Practical Theology: Message of Christ Assignment
Sermon
Gaspar A. Cortez
THEO 530: Systematic Theology II
February 11, 2024
Introduction
This sermon is designed for a Sabbath service targeted towards believing youth and
adults who have become mature in their beliefs toward the Scriptures. The message is aimed to
strengthen the body of Messiah through an understanding that Hashem has never changed. He
has always wanted to bring us, His children to salvation. And His plan to do so came to fruition
in the death of His only Son upon the cross. An atonement for all mankind.
Sermon
Shalom and Blessings brethren,
I want to welcome you all to today’s service. I hope and pray everyone is well and ready
to eat the meat of the Word today. I had been tasked with an assignment this week with a few
different options. And one of those options was to give a sermon on the atonement of our
Messiah, Yeshua.
Let us open by reading a passage from the book of Hebrews. We read in chapter 9 and
verse 22, “… according to the Torah, almost everything is purified with blood; indeed, without
the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”1
The author of the book, more than likely Shaul understood this passage in its entirety
since it came directly out of Hashem’s commands found in the Torah. Let us turn to where Shaul
would have pulled this from, Leviticus chapter 17 verse 11. It reads, “for the life of a creature is
in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is
the blood that makes atonement because of the life.”
Millard J. Erickson in his book Christian Theology mentioned that Messiah’s atoning
death must be seen against the background of the Tanakh’s sacrificial system. It was necessary
for sacrifices to be regularly offered to compensate for the sins that had been committed. These
sacrifices were necessary, not to work a reformation in the sinner, nor to deter the sinner or
others from committing further sin, but to atone for the sin, which inherently truly deserved
punishment. There had been offense against Hashem’s law and hence against Hashem himself,
and this had to be set right.2
The first question that comes to mind is why in order to make atonement do we need
blood? Rashi, the famous Jewish sage of the 11th century mentions in his commentary on this
passage, “FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH of every creature, not only of animals brought as
sacrifices, is dependent on its blood ( איה םדב), and it is for this reason that I have placed it [on
the altar] to make expiation for the life of man: let life come and expiate for life!”3
1 All Scriptural references come from the Complete Jewish Bible, unless otherwise noted.
2 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books) 2013, 734.
3 M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, trans., Rashi on Leviticus 17:11 in Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's commentary (London, England: Shapiro, Vallentine and
Co.), 1934, Sefaria.org, accessed Feb. 9, 2024, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Leviticus.17.11.1?
1
But again, why blood? I believe what Rashi was alluding to here is that our sin is so ugly,
it is so repulsive, and so rebellious in the eyes of Hashem, that the only way we can be forgiven
is to have blood shed because our sin is worthy of death according to the commands of Hashem
and reiterated by Shaul (Eze. 18:4; Ro. 6:23). And as Rashi mentions here, only life can expiate
for life.
And here comes the real question we should all be very honest with ourselves to answer,
what is sin? Without understanding what sin is, we cannot truly understand what it is we need
atonement for. Without having to dig really deep or open up the whole of the Tanakh and read
story after story of rebelliousness, we can open up to what the majority of people will read, but
never really think about.
In 1 John 3:4, we read, “everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is
violation of Torah.” And according to the prophets and Shaul we are all sinners in need of a
savior (Isa. 64:6-9; Ro. 3:23). But as we know it’s not a bad ending. It’s a fantastic ending for all
of us who believe.
The atoning work of Messiah on the cross has given us regeneration of our souls, it has
redeemed us from the penalty of death, it reconciled us to Hashem, it has justified us, forgiven
us, and for some of us not born into the root, adopted you.4 Yet many do not understand this
awesome sacrifice that was made.
Let me explain. Yeshua told us that He came to save a very select few, His sheep (Jn.
10:14-16). He did not come to save everyone (Jn. 17:9-10). Now everyone has the chance to be
saved, but it all depends on the choice they make. Judas was given the opportunity and
received all the works of the other disciples, he experienced what all the others were able to do,
lang=bi&with=about&lang 2=en.
4 Lehman Strauss, “The Atonement of Christ,” Bible.org, June 2, 2004, accessed Feb. 9, 2024,
https://bible.org/article/atonement-christ.
2
but when it came down to it, he chose the path of evil. He lost the purpose of the sacrifice, he
knew the truth, yet willfully sinned (Heb. 10:26). He lost the power of what the atonement
made by
Yeshua did for us.
Now to make sure we understand the atonement, let us look at some flawed theories
that are not of the atonement. They may be close and show some truth but become wanting
with a little research.
First, we will look into the Socinian view also known as the Example Theory. It was
taught by Faustus and Laelius Socinus in the sixteenth century and is represented today by the
Unitarians. This thought bases itself on the view that the Cross gives us a perfect example of
how to obey Hashem.5 This view also maintained Yeshua’s ministry on earth was prophetic
rather than priestly. They saw the death of messiah as a beautiful and perfect example of the
type of dedication we the believer, a human can accomplish.6
For supporting Scripture, they would use passages such as 1 Peter 2:21, the example we
are to follow, and 1 John 2:6, deny self and take up the cross. Yet in 1 Peter, just a few verses
later we see something that speaks differently than what they claim, not that what they said is
untrue, but there is more context to this claim that changes it. And when they are asked, they
would claim the atonement is simply a metaphorical concept.6
The first thing that would throw this theory out is to understand they think that Yeshua
was simply a human. Automatically, this should set off alarms in our being.
5 James M. Rochford, “1. Example Theory (or the Socinian View),” Evidenceunseen.com, 2023, accessed
Feb. 10, 2024, https://www.evidenceunseen.com/christ/1-example-theory-or-the-socinian-view/. Also, Erickson,
Christian Theology, 716. 6
Erickson, 716.
6 Ibid.
3
Second, we look at the moral influence theory first developed by Peter Abelard in
reaction to the view of Anselm who thought of the incarnation as necessitated by the fact that
our sin is an offense against Hashem’s moral dignity and there must be some form of
compensation to Hashem, Yeshua’s death.7 Abelard thought otherwise. It was humans fear and
ignorance that needed to be rectified (Hosea 4:6), and this is absolutely true.
This view denies one of the central aspects of the atonement, the substitutionary nature
of
Messiah’s death on the cross.9 Yeshua according to Scripture assumed responsibility for our sin.
9
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). For that we throw this theory out.
Next, we will look at the Governmental Theory whose major proponent was Hugo
Grotius.10 This theory holds that Yeshua suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates
Hashem’s wrath. Yet, Yeshua did not take the exact punishment we deserve, he simply took a
punishment.11 His suffering was a demonstration of Hashem’s hatred of sin, and one that was
intended to stimulate fear so that we know what sin brings.12
One thing this view lacks is Scripture.13 Grotius may mention Scripture elsewhere,
however, with his major point of work just mentioned, this theory is only inferred from the
7 Ibid., 717.
4
Scriptures, but not backed by the Scriptures. Therefore, we throw it out.
And finally, a theory that had some of the greatest claim to being the standard during
the early history of the church, the Ransom theory. Two early developers of this theory were
Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. In short, this theory is as it sounds. The theory teaches that
Yeshua died as a ransom sacrifice. A ransom to who though? This question leads to two
different answers. The first is Hashem and the second is the hasatan. And the reasoning behind
it is that the evil one must have held us captive until this ransom was paid with Yeshua’s soul.14
Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “The Moral Influence View: How are we saved? What is the moral influence
view of the Cross?,” Adventistbibleresearch.org, Dec. 31, 2007, accessed Feb. 9, 2024,
https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/the-moral-influence-view/. Also, Erickson, 719.
10
Erickson, 720. 11
Stephen D. Morrison, “7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized,” SDMorrison.org, n.d., accessed Feb.
10, 2024, https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/. 12
Erickson, 721.
13
Ibid., 723.
14 Ibid., 724.
In Origins and Gregorys formulation of this view, they both seemed to think it was Satan
rather than Hashem who demanded the blood of Yeshua. Therefore, Satan had been deceived
by Hashem because the deity of messiah was only enveloped by human flesh and that is what
Satan wanted, not realizing he couldn’t have the soul.8
And immediately upon hearing that Hashem ever deceived, we throw this theory out.
How could they think this? The answer may be easier than we think. We look to Numbers
chapter 23 and verse 19, “Hashem is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that
he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make
it good?”
8 Ibid., 725.
5
The answer to the question is that many of our church fathers disregarded the Torah and
all that Hashem commanded us to do. Many of them were antisemite and taught against what
Yeshua actually taught. See when you come into a belief but have heavy prior beliefs coming in
with you, it happens. Many of these men were raised, educated, and lived a roman/Greek life.
They were taught philosophy with many gods.
One thing we must remember when reading into different theories inferred or taken
from the Scriptures is… do they line up with the whole of the Scriptures? If they do, then we can
take a really serious look into them. But when they disregard one iota of Scripture, we must
think twice.
Shaul in speaking to Festus before going to Rome, said this in his defense of the
Scripture, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to
small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say
should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the
dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23).
I highlight the mentioned passage here because everything Shaul said came from the
prophets and Moshe, which has been disregarded throughout history. Is what we believe
contradicting one passage in the Scripture? If so, we should think about it.
Now that we have spoken on these flawed theories, what does the Scripture tell us? Let
us turn to Isaiah where he writes in what’s called the forbidden chapter in Judaism,
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for
he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had
done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
6
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the
transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
All the types, some of the shadows, and a majority of Messianic prophecies in the
Tanakh culminated at Calvary when Messiah Yeshua “suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1
Peter 3:18).9
In short, the death of Yeshua on the Cross at Calvary, prophesied to us through the
prophets, gave us through His blood shed, forgiveness of our sins. His death atoned for us. And
if we accept it, and believe it, and put our belief in it into action through our works, it will
transform our life, because we will live out our lives in the manner that is worthy to walk as He
walked. His atonement is the ultimate act of love for Hashems creation.
I leave you with this passage from John in 1 John 4:10, “Here is what love is: not that we
have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the kapparah (propitiation) for our
sins.”
Blessings and Shalom.
Followed by the Aaronic benediction in both Hebrew and English translation.
9 “Atonement: The Meaning and Message of the Cross,” ApostolicFaith.org, Mar. 16, 2020, accessed
Feb. 11, 2024, https://www.apostolicfaith.org/the-apostolic-faith/atonement-the-meaning-and-message-
of-the-cross.
7
Bibliography
“Atonement: The Meaning and Message of the Cross.” ApostolicFaith.org. Mar. 16, 2020.
Accessed Feb. 11, 2024.
https://www.apostolicfaith.org/the-apostolic-faith/atonementthe-meaning-and-
message-of-the-cross.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2013.
Morrison, Stephen D. “7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized,” SDMorrison.org. N.D.
Accessed Feb. 10, 2024. https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-
atonementsummarized/.
Rochford, James M. “1. Example Theory (or the Socinian View),” Evidenceunseen.com. 2023.
Accessed Feb. 10, 2024. https://www.evidenceunseen.com/christ/1-example-theory-
orthe-socinian-view/.
Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. “The Moral Influence View: How are we saved? What is the moral
influence view of the Cross?.” Adventistbibleresearch.org. Dec. 31, 2007. Accessed Feb.
9, 2024. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/the-moral-influence-
view/.
Rosenbaum M. and A.M. Silbermann, trans. Rashi on Leviticus 17:11 in Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's Commentary. London,
England: Shapiro, Vallentine and Co., 1934. Sefaria.org. Accessed Feb. 9, 2024.
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Leviticus.17.11.1?lang=bi&with=about&lang 2=en.
Strauss, Lehman. “The Atonement of Christ,” Bible.org. June 2, 2004. Accessed Feb. 9, 2024.
https://bible.org/article/atonement-christ.
8
