Joe Viel
answered 6
The Torah Types
The Scriptures provide an interesting insight as to why Y'shua
must have rose just before Mary / Miriam got to the tomb on “very early dawn”,
as recorded in Luke 24.
John says in Yochanan / John 19:36 that Y'shua's bones weren't
broken, against the norm for someone crucified, in order “that the scriptures
would be fullfilled.” What Scriptures? No where is there a Messianic prophecy
that says the bones of the Messiah would not be broken. But there is a type of
this in the Passover regulations of Exodus/Shemot 12:46 and Num 9:12. John said
this because He knew Y'shua had to fullfill the typology and regulations of the
Law prescribed and God would follow the regulations for the Passover sacrifice
when sacrificing the ultimate Paschal Lamb for our sins, for it was THIS
sacrifice that God was really concerned about when He wrote those regulations.
God wasn't really concerned whether an animal lamb had it's legs broken, but it
was important only because it foreshadowed the Messianic sacrifice that was to
come.
Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of the type of
Firstfruits. The regulations for Firstfruits, given in Leviticus/Vayikra
23:9-14, require a lamb to be offered as a burnt offering. These requirements
are given in Lev/Vay 1 and 6:8-13. According to these regulations in Lev/Vay
6:8, “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the
night, 'till morning.” So if
Y'shua fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly
before “the crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the
Firstfruits regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered
the next morning, not when evening arrived.
Also, the Hebrew words for “offering”, “bring near” and “morning”
all share the same Hebrew roots and all are important in describing regulations
for the burnt offering, indicating there may be a deeper connection than we
truly understand. The offering or “Korban” was always brought near or “kerav”
[the 'v' and 'b' come from same Hebrew letter] to the altar at morning or “boker”. It's inner parts or “kerev” were always washed. The firstfruits
offering was made in the morning and the word for firstfruits “bikkur(im)” also
sounds similar to the word for 'morning'. So the connection between these is
much deeper than we realize just reading it in English.
Y'shua did not want Miriam / Mary to touch him before He ascended.
It was only lawful for the priests to touch/offer this sacrifice. For most of
the offerings made at the temple, the Torah specifically says what touches it
is made Holy, because it's Most Holy. The burnt offering was Holy when burnt,
and therefore couldn't be touched, even by the priests. So for her to touch Him
would really destroy the typology.
Also, when we look at the oral interpretations of the requirements
of Leviticus/Vayikra 6:8, we find this also supports his resurrection being
sometime in the dark hours of the day of Firstfruits..
The
Mishnah teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a
requirement that one reap it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped
by day, it is invalid.” This
is logical deduction from scripture since the firstfruits was to be reaped the
day it was offered AND had to remain on the altar all night. No way to fullfill
these requirements without reaping the harvest itself the evening before it was
to be offered. (The Mishnah also teaches that it cannot be reaped before
Passover in Menahot 10:7C, which again would follow from logical deduction of
Lev 6:8.) The Mishnah also teaches in several places in this same chapter
(Menahot 10) that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv
falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat.
Another interesting thing I noticed is that the tomb fullfilled a
type of altar made of rock. I noticed as I was reading in the gospels that the
tomb must have looked as sketched below...
...because it says his tomb was “cut out of rock” and it says in
John 20:12 that one angel was seated where His head had laid and another sat
where His feet had been. In order for the angels to have had room to have sat
down, it means both the side and the top of where His body laid was exposed to
the open air of the cave (which had been sealed), thus it really looked like an
altar of sorts! Neat huh? Don't know if that means anything significant, but I
just thought it was neat! His body wasn't actually underground or in the earth,
but above the earth, on an altar, concealed in a tomb.
‘Torah Types’
Joe Viel answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Sixth delivery
Joe Viel:
“.... Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of
the type of Firstfruits. The regulations for Firstfruits, given in
Leviticus/Vayikra 23:9-14, require a lamb to be offered as a burnt offering.
These requirements are given in Lev/Vay 1 and 6:8-13. According to these
regulations in Lev/Vay 6:8, “the burnt
offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, 'till morning.”
So if Y'shua
fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly before “the
crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the Firstfruits
regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered the next
morning, not when evening arrived.”
GE:
Re: “.... “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar
hearth throughout the night, 'till
morning.” ..... He must have remained in the tomb until
shortly before “the crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb.”
Joe Viel claims the tomb is the altar. He
gives this illustration,
“Another interesting thing I noticed is that the
tomb fullfilled a type of altar made of rock. I noticed as I was reading in the
gospels that the tomb must have looked as sketched below...
...because
it says his tomb was “cut out of rock” and it says in John 20:12 that one angel
was seated where His head had laid and another sat where His feet had been. In
order for the angels to have had room to have sat down, it means both the side
and the top of where His body laid was exposed to the open air of the cave
(which had been sealed), thus it really looked like an altar of sorts! Neat
huh? Don't know if that means anything significant, but I just thought it was
neat! His body wasn't actually underground or in the earth, but above the
earth, on an altar, concealed in a tomb.”
The tomb
is not the altar though. The cross and before it, the night of Abib 14, were the altar, the
place where, the Passover suffered,
being “KILLED”. That day happened to be
dominated by darkness of hell’s night— 12 hours in darkest of nights, and three
hours darkest of darkness in midst of daylight.
Although
under the Old Covenant no sacrifice was allowed during the night of day, in
hell under the New Covenant sacrifice endured all night and day long, until the
Son of God yielded his life-spirit into the hands of His Father, when it was
the hour mid of afternoon, “when they always had to kill the passover”— “between
the pair of nights”-‘behn ha arbayim’.
Now is
it not most significant that, in ‘fulfilment
of the type’,
the Lamb of God, our Passover, as also God’s “burnt offering”,
was “to remain on the altar hearth
throughout the night, 'till morning’” when – eventually – Joseph who,
“When it had been evening already”, and “after these things” of
the Jews before him (Jn19:31/38), “came”, and after how long no one
knows, obtained permission to have Him removed from the ‘altar’. Joseph at last
went to begin — the very point in
time and events of ‘types’, being ‘fulfilled’, in Christ, so denied and scolded by
Sunday-resurrectionists — and he “took the body down” for the
preparations of it for proper burial “according to the custom-law of the
Jews to bury”, the passover-Scriptures.
He did not “remain on the
tree-altar all night”, but “before sunrise” was “taken down”—
and, “the same day”, was “buried”, exactly, “according to the Scriptures”, the Passover
Scriptures-Word of God in Dt21:22-23 and all four the Gospels.
If the
tomb is made the ‘altar’, not Christ’s giving of his Life and Blood would make
atonement, but merely the dust of the earth to which his human body belonged. If the
tomb must be the ‘altar’, his descent into hell would not have been Jesus’ willing obedience by the reconciling
offering of Himself. If the tomb were
the ‘altar’, the Roman Catholic heresy should be accepted Christ after He died,
descended to hell passively, and while dead and in the grave, without life or blood, consciousness or
conscience, made atonement for the sins of the damned (Hans Urs von
Balthasar, ‘Theo-Drama’, 4.), which negates and demeans the proficiency of the
atonement Jesus had finished and perfected on and through the real altar of his suffering
of death and dying for the elect.
Joe Viel:
“Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of the
type of Firstfruits. .... According to these regulations in Lev/Vay 6:8, “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar
hearth throughout the night, 'till
morning.”
So if Y'shua
fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly before “the
crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the Firstfruits
regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered the next
morning, not when evening arrived.”
GE:
The fire
was to stay burning on the altar all night with the sacrifice on it; but the sacrifice
was killed, before the night began. Christ though, laid down his life by dying
death, accumulating all and the total humiliation and debasement of his entire
life in climactic suffering on the Altar
of His Self Sacrifice, night and day
of the LORD’S PASSOVER. “The fourteenth day of the First Month they kept
passover.” Sacrifice was : “Finished! And He bowed his head, and gave up
the spirit.” “The fifteenth day
of the First Month they kept Feast of passover.”
The
grave was no altar; the grave was narthex from the dead and grave into resurrection
and Passover realms of exalted heavenly glory.
Joe Viel:
“..... The firstfruits offering was made in the morning
and the word for firstfruits “bikkur(im)” also sounds similar to the word for
'morning'. So the connection between these is much deeper than we realize just
reading it in English.”
GE:
Above
you have stated “The Mishnah
teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve
of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a requirement that one reap
it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped by day, it is invalid.” ”
It
contradicts.
Now to ‘reap’,
is not to offer or make sacrifice of ‘the firstfruits’. No matter what time of night or day the first
sheaf was ‘reaped’, it was ‘offered’ or “waved before the LORD” in the ‘day’—
“yom” : “That day when
ye wave the sheaf”, Lv23:12a and 15. In fact, “on the morrow (light of day) after the sabbath (of passover),
the priest shall wave it.” ‘Morrow /
day’ from ‘mochorath’, ‘morrow’ 23;
‘morrow after’ 6; ‘next day’ 2; ‘next (day)’ 1 (Young’s
Analytical). In the morning of the day after the passover sabbath the first sheaf was reaped, that “day”, to be “offered / brought / waved before the LORD”.
The
manna fell in the early light of day – ‘morning’. It says in Josua 5:11-12, “They
ate of the old corn of the land on the morrow / next day after the passover
(Abib 14— verse 10), unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day (passover
sabbath of Abib 15). And after they
had (on Abib 15) eaten of the old
corn of the land, the manna on the morrow after / next day (of Abib 16) ceased.”
So they
had to go reap the first sheaf of the new
harvest after the usual time that
the manna rained, in order to that same ‘day’
still, “bring / offer / wave it before the LORD”. It does not mean the ‘offering’ of the first sheaf happened in the morning or night; it
was “waved before the Lord” after the morning during which it was
reaped, implying it was “waved before the Lord”, in the ‘afternoon’.
Joe Viel:
“Y'shua did not want Miriam / Mary to touch him
before He ascended. It was only lawful for the priests to touch/offer this
sacrifice. For most of the offerings made at the temple, the Torah specifically
says what touches it is made Holy, because it's Most Holy. The burnt offering
was Holy when burnt, and therefore couldn't be touched, even by the priests. So
for her to touch Him would really destroy the typology.”
GE:
There is
no point in your comparison, because the “burnt
offering” may
not be touched until it was burned
or ‘offered’. It may be touched
afterwards, because “the typology”
was finished through its burning. Mary could not by touching Jesus “destroy the typology”; He was already ‘burned’ by
hell’s fire through the suffering of all the night and day of Abib fourteen, “the day they had
to kill the passover”.
Mary
could not by touching Jesus “destroy the
typology”; Jesus
was no type; He is the Antitype of all types. He is the Reality, and to touch
Him would be to touch reality.
Jesus
did not forbid Mary to touch Him; He told her not to linger and to go straight
on and tell his disciples.
Why
would Jesus forbid Mary but allow the other women to cling at his feet? And beg
Thomas to touch Him, even though He had not yet ‘ascended’ to the Father?
Because He
in Divine Truth had had ‘ascended to the Father’ already through and in that God “exalted Him” through and in that, and whereby, “God,
raised, Christ, in and by, the Glory,
of the Father”, “and
exalted Him at his own
right hand in heavenly realms”. That
kind of ‘ascension’, Jesus already had had received and already had had
undergone, over, and above, the altar of his suffering “WHEN God raised Him from the dead”— IN
having been resurrected from death
while still inside the grave even – which was the “waving before
the LORD” of Him God’s First Sheaf Wave Offering— before the Face, and in
the Most Holy Presence and Innermost Sanctuary of God’s Own Personal Being— through
and in ‘The Full Fellowship’* of the Father and of the Son, and of the Moving
Spirit of God, of the Very First Sheaf Wave Offering of Christ’s LIFE— no longer or again, of his blood
or death!
[*Klaas
Schilder]
‘Tell my
disciples I have not yet ascended to my Father; I’ll meet them in
On
strength of his ‘exaltation- / glorification-ascension’ through and in
resurrection from the dead, Christ can now go, and forty days later, when He ‘ascended
to his Father’, indeed did ‘go, to heaven’ physically and topologically. On strength of his ‘exaltation- /
glorification-ascension’ of resurrection from the dead, Christ can now so
comforting yet authoritatively speak, to mortal but redeemed, sinners, “Touch
Me not Mary, (don’t linger with Me; don’t so much as wait one moment), but go
straight forward, and tell my disciples!” The urgency arises from the fact “AS THE RISEN He appeared to
Mary”! I have now spoken to you,
Myself, Mary; I LIVE! I AM RISEN! Why would you touch Me, Mary? I have spoken
to you, and now am commanding you to go
and tell my disciples!
Jesus “appeared to Mary first early
on the First Day.” What, in any
case, can all this frivolous nonsense Jesus would not allow Mary to touch him
because He had not yet ascended to his Father be worth to ‘prove’ He resurrected before (or after) sunrise
on Sunday morning? “AS THE RISEN He appeared to
Mary”! His resurrection an established, past, fact.
When He rose is here at his (first) appearance (to any), no issue; is here, the day after He rose, only of consequence. Of only consequence here and when “He
appeared”, is the Truth: “He, as the RISEN, appeared”.
Elsewhere, where He actually did rise from the dead, the factor of time and day WHEN, shall be the issue and of
consequence— only, where it is written,
“In the Sabbath’s while being fullness of daylight”.
Joe Viel:
“Also, when we look at the oral interpretations
of the requirements of Leviticus/Vayikra 6:8, we find this also supports his
resurrection being sometime in the dark hours of the day of Firstfruits..
The Mishnah teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve
of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a requirement that one reap
it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped by day, it is invalid.” This is logical deduction from scripture
since the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered AND had to remain
on the altar all night.”
GE:
Nothing “supports his resurrection being sometime in the
dark hours of the day of Firstfruits.” Lv6:8 does not
deal with the First Sheaf Wave Offering.
Assuming
Abib 15 ‘passover-feast’ “the festival”, that “the wave
sheaf” had to be
reaped “on the eve of the festival” makes no sense, since that
would mean the First Sheaf had to be reaped on Abib 14 whereas the Law is clear it should be reaped “the day after
the sabbath” of the passover of Abib 15. In other words, the first sheaf should be
reaped on Abib 16; not “on the eve” of the passover, but “on the
day after, the sabbath”
or “the festival” of Abib 15!
That “.... the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it
was offered AND had to remain on the altar all night”, is NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear and ‘logical’ contradiction, “the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered”, but, according to “The Mishnah ... Menahot 10:3 .... the omer used
for the wave sheaf”,
had to be reaped “on the eve of the festival”.
This is
NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear
contradiction “the
firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered AND had to remain on the
altar all night”
as if the same day still, night followed
the day. The ‘following’ night is
the beginning-halve of another day; the beginning of the
following date— against Joe Viel who thinks of the night after the day as were
it the same day and date still. Refer to
my answer re Joseph who the next day
– beginning after sunset –, began to undertake to bury the body of Jesus that
was ‘on the altar’ of the cross, still, after night “when it had become
evening already”, had had begun.
This is
NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear oversight
the First Sheaf Wave Offering was no ‘ordinary’, “firstfruits” or ‘burnt offering’.
Joe Viel:
“No way to fullfill ....” (sic.) “(There is) no way to fullfill these requirements
without reaping the harvest itself the evening before it was to be offered.
(The Mishnah also teaches that it cannot be reaped before Passover in Menahot
10:7C, which again would follow from logical deduction of Lev 6:8.) The
Mishnah also teaches in several places in this same chapter (Menahot 10) that
it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv falls on
Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat.
GE:
Again
your deductions are flawed and self-contradictory. The only way “to fullfill these requirements” would be “reaping the harvest the evening before it was to
be offered” ---
but --- “The Mishnah teaches it cannot
be reaped before Passover ....” Which is which? But how
on earth can you say, “which again
would follow from logical deduction of Lev 6:8”? (Sic. I assume you meant “Lev
6:8 to 13”?)
However,
this, “The Mishnah also teaches that
it cannot be reaped before Passover in Menahot 10:7C”, implies the above, that the
sheaf had to be reaped in the night before day, must be wrong, because the
night before the day is the same day of passover whichever day of passover is
supposed.
Nevertheless,
that “The Mishnah .... teaches in several
places in .... Menahot 10 that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th
of Aviv falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”, is splendid resemblance of
Matthew 28:1, “In the Sabbath’s fullness of being Sabbath’s daylight
mid-afternoon”— “only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”! First Sheaf of God Almighty and our Passover First
Sheaf Jesus Christ, reaped on
the Sabbath Day! Beautiful!!
How clearly correct are the Jews, yet unable to recognise the Messiah in perfect fulfilment of their own Laws! They deserve our empathy and prayers.
Ed Sutton:
Only our
friend Gerhard Ebersöhn could have the sun start to 'rise' at midnight in order
to make the Son rise on the Sabbath.
GE:
My friend Ed Sutton, Let me help you here a bit; not only me, but others - big
names; I have them on my shelves - have the sun start to 'rise' at midnight in
order to make the Son rise on SUNDAY. Meanwhile when the sun rises doesn't
matter - it is when the sun declines that Matthew refers to in 28:1 : he in
fact as it were 'measures' its decline so significantly it was precisely “in
the very midst of daylight after noon towards the First Day of the week”;
exactly as the day before after Joseph had closed the grave it was “in the
very midst of daylight after noon towards the Sabbath Day”; exactly as the
day before it was in the very midst of daylight after noon, “the ninth hour”
- 3 p.m. - when the Saviour of us two sinners, friend Ed Sutton, died for us.
What is most significant, is that THIS happened, “according to the
Scriptures”, because THIS is why people (I am persuaded not my friend Ed
Sutton), take exception and are offended.
Said one
Joe Viel, this notable thing: “The Mishnah .... teaches in several places in
.... Menahot 10 that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv
falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”. By the Holy Scriptures though,
it not only was 'permissible', but inevitable, obligatory and mandatory of the “First
Sheaf Wave Offering before the LORD” that was Christ. Because “First Sheaf Wave
Offering before the LORD” in “reaping” as well as in “bringing” and “waving”
was promise, prophecy, and type of Him: by resurrection from the dead “BEFORE
THE LORD” - that is, was promise, prophecy, and type of Him: in the return into
the immediate presence of God in the full fellowship and self-enjoyment of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit: was promise, prophecy, and type of God “into His
Rest” through Christ and the finishing of all the works of God”, “IN HIM”.
'Sela', 'Peace'; 'STOP', 'SABBATH'.
Daarom
móét ek tog ook vir jou sê, desondanks jou lieflike en Christelike brief
geskryf aan my, broeder in Christus Jesus Mike Kitshoff, hoe onmoontlik dit is om die Sabbat van die
Nuwe-Testament, “die Sewende Dag Sabbat van die HERE jou God” en “Dag van die
Here” Jesus Christus, as ‘nie-wesensnoodsaaklikheid’ te kan ‘afsluit’ en as afgehandel te bejeën.
Want die Sabbatdag waarvan Jesus Christus deur opstanding uit die dode Here en
Christus van die Volk van God geword het, is
1) deur sy opstanding uit die dode en deur Hom, volgens
die Wet afgesluit en afgehandel, om
2) volgens die Evangelie van Christus Jesus deur
sy opstanding uit die dode, met Hóm, geïdentifiseer te begin word.
Calvyn
het die eerste raakgesien; hy het nie die tweede en belangriker waarheid,
opgemerk nie. Dalk sien mense soos jy
dit eendag raak, is my gebed.
Hoor mooi, wie jy ookal mag wees, Mike Kitshoff, leek of predikant of
professor of profeet of apostel - maak g'n saak wat die volgende aanbetref nie:
'die Bybel', vandag, is meer as net die Woord van God; is vandag, soms ook
minder as die Woord van God; is - vandag - selfs téén die Woord van God.
Eenvoudig en onvermydelik omdat 'die Bybel', vandag, in by voorbeeld
Afrikaans, mensewerk is. Moet dit, nooit vergeet nie vir alles wat dit
ookal mag,
13 July
2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2517
http://www.biblestudents.co.za