Open Letter to KAVI – from Jim

Kavi, The Torah is not your plaything. It is not right for you to misrepresent its teachings the way you do. It is not right for you to substitute your own teachings for those of HaShem

Kavi,
The Torah is not your plaything. It is not right for you to misrepresent its teachings the way you do. It is not right for you to substitute your own teachings for those of HaShem. It is not right that you push into the text what cannot be found there and to brazenly insist that your own doctrines are those of the Most High. Such shamelessness!
You write, for example, that God established blood sacrifices from the days of Adam and Chava. This is just not true. The first blood sacrifice does not appear in Genesis 3 as you assert, either. No sacrifice whatever appears in Genesis 3. Moreover, in the whole of Genesis, I do not believe that one sacrifice was brought in response to sin. Nor was one commanded.
Perhaps you would assert that Gen. 3:21 is a sacrifice. I have heard other Christians assert this. But, of course, this is not true. The verse gives no indication of a sacrifice. It does not even mention that most important ingredient of Christian sacrifice: blood. It reads: “And the Lord God made garments of skin for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.” The Christian that makes this out to be a sacrifice is giving an egregious example of eisegesis. Or do you have a different verse in mind when you write that the first blood sacrifice appears in Genesis 3? As I look over the chapter, I see no such verse. Not a sacrifice. Not a command to bring a sacrifice.
And no kinsman redeemer. You force that upon the passage, too. What is clear when you assert that something is in this passage or that passage, and it does not exist, is that you have no clear statements teaching Church doctrine. If you did, you would merely refer us to those passages. You would not look for a verse where, if one squints hard enough and makes up his mind to see a teaching in the passage, then he will be able to put it in there. You would not rely upon types and shadows; you would rely upon something solid.
This is made clear when you make the mere assertion that David placed his faith in a suffering redeemer. You do not present a teaching from him on this matter. To the contrary, you reach back to your misrepresentation of Genesis 3 and pretend to us that this was David’s understanding as well. But of course, in Psalm 32, he gives no such indication. When he writes, “Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, etc.” he does not go on to discuss that the reason for such forgiveness is the sacrifice of a kinsman redeemer or man-god or any such thing. He says nothing of the human Yom Kippur sacrifice that you assert is his belief. What he does write is that one must acknowledge his wrongdoing. Strangely, you do not find it relevant when he writes: “Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin” (Ps. 32:5). Nevermind; it is not that strange after all. It does not fit your doctrine.
When you attempt to make David’s hope to be in Jesus, you have to hunt carefully through the scriptures to find a hint. You have to take a verse here, out of context, and a verse there, misrepresented, and impose a new meaning upon them. One reason for this is because the Christian expectation of a dying Messiah in anachronistic when applied to David. Jesus’ disciples found the idea shocking. Christians admit that Jews were looking for a king, not a human sacrifice. The concept was foreign to the Jewish world at the time of Jesus. It certainly was not the view of the Jewish world hundreds of years before. It was not David’s view. Please stop putting your words into the mouths of others.
Jim

More:
Open Letter to KAVI – from Jim

About Rabbi Blumenthal