Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Pray for Derek Leman!

Some things just never cease to amaze me!  

We've all read 1 Corinthians 5:7 that says Yeshua, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed.  And we've all read Ephesians 5 which says that Yeshua gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to G-d.

But Derek Leman says:

(1)  "Yeshua’s death was NOT an offering…His death was an execution,"; [emphasis added]

(2)  "Yeshua was NOT a human sacrifice." [emphasis added]

His explanation?  He says "…is the sacrifice of Messiah a literal idea? I want to suggest it is a metaphor…"


This is an embarrassment to all of us in the Messianic movement.  I don't know what else to say.  You can see his post for yourself HERE.

No, wait a second!  I do know exactly what to say!  Derek is 100% WRONG.  Yeshua's sacrificial atonement was 100% real--the realest thing that ever happened.   


  1. Derek is just out-hustling the hustlers.

    All this was predicted long ago. In their zeal to become a part of mainstream Judaism, the BE crowed, first are getting rid of the gentiles in their midst, and the second step is to throw Yeshua under the bus.

    So what else is new?

    1. I'm beginning to see your wisdom more and more, Dan. For a long time, I thought you were just overstating the matter.

  2. I think you are misunderstanding him, because I just read his post, and I didn't see anything I disagreed with, surprisingly.

    He is not suggesting that Messiah did not literally die for our sins, but Yeshua was not sacrificed like a lamb, or any sacrifice for that matter, the sacrifice language is used metaphorically, for a relevant and relational understanding of what happened and what it can be compared too, but it cannot be taken literally.

    Some people have a hard time understanding metaphors, do you remember the anonymous person posting a little while ago, he was rendering clearly metaphorical passages as if they were literal or they were going to literally happen, its bad exegesis.

    Yeshua was not literally a lamb, even though he is called "the Lamb of God", instead he was literally a human being.

    This basis of not being able to distinguish between a literal reading and metaphorical reading has lead to some amazingly skewed interpretations and doctrines of the bible.

    1. Was it metaphor to say that Yeshua was a sacrifice?

    2. According to the Torah and the literal meaning, yes... because God does not approve of human sacrifice. The only things approved of sacrifice concerning blood was a few select animals and at a specific place in a specific way.

    3. As I understand sacrifice, either it's a sacrifice or it isn't. There's no such thing as a metaphorical sacrifice. Am I wrong? [by the way, Zion, this is a great discussion!]

    4. I wish it was that simple, but one has to ask, by what standard does Yeshua qualify as a sacrifice, where can I read of such? The Torah teaches about animal sacrifices and how they are to be performed, it also speaks of human sacrifice as an abomination, so again, by what standard is Yeshua a literal sacrifice?

      Yeshua is compared to the sacrifices, he is even compared to a lamb, Yeshua was no lamb, he was a human being.

      Paul expresses this metaphor here:

      Romans 12:1
      Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

      Does this mean we go lay our body down on the altar in Jerusalem and light it on fire? I am sure you would agree, that is not what Paul intended, that is because, it is a metaphor.

    5. I'll have to compile some Rabbinic sources on the incident of Isaac's near-sacrifice. There is actually Rabbinic support for the idea that mankind is in need of a mystical human sacrifice.

    6. Sorry that our comments are out of sequence. My last comment was not a response to the one immediately preceding it.

      Paul said to present your body as a "living" sacrifice. This word "living" makes it a metaphor. But some sacrifices are in fact real. Yeshua's death was such a sacrifice. I'll get those Rabbinic sources...

    7. Here we go:

      " 'Judaism does not prohibit the sacrifice of humans'", (Rabbi Soloveitchick, from "On Repentance: The Thought and Oral Discourses of Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, pg. 17)

      And that from Soloveitchik.

      How could he say this? Well, I'm no expert in Rabbinic tradition but there's a running idea that if G-d commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac that there must be a permissible form of human sacrifice.

      A Lamb is a metaphor, sure. I'm not talking about the Lamb metaphor. I'm talking about the fact that a sacrifice, like a field goal, either occurs or does not occur. It is either effectual or not.

      We say that animal sacrifice was (and will again be) effectual in a constructive sense (i.e. as a legal fiction). The true sacrifice is Yeshua. It always was Yeshua and will always be Yeshua.

      Perhaps Dan can help me out here in explaining this.

  3. Hey guys, you are not asking the right questions.

    Here are some:

    1) Yeshua knew that he will be killed, did he knew that it will be for the sake of sacrifice?

    Let's dig up some Scriptures of what He thought about the events?

    1. Good call. I'll start a new post about this after Shabbat. We'll cover all the relevant verses and discuss.

  4. "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

    " God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:"

  5. On his blog Derek asked for people to purchase books for him. I asked him if he will accept a book titled: "Torah for dummies," needless to say he deleted the comment.......

  6. Just found out that he also deleted my two comments from the "slavery" post.

    A deceiver cannot stand against true accusation. Of course as always I challenged his fake "conversion"....

    1. Dan,

      I'd like to echo what Judah said on Facebook and thank you for taking a stand for the gentiles in the movement.

  7. "Torah is not unchanging. Torah is not just what is written, but it is the way the community through tradition and ongoing commentary and conversation come to understand its ways over time." -- Derek Leman on his blog written Jan 5, 2013

    From this statement is it now even clearer why Derek is against "One Torah" as an idea. It rejects HIS definition of Torah. He attacks it as if his definition of Torah is the correct one. It would be impossible for his definition of Torah to be something that everyone would be obligated to do. He isn't speaking of Torah the same way "One Torah" people refer to it.... I don't know why it has taken me so long to see this obvious point.

    1. Ha! He thinks that Rabbinic "conversation" is Torah. Does he not know that Rabbinic theology in the Talmud rejects Yeshua's claims? According to the Talmud, we don't need the salvation offered by Yeshua. According to the Talmud, Yeshua must be delusional or lying about His claims to be equal with G-d. And this---this he says is Torah!

      I think he's a little touched in the head!

      Thank you, anonymous, for the helpful quote!

    2. Anonymous,

      Are you certain of the date of that post? I don't see it on his blog for the date 1/5/13. Did he delete it?

    3. Ah, it's 2/5/13. Here's the link in case anyone is interested: