This is how Paul describes the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph.3:8).
The OT will be searched in vain for the truth for a revelation of the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death upon the Cross.
I have searched and found a lot about the purpose of the cross in the OT so have you too probably though it would not be consistent with MAD to say so.
Noted Bible expositor Alfred Edersheim writes:
"That the view here given is that of the N.T...appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St. John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b]" (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971], Book 3, Chapter XIV, p.488).
[/QUOTE]
When Edersheim says the words in Matthew "
are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original" what he is really saying is that Matthew is adding words where none existed before. I had a pastor once who was a Hebrew scholar. He too used say Mark treated the gospel account like a "Targum." While some Targums show some insight what they are is expansions, expositions of scripture. Sometimes they went way off the mark. When I asked my Pastor if if Mark being a Targum meant that he put words in the mouth of Jesus he had to to admit that I was right. What you have to ask yourself is if this is a position you want to take when defending the scriptures.
Here is what Sir Robert Anderson says about the Baptist's words there:
"This is not translation merely, it savours of exegesis. 'Who beareth the sin of the world' is what the Baptist said. His words were not a prophecy of what Christ would accomplish by His death, but a statement of what He was in His life. Mark the present tense, 'Who is bearing'. And while the word used in 1 Peter 2:24, and in kindred passages, is a sacrificial term, we have here an ordinary word for lifting and carrying burdens. When the Lord sighed in healing the deaf mute by the Sea of Galilee Mark 7:34, and when He groaned and wept at the grave of Lazarus, He took upon Himself, as it were, the infirmities and sorrows which He relieved, and made them His own" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Kregel Publications, 1978], 52).
This is not translation merely, it savours of exegesis. sounds too much like "auras of penumbras" I think translation and exegesis should never stray very far from one another.
"Bearing" our afflictions, griefs and sufferings was indeed part of what Jesus did in His earthly ministry (
Matthew 8:16-17) However, the word Matthew uses is, “
ebastasen”
ἐβάστασεν. It is taken from
Isaiah 53:4
http://biblehub.com/greek/ebastasen_941.htm
The next verse is much more violent because the Messiah is suffering
on the cross for
SIN
Isaiah 53:5 reads as follows:
A. 5
But he was wounded
The Hebrew word
chalal means “
to bore through or pierce”) for our
transgressions,
This depicts the nails being driven into His hands and feet.
B.
he was bruised (Heb.
daka : “
to crush”)
for our iniquities:
Christ was hit and beaten.
C. the chastisement ( musar “chastisement”)
of our peace was upon him;
His punishment brought us peace with God.
D.
and with his stripes (Heb. chabburah: a stripe or blow) we are healed.
This healing was for something more than physical healing since He had been doing that already. Rather this was healing of the breach between the human soul and God.
E. The condition of man for which the cross would be a remedy is sin
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
F. Finally the substitutionary nature of His death is summarized
...and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
The question is – did the pre-Pauline Church know these things? Apart from my frequent argument that Jesus had already explained the reasons for His suffering there is corraborating evidence. For example, when Philip heard the Ethiopian reading out of
Isaiah 53 he was immediately able to tell the Eunuch that the LAMB being led to slaughter was Jesus. All that followed explained the exact nature of Christ's death - His innocence, His scourging, the piercing of his hands and feet when He was nailed to the cross, and finally His resurrection. All the events that had happened in Jerusalem were tied together into the prophesied plan of redemption. The Ethiopian, seeing the benefit this work had for him personally, became a Christian and requested baptism which meant that Philip had also explained the repentance and Baptism by which he could receive the forgiveness of sin. Not only did Philip know the purpose of the cross as revealed in Isaiah he was even able to use it in the work of evangelism – and this was a long time before Paul. Where had Philip learned all this? There is no evidence that he had experienced revelations from seeing the Third Heaven. No, his training had been at the Apostle's feet.
Next,you have attempted to weaken the impact of John the Baptist's words "Behold the Lamb of God that
takes away using sources that define "bearing" as "offering up" However though this does apply to Jesus ministry of bearing grief and sickness, the word John the Baptist uses is
airo (αἴρω) which according to Strong means "
I raise, lift up, take away, remove. When it comes to SIN what is wanted most is not Christ bearing it with us but Him
removing it. You would have done better sticking with the KJV "
takes away"
Much was made of the fact that "takes away" (the sin of the world) is a
present tense verb. Because of this it is assumed that it applies
NOT to Jesus bearing the sins of mankind on the cross in the
future but to His bearing people's sorrows and griefs in the (then)
present. The problem with this view is that Jesus was not doing healing miracles at the time John made this proclamation. Not only that but the present tense is not always used exactly for the immediate moment. Koine Greek linguist A. T. Roberson has this to say about
John 1:29:
The future work of the Lamb of God here described in present tense as in 1 John 1:7 about the blood of Christ. He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews. http://m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-1-29.html
In calling Jesus the Lamb the Baptist evokes many potent images. Here are some references from Judaism.
Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid (perpetual) offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [StPB], 225).
When I looked up the definition of
akedah I found this
AKEDAH (ʿAqedah; Heb. הָדֵקֲע, lit. "binding (of Isaac)"), the Pentateuchal narrative (Gen. 22:1–19) describing God's command to *Abraham to offer *Isaac, the son of his old age, as a sacrifice. Obedient to the command, Abraham takes Isaac to the place of sacrifice and binds him (va-ya'akod, Gen. 22:9, a word found nowhere else in the Bible in the active, conjugative form) on the altar. The angel of the Lord then bids Abraham to stay his hand and a ram is offered in Isaac's stead. The Akedah became in Jewish thought the supreme example of self-sacrifice in obedience to God's will and the symbol of Jewish martyrdom throughout the ages. [/YELLOW]
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00627.html
This is relevant to Christ's death on the cross. Abraham like God the Father, laid the wood on his only son's and led him up the hill to be sacrificed. According to the paradigm of MAD, however, none of this could have been known until Paul came along. John the Baptist HAD to have meant something else or simple not known what he was saying. However, as a prophet and the forerunner of the Messiah we would expect John to have some insight into Jesus' mission.
Many of the leaders of the Acts 2 community understood that Paul was the first to preach the 'gospel of grace." So if Paul was the first to prezch it then it is obvious that it wasn't preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost.
Which leaders in the Acts 2 community "understood that Paul was the first to preach the 'gospel of grace?"
In a Bible tract entitled
Paul's Gospel Acts 2 dispensationalist William R. Newell wrote:
"The twelve Apostles (Matthias by Divine appointment taking the place of Judas) were to be the 'witnesses' (Acts 1:22) of Christ's resurrection--that is, of the fact of it. They were not to unfold fully the doctrine of it, as Paul was...But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal 'the great body of doctrine for this age'...The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows...The fact and the Scripturalness of righteousness on the free gift principle--that is, of Divine righteousness, separate from all man's doings, conferred upon man as a free gift from God" (Newell, Paul's Gospel).
The Apostles believed you had to not only believe in Christ but that faith was inseparable from surrender of the will and obedience to Him. This very basic teaching has through the distortion of certain teaching come to thought of as meritorious "works." This seems to be the concept of (antinomian) "grace" in MAD? This was known in the first several centuries to be the signature doctrine of the Gnostics who thought they had a deposit of divine essence which remained unchanged despite their decision to abide in any state of iniquity. "Gold immersed in mud remains unchanged" was the saying. Perhaps this is why MAD seeks to make all writings which suggest that we must remain faithful to the end applicable to Jews only.
After reading this Bible tract Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, said:
"This is a great tract, a clear treatise on the truth of God for this age. The author was one of America's greatest Bible expositors. It glorifies the Savior as the author desired it to do. It should be distributed by hundreds of thousands" (Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1994, Volume 7:12).
Today Dallas Theological Seminary is considered the leading Acts 2 dispensational seminary in the world, and the founding President of that seminary recognized the fact that the "gospel of grace" was not preached by anyone before Paul. Therefore that gospel was not preached on the Day of Pentecost.
The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).
Occasionally I see profs and students from D.T.S. The next time I see one I will ask them what they think of the orthodoxy of MAD. What do you suppose they will say?
