blood is what was important or else the temple and all creation was not renewed and purified. Once the blood is sprinkled about the temple, it is purified and the priest absorbs and bearers the sins of the people (Leviticus 10:17). Once the sins were all collected, he transfers them on a second goat, referred to as a “scapegoat”.

 

The two goats were to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) because they were ritually the same goat. Two aspects of what was to be accomplished by one person. The scapegoat is the lead from the Temple of Jerusalem, to the Mount of Olives, then on a marked path out of the city, (Leviticus 16:21)  preferably by the hands of a gentile (m. Yoma 6:8).

 

Setting the Stage for an Atonement

 

If Jesus Christ’s Atonement was an Atonement rite, is there any sign or indication this was official? Firstly, who would have been the High Priest to perform the rite? The Epistle to the Hebrews makes great pains to explain how Jesus Christ was an official High Priest, after the “order [taxis (G#5010), meaning succession from one person to another]” of Melchizedek. It was a historically valid priesthood, obtained by succession and by swearing of an oath, not by lineage which Christ didn’t possess, as we are told. It was a type of priesthood far more ancient and powerful than the Priests of Levi, who depend on a Levitical lineage (Hebrews 7:6-10, 14, 27-28). As a High Priest, Christ is said to have made the final atoning sacrifice, having made an actual atonement with his own human blood (Hebrews 13:12).

 

The purpose of Atonement wasn’t just about forgiving sins but to purify and cleanse the people and the Temple (Leviticus 16:9). If Christ’s Atonement is the Day of Atonement Ritual, a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. What was Christ’s venue for the Atonement of Christ? The Temple of Jerusalem was under the control of the Seventy Jewish High Priests, the Sanhedrin, comprised of a majority of Sadducees High Priests and some Pharisees High Priests. As a new sect of Jews, possessing an extinct priesthood, whom only obtained access to the temple by submitting to the Jewish priests in charge there, like when Paul had to submit to the Jewish priests (Acts 24:18), the Temple was likely inaccessible for Christ’s self sacrificial Atonement that he planned to host in the springtime. However, the Temple of Jerusalem is quintessentially an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. Before that temple was built, the Patriarchs built up more rural kinds of temples, utilizing the more natural features of those areas, like pitching at tent on top actual mountains with actual trees in their midst (For examples of mountain-grove sanctuaries: Bethel – Genesis 28:19; 35:8; Sinai – Exodus 15:7; 3:2, etc). Because these features at temples and sites are mere imitations of the original Holy Mountain-Grove in Eden (Ezekiel 28:13-14) a grove of olive trees (Zechariah 4:3).

 

            Every day, during the day light hours, Christ could be found teaching the masses outside the Temple of Jerusalem, while at night, Christ taught only to his disciples on the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). At the bottom of the Mount’s Eastern slope was the city of “Bethany [(G# 963) House of the Poor, on in Hebrew "house of affliction" or "house of figs"]” (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11), the home of Mary Magdalene, Martha and Lazarus (John 11:1-46; 12:1) and Simon the leper, in whose house Mary Magdalene anointed Christ with expensive oil (Mark 14:13; Matt 26:6). While on the Mount of Olive’s western slope was a grove of olive trees “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36) Where Christ visited before his crucifixion, and where he seems to perform a traumatic ordeal. The olives that grew there were pressed under gigantic stones to extract its oils for generations. Poetic as, it would be here that Christ would felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17) and “blood” would be extracted from him.

 

            If these New Testament details not nearly enough, the Mount of Olives was always a holy and distinguished and mountain. It is where King David himself worshipped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32). When the Temple of Solomon was razed, Ezekiel had a vision during the Babylonian captivity in which, “the glory of the Lord” vacated the Temple mount and came to rest of the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:22:23). The Messiah was prophesied to appear there to save his people, God will send the nations to Jerusalem, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives  (Zacharias 14:3-5). After the resurrection, Christ ascended into a “cloud” there and angels frequented (Acts 1:9-12; Luke 22:43). A similar cloud that overshadowed the presence of God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:9-13; Mark 9:9-13; Luke 8:9-10). It is the function of artificial “clouds” of temple incense to shield people from the radiant and deadly glory of God (1 Kings 8:10). For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thud Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the mountain was a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531).

 

            The Garden even had a Temple-like Tripartite division, three main areas. On the Day of Atonement, the Israelites stood out in the Temple Courtyard, Priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place, and the High Priest was to go into the Holy of Holies alone (Leviticus 16:17). For other Temple-like sites like Sinai, Moses was a priest (Psalm 99:1) was attempting to renew the original covenant anew (until Israel sinned), and blood atoned for it (Exodus 24:8). For this they utilized Mount Sinai as a tripartite Temple, the Israelites stayed at the Bottom of the Mount, Aaron and the Seventy were able to go Midway Up, and Moses as a High Priest had to go to the Top alone (Exodus 19:17). In Gethsemane, the Disciples gathered in the main area of the garden where Christ instructs them to stay there, only taking the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John, as Priests with Him into an Interior area of the Garden until He asks them to wait there , while then Christ “went a little further” alone into a third Innermost area alone (Matthew 26:39; Luke 22:41). Christ was a High Priest of a new covenant (Hebrews 7), while he bled and died on Calvary’s Hill, He was not alone, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

 

The New Bread of the Covenant

 

An Aaronic High Priest’s two most important duties were to first carry the blood for atonement and the second, offering of bread every week. The scene of Gethsemane was the same night Christ hosted a Passover Meal and the Last Supper. While the Passover was a spring time festival, the Day of Atonement was an autumn festival. For one of many reasons Paul called Christ the “Pascal” lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) but his actions were not merely Passover crossovers. Paul also calls Christ the goats of the Day of Atonement, the “sin offering” goat (1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:11-13; 13:11-17) and the second goat, the sin bearer (Hebrews 13:13).

 

After the Passover Meal, “after supper”, Christ institutes what people consider to be a new religious sacrament, what Paul would refer to what is clearly a religious and clerical ordinance observed by the Christians as the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). The Christian breaking of bread was not a Passover meal. As the breaking of bread is not a Passover practice, as the most essential part of a Passover’s bread is that it is to be a whole offering (Exodus 12:46). The Last Supper’s bread was broken up and it was the bread of his body (Matthew 26:26). Under the idea that it was some new bloodless sacrifice, it is still not a Passover, as Passover’s lamb sacrifices are the only ones not offered by priests (Exodus 12:6; m. Pesahim 5:5).

 

            This was a Temple rite, this is the polluted bread of the corrupt Levitical priests with be replaced with a pure offering of bread “administered among the Gentiles” (Malachi 1:11; Isaiah 66:13). The Temple Shewbread was the “bread of God”, not bread “for God” (Leviticus 21:6), eaten as a holy communion to priests as a memorial of the “everlasting covenant” (Leviticus 24:8) along with a cup of libations. Just like the Lord’s Supper, which the cup was the “blood of the [covenant]” (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). The Lord’s Supper is linked to the renewal of the covenant (Hebrews 19:11-15). Bread and wine were the offerings of King Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18).

 

            While it is not a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant, but it is the Abrahamic Covenant (Hebrews 6:11-15). Christ was a High Priest, not after Aaron but after Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:6-17) by the swearing of great oath of the “testament [covenant]” (Hebrews 7;20-22). While the Covenant of Christ is the prophesied “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31), the word “new [(H#2319) from the root of 2318, to be new, rebuild, repair]” we know it is still the original covenant, the new covenant like the old still involves the fixed order of creation (Jeremiah 31:35-36) Just like when sin breaks the everlasting covenant of Abraham, the everlasting covenant of Noah’s peace (Genesis 9:16; Isaiah 54:9-10), the breaking of the peace returns things to chaos, the earth is corrupted and the people suffer (Isaiah 24:4-6). The Everlasting Covenant must still exist, as it continues to break is why human suffering still exists, until a new king comes possessed with the Spirit of the Lord to return the world to original Edenic harmony (Isaiah 24:21-23).

 

            New or renewed everlasting covenant and the riddance of the old or mosaic covenant.  After the meal, they sang a hymn before going to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30). Music was very important part of temple worship in invoking the presence of God. The Psalms is a book of Temple hymns (2 Chronicles 29:27-30) sung by priests and prophets (1 Chronicles 25:5; 29:29). Traversing from the building with the Upper Room, to front of the Temple, to Gethsemane, they had to traverses across the brook Kedron, where the Temple’s sacrificial blood was washed away.

Fear and Trembling during a Blood Atonement

 

Gethsemane must be something important, for no other reason than that it is even mentioned in the Gospels at all. One notices that Christ seems to have his own will apart from the Father’s while asking for the bitter cup’s removal. Trinitarians consider Christ to be the same being of God the Father, because of his dual nature he his Body’s will is separate will from His Spirit, and he is fearful of death. The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross. Though being afraid to be crucified is out of his character in previously or after, and would place him below the heroism of the Christian martyrs who anticipated harsh persecution and death, even crucifixion, for Christ’s sake with joy. The point of the scene is not a mere display of Christ’s humanity, weakness or fears of death.

 

Instead of Christ being fearful of death on the cross, it was the custom for High Priest who approached God (such as during ordinances) to do so with “fear and trembling” (Genesis 9:2; Psalm 55:6; Judith 2:28; 4 Maccabees 4:10; 1 Enoch 13:3; Narsai, Homilies 17A). When the High Priest preformed an Atonement ritual, the proper thing to do was to approach the Holy of Holies with the attitude of fear and trembling showing reverence and respect. The High Priest would then open his mouth, praying in devotion until He knows his prayer has been accepted. The content of the Atonement Prayer is unknown, but we know it was repeated three times as some kind of formula (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 8:15; 16:18; 17:18). Christ trembled and opened his mouth to pray in Gethsemane, and does so three times “O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never the less not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44). Christ did not fear or tremble or cower or open his mouth during the Passion, but he was calm and was lead as a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:31).

 

            It appears that maintaining his efforts in Gethsemane became increasingly difficult, as he keeps asking for the cup’s removal, and an angel had to come to strengthen him to keep praying, and he was in such “agony” that his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44)

 

There is enough material by Christian scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of Christ’s Atonement are not known and the exact purpose for Christ’s experience from Gethsemane to Golgotha is not well understood by Christians. So to state “this position” is correct while “that position” is wrong isn’t established. Most traditional studies don’t even consider Gethsemane. They prefer to focus only on physical aspects of atonement dubbed “the passion” (Acts 1:3), of the indignity, suffering, scourging, and with not transcendent meaning than its basic elements, they merry depict it as horrifically as they can. Not to diminish it, it was horrible, but to frame Christ’s Crucifixion as the height of human suffering, but alone it is not. His suffering on the cross wasn’t unique; many of other saints were crucified also. Some of the horrible actions of the Romans could actually be seen as acts of mercy. If a Roman must execute someone by crucifixion, it was often preceded by scourging until the blood flowed. That is not to needlessly add to the cruelty of being crucified, but to hasten death, thus prevent prolonged suffering. Nails would make it even quicker, and Christ was even speared in the side and for this the Roman Longinus was declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church for this act of mercy. Being forced to carry one’s own cross was also common and practical, it was to break their will and accept their fate, reduce emotional trauma.

 

How about explaining Christ’s non-physical suffering, doesn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the messiah’s suffering as “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17). So when exactly did Christ suffer “sorrows for sin” of “carry” the weight of grief? During his Passion, Christ didn’t complain or expressed his pain but kept his mouth shut (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:3). In contract, in Gethsemane, he did express how he was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”. Such emotional distress, he sweat was “as blood”, and one might argue that Gethsemane was the scene of Christ’s greatest “agony” (Luke 22:43-44) he didn’t express his agony in on the cross (Mark 14:61; 15:3).

 

            Was it really blood? It's been debated. Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament (1849; Moody, reprinted 1958), I:648, contends that the text "like drops of blood" requires the idea "colored with blood." Luke reported it looked like blood. Luke was not an apostle, but Paul’s missionary companion, who was with him in prison (1 Timothy 4:11) and he wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts in 61 A.D. Luke was also a doctor, “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14) and in his writings gave special attention to medical details only a doctor would say, medical terms like “full of leprosy” (Luke 5:12). When Luke is the one who describes Christ’s sweat as blood, one would tend to assume it wasn’t an embellishment.

 

            The final rite of the first portion of the Atonement in the temple was to purge the temple, the artificial garden, all creation, with blood on the ground (Leviticus 16:15). As he purifies the sanctuary, the High Priest took upon himself the sins of the people who confessed to him, he became the sin bearer, at least until he has the chance to transfer them on head of the second goat. During that time, the High Priest, is like Christ who is to have borne the sorrows and sicknesses of His people (Isaiah 5:4, 10; Matthew 8:17). Interestingly, excess blood from the temple's blood sacrifices was sold to gardeners to use as fertilizer in their gardens (Mishnah, Yoma 5:6).

 

            If the Atonement of Jesus Christ has to do with the Atonement rites of the Day of Atonement, do both goats not encompass the events at both Gethsemane and Golgotha? One goat makes an atonement with is blood in a sancutary, the second goat is cast out of the city, ideally lead by the hand of a foreigner, in hopes it will die, eaten by a lion, away from Jerusalem and not wonder back? Later times it would sometimes wander back and so they resolved to push it backwards off a cliff. But the basic concept is the same in Christ’s atonement, performing what amounted to an execution in exile outside the city walls and even employing the hands of foreigners to do the dirty work for them.

 

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Isaiah Scroll - The Suffering Servant Song

 

Christ predicted his crucifixion (Mark 8:31; 10:33-34) saying it was a divine necessity, a “must” (Mark 9:31). After his resurrection, Christ rebukes the Apostles for not believing the scriptures that the Messiah could suffer and then enter into glory (implying a transfigured or resurrected state). “O fools, and slow in heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?... He explained unto them all the scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27). There is one problem. There is no such scripture in the present Bible predicting the coming Christ/Messiah, the Anointed One, would suffer.

 

            Traditional Christians have interpreted Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song as a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Despite an\uncanny parallel, it's been long held to be a purely Christian innovation, as nowhere does Isaiah call his subject a Messiah. However, only by the chance discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have this interpretation finally been vindicated. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a pre-Christian Isaiah, the Isaiah Scroll. In that scroll, the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:14) is just one Hebrew letter different than the Masoretic text the Modern Theology Bible’s Old Testament is based on. The Bible is usually translated in to English as “marred [H#4893]” or “disfigured” but with the extra letter it becomes “[masahti (H#4888) anointed]” as that is the meaning of the word in Numbers 18:8, so the Isaiah originally was a Messiah.

 

What the Isaiah Scroll says is exactly what Christ claims, “My servant… shall be exalted… I have anointed him more than any man in his appearance and he shall sprinkle many nations” (1Q Isaiah^a 52:14). This would also explain why the Targums (Jewish Translations of the Torah in Aramaic, valued for its added commentary to help readers understand the meaning), indicates the subject was a Messiah in the previous verse, “My servant the Messiah shall prosper” (Targum, Isaiah 52:13). The New Testament Jesus Christ presupposed the Dead sea Scrolls are the scriptures the, not the Masoretic texts the Bible is made from.

 

Isaiah also says the Messiah will be “exalted and extolled very high” (Isaiah 52:13). Interestingly, when John says Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness (in Numbers 21:9) “so must the Son of Man be  lifted up [(G#5312)]” (John 3:14) is considered Greek word play. That Greek word has another meaning, to be exalted (John 8:28; 12:32-33). The act of being lifted up on the cross is a type of being exalted on high. Other than being lifted upon wood, how did a serpent, the Brazen Serpent of Moses, symbolize Christ’s exaltation? Ancient symbolize, serpents were symbols of wisdom (Matthew 10:10). Like serpents, wisdom (the Spirit’s divined secrets) is usually something hidden (1 Corinthians 2:7), concealing a secret power that can be used to destroy, but also to heal depending on the wisdom of the administrator (venom utilized venom to sure illnesses). A serpent also sheds its skin, renewing itself, just as a disciple is expected to ritually shed his flesh and become a new creature, born again, resurrected (2 Corinthians 5:17). Because the serpent’s new skin is shiny, one of the Hebrew words for “serpent [(H#8314)]” also means “shiny one” and that also describes the transfigured state, “wisdom maketh his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes 8:1), like the shine of transfigured Moses and Christ (Exodus 34:29; Matthew 17:2).

 

Isaiah Servant, the Messiah, will suffer, become exalted, but will also perform an atonement rite, he shall “sprinkle [rhantise (H#5137)] many nations” (Isaiah 52:15) the same verb for the Atoning blood (Leviticus 16:19). The next chapter says the Servant will have “carried [yazzah (H#5445)]” our grieves and sorrows and upon him “laid” the “iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). He was “oppressed”, just as Christ was arrested, but ”opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7) just as Christ would not open his mouth to the High Priests or to Pilate (Mark 14:61; 15:3). The Servant shall be ‘taken from judgment… cut off from the land of the living, made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death” (Isaiah 53:8-9), just as Christ died amidst two criminals and was entombed in a rich man’s tomb (Luke 23:39, 50-53). The Servant was “wounded [hll (H#2490)]” (Isaiah 53:5), this word means to “‘pierce” (Isaiah 51:9), pierced for transgressions and the “chastisement [mwsr (H#4148)] for our peace” was upon him (Isaiah 53:5). He means the “bonds [of the covenant] of peace’, as it’s the same word in Ezekiel, “bonds of the covenant [msrt hbryt]” (Ezekiel 20:37; Jeremiah 2:20; Psalm 2:3). Which is also in parallel to the next verse, “with his stripes [hbrt (H#2250)] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5), which is the same word in Exodus and there it meant to “join” or “unite” the curtains of the tabernacle, as “[hbr’]’s” primary meaning is to unite (Exodus 26:4). In Hebrew poetry, chiasmus, the literary style of the Bible, parallel chiasmus puts two different words with similar meanings together. Since the first part of the verse, has a word that means a type of bond, the other line contains a word that also is a type of bond, though it also means a type bruise, which results from wearing  bonds. These are references to the Everlasting Covenant. The Servant pours out his “soul [‘sm (H5315)] for a sin offering” (Isaiah 53:10), a “[sm’]” is something that redresses as “[m’l]” a violation of the covenant. Christ offering is to repair the covenant.

 

In the previous verse of Isaiah’s Servant Song, Isaiah describes the Messiah’s suffering as a scapegoat, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard. I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6). Now this is what happens to Christ, who was smitten and mocked for claiming to be a king, and they placed upon him a scarlet robe, a crown (of thorns), and put a reed in his hands which they would take and smite him with, and spit on him (Matthew 27:28-31) a lot of spitting (Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65; 15:19). This is the treatment seen with the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah, a red wool yarn weaved around its horns, and either a priestly crown with the name Azazel was placed on his head, or the actual lot stone with Azazel inscribed on it was tied to his head (m. Yoma 6:4).

 

 

 

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Epistle of Barnabas - The Goat

 

The Epistle of Barnabas is document from the Apostolic era, attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite, one of the Seven Assistants to the Apostles, and Paul’s Missionary Companion (Acts 4:36; 13:2). It was lost and then rediscovered in 1859 in the Sinai Codex. Now whether or not it was written by the Biblical Barnabas or another Barnabas, it is a First Century document written by a first generation Christian with valuable insight. Barnabas quotes from Old Testament era texts we don’t have, “Spit on it, all of you, thrust your goads into it, wreath its head with scarlet wool and lead it be driven into the desert,” “when they see him coming on the Day, they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel between him and the goat,”  “they shall see him on that Day, clad to the ankles in his red woolen robe and will say, ‘is this not he whom we once crucified and mocked and pierced and spat upon?” (Epistle of Barnabas 7).

 

Now, Isaiah had such a vision of the Lord on the Day (of Vengeance) come in a red robe and he asked the Lord why. He replies the robes are bloodstained red from when he had troddened the winefat “alone, and of the people, there were none with me” (Isaiah 63:2). Jesus Christ has a bloodstained red vesture in the Second Coming (Revelations 19:13). Isaiah’s quote seems to have foreshadowed Gethsemane, because while Christ was not alone at Golgotha (Luke 23:39), he was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). Christ was customarily wearing an High Priest’s expensive, seamless and brilliant white robe before he went to Gethsemane, and if he had sweat blood in it, it would have become bloodstained red, a robe that he was not wearing when he was crucified (John 19:23-24; Psalm 22:18).

 

Barnabas makes a unique claim, that the first goat, the sin offering goat, in the Day of Atonement ritual was originally eaten. The people ate the carcass and the Priests ate the fat and bloody sacrificial portions, unwashed, in vinegar (sour wine). Barnabas quotes from an unknown quote from Christ who is quoting the Books of the Prophets (Old Testament scriptures), “What does it say in the prophet? ‘Let all the priests but nobody else eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.’ Why was this? Because, ‘When I am about to give my body for sins of this new people of mine, you will give me gall and vinegar to drink’” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). The New Testament authors were careful to note that Christ was given “vinegar to drink mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34, 48; Psalm 69:23), though they don’t explain the significance of this.

 

Books of the Law, like Leviticus, seems to contradict Barnabas’s quote, saying in the Atonement, the High Priest did remove the fat and enthralls, kidneys and liver, but claims they were burned on the alter while the carcass was burned outside, not eaten (Leviticus 4:8-10) and consumption of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 3:17), as Jews of the first century say in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:7). Though the Mishnah doesn’t represent the views of all first century Jews, the Mishnah mentions those they refer to as “Babylonians”, presumed to be a derogatory term for other Jews, perhaps the Alexandrian Jews, who performed the Day of Atonement rites and did eat the sin offering, and if it was the Sabbath, they ate it raw, because they couldn’t cook (m. Menahoth 11:7). What is interesting about this is, if Barnabas is correct, and the sin offering was eaten unwashed, raw, and in vinegar/sour wine, then there was blood consumption/drinking in the Temple by priests on the Day of Atonement. Implication is that having Christ drink vinegar with gall in it on the cross, though some think it to be another act of Roman mercy (an attempt at pain relief or for hastening death), was the event foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement ritual. It gives Christ’s Sacramental cup another context. As the Sacrament is believe to be the foretold new Temple bread and libations reestablished (Malachi 1:7, 11) Christ insisted that the contents of his cup of fruit of the vine was his blood, which Leviticus forbids (Leviticus 3:17). Blood drinking while not Kosher, may have been Kosher during Atonement Day practice. Leviticus maybe, as some think, a late document. Some scholars think this Atonement practice is valid as it would be the origin of the Christian traditions to remove the inner portions of the sacramental loaf (the inward parts of the Body of Christ) and mingle it with the sacramental wine of the Eucharist (M. Barker, The Great High Priest, pg70).

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Book of Enoch - Azazel

 

One might question the authenticity of Barnabas’s unbiblical sources, because it is an unbiblical source. Sighting other unbiblical sources, though one of these unbiblical sources ended up being discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Book of Enoch. Barnabas quotes, “It will come to pass in this last days that the Lord will deliver up destruction, the sheep of the pasture, with their sheepfold and their watchtower [1 Enoch 89:56]” (Epistle of Barnabas 16). As a side note, the watch tower is the temple (Isaiah 5; Assumption of Moses 2:4; Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 3:2:4; 9:3:1; 9:7:1).

 

The New Testament sites the Book of Enoch as scripture (Jude 14). The Jews burned all Hebrew copies of that book, it was rediscovered in Ethiopia in 1770, but by then it was considered a late Christian written Pseudopigrapha (a Writing under a False Name), but once we found the a piece of a pre-Christian Enoch in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, proves that it is a Jewish Scripture. Burned for being used as a Christian proof-text. Enoch’s first parable has a pre-incarnate Christ-like figure, called the “Son of Man”, the Anointed One, and other titles found in Isaiah’s Servant Songs. In the Parable, the “Righteous One” uses his blood to take up to a heavenly temple to meet the “Lord of Spirits”, a title Enoch uses to refer to God the Father, The Most High God, El Elyon (1 Enoch 47; Daniel 7).

 

Enoch says that all creation is sustained by a great oath, or covenant, “This oath became dominant over them; they are preserved by it” (1 Enoch 69:26). However, the angel “Azazel” sins, breaking the covenant and corrupts the earth (1 Enoch 6-11; Genesis 6:1-5). So, “Enoch [(H#2585) initiated]”, was initiated with robes and oils as a High Priest by angels, a “translated” (Hebrews 11:5), angelic “Son of Man” (1 Enoch 71:14-17 Genesis 5:22-24; Hebrews 11:5). Where in the heavenly temple, he attempts to make Atonement and intercedes on the behalf of the sinners, the sinning angel (1 Enoch 15:2) but returns with a judgment for Azazel. This is where Enoch becomes important to understanding the Day of Atonement.

 

Azazel is found in the Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. There are two goats, one is chosen by a cast lot, “for the Lord [l-yhwh] while the other is chosen by lot “for the scapegoat [l-azazel]” (Leviticus 16:8). It could be that with no explanation in the Bible of the theology of the Atonement rites, the Book of Enoch maybe the origin for the atonement ritual if Azazel is a part of it. Azazel is a well known archdemon among Jews and student of Jewish lore, begging the question, why are the Israelites offering a goat up to a demon in the desert? Though the goat isn’t necessarily “for” Azazel. The Hebrew word for “for” is the same word as “as”; “For [le (H#3807.1) for/as].” The goat that atones for all creation with its blood isn’t being offered “to” the Lord, it is doing so “as the Lord”. The goat that bears the sins and gets cast out isn’t offered to Azazel, it is being cast out “as Azazel” who was cast out. This aligns with the crowns the goats are given with those names on them (m. Yoma 4:1). A priest wore a crown with the Lord’s name on it, indicating that is who they are, or represent, while atoning, they are representing the Lord, in the Lord’s place.

 

In Enoch, Azazel was bound by the Archangel “Raphael (Healer-of God)”, he was pierced and was hung from a tree, down inside a canyon (1 Enoch 10:5). Azazel could possibly the origin of the Jewish saying to be “hung from a tree” means they are the “accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). With no small irony that the Christians see the Crucifixion as Christ having “hung from a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:38-39). In Enoch, what purpose did Azazel’s punishment serve? It was a Blood Atonement to give life to the earth, “he will proclaim life for the earth, that he is giving life to her” (1 Enoch 10:7).

 

The scapegoat is exile to the same place Azazel was imprisoned. The Bible only says the goat was cast out into a “solitary land” (Leviticus 16:22) the first century Jews detail how the goat was taken from the temple’s eastern gate, to the mount of Olives, on a marked path from the city into the wilderness, and pushed off a cliff preferably by a foreigner (m. Yoma 6:8). The name the Jews gave this canyon they cast the goat into was “Beth Chaduda” (Targum, Pseudo-Johnathan Leviticus 16:22). The name of the canyon Enoch says Azazel was cast into was “Dudael” (1 Enoch 19:5). While there is debate over the exact location of “Calvary’s Hill” and “Golgotha [(G#1115) the skull]” where Christ hung from a tree (Matthew 27:33). There is only one main detail that the scapegoat foreshadows Christ’s Atonement, Christ was cast outside the gates of the city, by the hands of foreign soldiers no less (Matthew 28:11; Hebrews 13:12).

 

Azazel’s name may appear in the New Testament. When Christ explains to the Pharisees how he exorcised devils, he says one must first “bind” the “strong man” before entering his house to take his possessions (Matthew 12:25). Whom Christ meant is the “strong man” became very confusing to later Greek Gentile Christians. When later Christians preformed exorcisms, they resorted to tying down the physical body of the possessed person. Even though we see when Christ exorcised devils, he didn’t bind the person, rather was "binding" devilish spirits by power and authority he had (Luke 13:11). What Christ is talking about the Melchizedek Priest’s sealing or binding power the Pharisee’s Aaronic Priests didn’t possess. The bonds are covenant priesthood bonds, one must spiritually bind the devilish spirit first before attempting to take its possessions away, the physical body. Under this context, Christ should be referring to the devils as the “strong man”. Why say it that way and confuse people? Matthew was written in Greek, but it’s quoting Christ who spoke Aramaic. In Hebrew, “Azazel (H#5799)” would translate into as the “strong one”. The strong man may originally been Azazel, whom he is calling a devil.

 

Lost Texts Relevant to Atonement: The Assumption of Moses - Exile of Evil

If the Atonement’s exile of the Scapegoat is the exile of Azazel and the reason is to exile the people’s sins. Why is Christ still the sin bearer and not Azazel/Satan? The two goats were to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) because they were ritually the same goat. Two aspects of what was to be accomplished by one priest. While the High Priest ritually resurrects when he enters the Holy of Holies, the goat could not be resurrected once made the sin offering, being that it was drained of all of its blood/life, and especially so if its body was eaten, both body and blood. Once eaten the High Priest took the sins, as a representative of the Lord, and is the sin bearer (Micah 7:8; Job 7:21). The Lord bears the guilt (Romans 4:7-8). There is some ambiguity between the High Priest and the Scapegoat. Jesus Christ became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6). However, a High Priest is only the sin bearer until he can transfer them upon the Azazel goat (Leviticus 16:21-27), just as sins were transferred on him (Leviticus 1:4; Numbers 8:10).

 

While Christ as a scapegoat was exiled by the people of Jerusalem on the cross, but he isn’t to remain in exile, so that isn’t the conclusion of the atonement. Satan still waits to be exile at the end of days. The Banishment of Azazel/Satan as part of the Atonement of the Lord is foretold in other books. And there is evidence in the New Testaments that its authors quote as scriptures items found were among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just as Jude quotes from the First Book of Enoch as a scripture (Jude 14), he also references to another non-Biblical source called The Assumption of Moses. This is the source for Jude’s non-Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses) account of the Archangel Michael contending with Satan over the claim to the body of Moses that was taken it into heaven (Jude 9).

 

The Assumption of Moses expands on Deuteronomy 32:43 as the coming of the Lord on the Day of Atonement. Featuring an angel High Priest, from a holy habitation emerging from there, then the “evil one will have an end. Sorrow will be lead away with him” (Assumption of Moses 10:1-3). Just as a High Priest emerges from the Holy of Holies recently hallowed (Leviticus 16:19), he doesn’t take away the sins, he just carries them until they can be places on the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21), it’s the Azazel goat that takes them away for good (Leviticus 16:22). He removed them from the people and the land to preserve them and renew the covenant. Christ’s Atonement is not concluded because it has not yet taken effect.

 

The Book of Revelations foretells in the Second Coming, the Millennial Reign of Christ, an angel will bind Satan and put him in a pit for a thousand years (Revelations 20:1-3). This is very Enochian; an angel bound Azazel and put him into a canyon for a thousand years (1 Enoch 54:67). In Revelations, Christ is seen as a High Priest officiating in a Heavenly Temple (Revelations 1:3) on “the Lord’s day” (Revelations 1:10) which a reference to the Day of Atonement. The Lord’s Day is the First Day (Sunday) in Enochian literature (2 Enoch 28:4). The next day after the Day of Atonement, is the First Day, “The Great Day” (LXX, Isaiah 1:13), when the High Priest emerges from the Holy of Holies and pronounces judgment on Israel. John sees angels dressed as priests, and Christ, emerge from heave to judge the earth (Revelations 19:11-13). After the thousand years, Satan is loosed, continues to deceive and then cast into the lake of fire (Revelations 20:10) and hell/sin goes with him (Revelations 20:14). The sign of the Atonement has taken affect, thus undoing the original sin of Adam, is the moment when Earth returns to its original Edenic harmony (Isaiah 65:17-25; Revelation 22:2).

 

 

=============

Again, this is not finished, help me, review, correct, disagree. Perhaps the part about blood consumption is too long and distracting. If you know me by now, you know my spelling and grammar is awful.

What is the purpose of these papers, personal / private, for publication, publication by whom, etc.?

[Pyreaux]

It started private as like my "Grail diary", its personal thoughts and all my references, I expected to "finish it" as my personal quick reference book. I think about publishing sometimes, maybe at the end of my life or just to passing it on to believing and inactive family and friends as a piece of me. I don't know if anyone else would ever be interested in what an uneducated amateur thinks. It started many years ago when someone once asked me what I though about a Messianic Rabbi coming to the Assembly to baptize us... Though they knew I was a Mormon, I suppose I have a way of making groups not aware that I'm still very Mormon. Basically, it went from a simple reply on what divine authority is, and I started writing about all my thoughts on the divine authority in a Biblical setting that they could understand. Suddenly I felt like a full history of the priesthood was in order, but then I noticed I kept going back in time a lot. Then I rewrote it as a series of thoughts about divine authority chronologically. And so the main subject became about Melchizedek, the Royal priesthood, from Adam to Christ, from the Early Church, Catholics to Mormonism at that point in the timeline. I believe the full historical perspective helps everything make sense. Biblical figures get their own priesthood paper/chapter, Christ has five papers/chapters because everything seems to come together at that juncture. I think the ancient ways explains a lot of his behavior.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

It started private as like my "Grail diary", its personal thoughts and all my references, I expected to "finish it" as my personal quick reference book. I think about publishing sometimes, maybe at the end of my life or just to passing it on to believing and inactive family and friends as a piece of me. I don't know if anyone else would ever be interested in what an uneducated amateur thinks. It started many years ago when someone once asked me what I though about a Messianic Rabbi coming to the Assembly to baptize us... Though they knew I was a Mormon, I suppose I have a way of making groups not aware that I'm still very Mormon. Basically, it went from a simple reply on what divine authority is, and I started writing about all my thoughts on the divine authority in a Biblical setting that they could understand. Suddenly I felt like a full history of the priesthood was in order, but then I noticed I kept going back in time a lot. Then I rewrote it as a series of thoughts about divine authority chronologically. And so the main subject became about Melchizedek, the Royal priesthood, from Adam to Christ, from the Early Church, Catholics to Mormonism at that point in the timeline. I believe the full historical perspective helps everything make sense. Biblical figures get their own priesthood paper/chapter, Christ has five papers/chapters because everything seems to come together at that juncture. I think the ancient ways explains a lot of his behavior.

Projects for this purpose are never finished (thank goodness!). So I would encourage you to keep at it, and perhaps use your document program to index and cross-reference topics if you are using as a quick reference book. In the old days people used to file articles and what-not; I think this is better because it requires more thinking and internalization, which leads to what I've noted in the "Come Follow Me" series. Each lesson either includes a message that encourages us, or provides the instruction and a place to "Record Your Impressions." Documenting our learning serves to develop familiarity with learning by the Spirit, personal revelation, discipline to receive more divine companionship and guidance, etc. I suppose how long we keep and revise our writings is optional, but the idea is that our discoveries grow and grow.

[marineland]

On 5/29/2022 at 11:23 AM, Pyreaux said:

Though they knew I was a Mormon, I suppose I have a way of making groups not aware that I'm still very Mormon.

I have seen some church teachings that Adam sinned and others that he did not sin in
the Garden of Eden. You may want to add a disclaimer in your paper when you mention
"original sin".

[Pyreaux]

I probably will not bring up "original sin" until the Jesus Christ in Hades, when I speak on ideas about God's justice or maybe in a Catholic paper.

I probably won't expound much on ideas that Adam was ignorant/innocent (Moses 4:5-12) that the innocent person cannot "sin" (Moroni 8:8) but they rather "transgressed" the law (1 Timothy 2:14?) nor about the spiritual value of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22) until maybe my paper on Mormonism. But I'm trying to trace Temples, the Melchizedek Priesthood and its traditions through time. Mormonism will have a big chapter already with that being the focus, so I may not want to the focus on that.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Pyreaux