Dear Refiner's Fire...

Reference your article at Messiah Comes from a Cursed Family Line?: I did agree with the general thrust of your argument since you quoted Sanhedrin (Talmud) that Jeconiah was atoned by the exile, and I do agree with this Talmudic analysis. Apparently the curse was lifted according to this view. This would imply that apparently one can atone for grievous sin even during exile; that is, while there is no sacrificial system or shedding of blood. What are the implications of this?

But, the Christian belief really does center around the blood of Jesus, the final blood sacrifice; yet it seems there was no blood for Jeconiah who repented during an exile period where there was no blood sacrifice. Obviously, much food for thought....

Our Response....

Your question is obviously based on the reason for animal sacrifices. You see them as having the ability to take away sin, while Netzarim/Messianic beleivers see them as having the ability to cover sin for a season.

To atone is simply 'to cover' until the time true remission can occur. According to the New Covenant, the blood of bulls and goats themselves never took away sin. The process of remission was provided when Yeshua sacrificially died for the sin of all - thus the ability to have sin taken away; not just covered. Atonement was not completely dependent on the sacrifice itself or lack thereof; it was dependent on the willingness of the offender to confess and repent of his sin. So, from a Messianic point of view, it was the repentance from sin and not the animal sacrifice itself that allowed for the covering - atonement.

YHWH has always been concerned with our heart attitude. Example: if two men brought sin offerings to the tabernacle/temple to be sacrificed, and one of them was doing it out of habit or simple obligation and the other was doing it from a heart of contrition and repentance, which one's sin would be atoned for? I believe that the heart attitude was the most important thing. A willing heart is, after all, what God is after.

Traditional Judaism today teaches that mitzvot and prayer take the place of the sacrifices, and therefore, traditional Jews have a substitute for the animal sacrifices. Mitzvot and prayer, according to the Orthodox, bring atonement before God. Netzarim, on the other hand, see animal sacrifices as a temporary "fix" until the complete sacrifice (Yeshua) was accomplished. So, Traditional Judaism and Netzarim/Messianic Judaism both have a "substitute" for animal sacrifices - but onlyNetzarim/Messianic Judaism sees animal sacrifices for what they really were.

You are correct in stating that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. The shedding of blood that gives remission of sin, though, was done by Yeshua Himself, not by the bulls, goats, etc. Jechoniah, David, Solomon, Moses - all of those born before Yeshua in the flesh - had their sins remitted by His death....a sort of retroactive remission. If those who lived before Yeshua had their sins remitted, then it could not have been done on the basis of the animal sacrifices according to Hebrews. So, the fact that Jechoniah was forgiven is based on his contrite repentance and the death of Messiah. We're not trying to say that his sin, or anyone else's is forgiven on any other basis than Yeshua's substitutionary death.

I occasionally use the Talmud as reference material, but the Bible holds more relevance since it is the Word of GOD. Traditional Judaism sees the Talmud on par, if not surpassing, the Bible in its authoritative nature. While it does shed light on certain topics, I prefer to stick with the Bible only. So, according to the Bible, Jechoniah was rejected as a signet ring; his descendant, Zerubabal, however, was received as a signet ring. Even though the Bible doesn't state that Jechoniah was repentant, the fact that his descendent was received in this manner points to the fact of Jechoniah's repentant heart....