 This is a continuation of my previous presentation. Again, we were discussing the reader's guide to the Bible, and I pointed out that it is my belief that what I'm trying to do, what the Jewish teachers throughout history are trying to do, is trying to help you see the direct message that's inherent in the Bible. And what the Christian missionaries, consciously or unconsciously, are trying to do is to prevent you from seeing that message. They're creating confusion, they're creating smoke screens, which are preventing you from seeing that message. Let's discuss atonement. I asked four questions. I asked, why does the Bible not come out straight and say that there is no atonement, there is no atonement, there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood? This is such a foundational principle for Christianity. Why does the Jewish Bible never say that explicitly? Another question that I asked is, why is Leviticus 16, the chapter which deals with the day of atonement, not introduced as if this is going to be addressing our need for getting right with God? It's introduced as, by the author of the Bible, as when is the appropriate time and the appropriate method and the appropriate ritual for the high priest to enter into the Holy of Holies? Another question I asked is, where do the Bibles say that sacrifices, the blood sacrifices of Leviticus point to something bigger and better? And finally I pointed out that in the book of Proverbs twice, the prophet tells us that the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination before God, which gives us to understand that a person has to change his standing, his status, from wicked to righteous before he brings that blood offering. Now Dr. Brown responded to each of these points, but before we get to the specific responses, he made some general points. And let's focus on those general points. One point Dr. Brown says, he says, well I could throw, he's talking about that first question, why does the Bible not explicitly say there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood? He says he can throw that question right back at me. Why does the Bible not say that there is an oral law? That's one point. Another point he says, he claims that Leviticus 16 does say that when the nation needs atonement, this is the ritual to follow. He tells us yes, the Bible doesn't say explicitly there is no atonement. There is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood, but that is the correct deduction that emerges from between the lines of the Bible from the books of Leviticus and that speak about the temple offerings. Finally Dr. Brown says, he challenges me, he says, show me where the Bible says that you can have cleansing and atonement without substitutionary sacrifices without a temple. So before we respond, let's set the biblical record straight. Leviticus 16 does not say when the nation needs atonement, this is the ritual to follow. That's not what Leviticus 16 says. What Leviticus 16 says is when the high priest, this is the method that the high priest should enter into the Holy of Holies, then yes, it does tell us that this is a yearly ritual which atones for the sins of the people, but it doesn't introduce the passage as addressing the need to get right with God, not on the individual level, not on the national level. Dr. Brown challenges me, where does it say we can have cleansing and atonement without substitutionary sacrifices and without a temple? I told you already, Deuteronomy 30 is very, very clear. When the blessing of the curse comes upon us, and the curse comes upon us when we disobey God, when we are not right with God, and that's the situation we're actually in now. Right now our status as a nation is wicked, because the fact that we don't have a temple tells us that God is not pleased with us. And Deuteronomy 30 gives us clear instructions how to regain our status as righteous with God and get our temple back, be brought back to the land, and the message is repentance. Dr. Brown tells us that the correct deduction that emerges from Scripture is that there is no atonement without a blood offering. But that was my point. Why is it a deduction? Why didn't the author come and tell it to you straight, just like he tells you, you have to observe the Sabbath dozens of times? Why did he leave it as a deduction? Before you figure out that's actually the wrong deduction, this should be a red flag to tell you, hey, this is not as important, it's not as emphatic as the Christian missionaries trying to make it with the weight that the missionaries investing this concept. Let's focus on another argument. Dr. Brown says he can throw that question right back at me. Why does the Scriptures not say that there is an oral law? Now before I answer that question, what is Dr. Brown trying to say? Is he trying to say that two wrongs make a right? Is he trying to say that it's an invalid question to ask? I shouldn't be asking this question. Why does the Scripture not say explicitly that there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood? It's a valid question. It's also a valid question. Why does the Scripture not say that there is an oral law? And I address that at length in my writings, to counsel my nation, supplement the contra-brown. If Dr. Brown has a response to what I've written, I'd be more than pleased to know what it is and we could take the question and the discussion further. But to just repeat the same question doesn't get us any further in the discussion. Let's approach some of the other points that Dr. Brown made. Dr. Brown claims that the... I asked the question, why does the Bible not tell us that the biblical sacrifices point to something bigger and better? So Dr. Brown quoted Isaiah 53 where it tells us that the suffering servant of the Lord is to see his soul as an asham. Asham is... Dr. Brown seems to be reading this as this is a reference to the asham sacrifice in Leviticus, to the guilt offering of Leviticus. And here the Bible is telling us that the substitutionary or the vicarious atonement of the servant is somehow a representation or a fulfillment of the asham of Leviticus. Dr. Brown, I'm sorry you're dead wrong. The word asham in Isaiah 53 is not a reference back to the asham sacrifice in Leviticus. It simply means an offering that expresses and acknowledges guilt that's used throughout Scripture to describe even in the book of Leviticus itself to describe money which is given as acknowledgement of guilt or other offerings that are not substitutionary atonement. That's the context and that's the meaning that it has in Isaiah 53. Dr. Brown also tells us that Rabbi Beryl Wein says that the Jewish people saw their suffering in exile as a fulfillment and somehow some replacement to the sacrifices of Leviticus. But my question wasn't about Rabbi Beryl Wein. My question was about, that's a distraction. My question was about the author of Scripture. Why did the author of Scripture not say that himself? In fact, by the way, if you want to tell me that when the Bible says the word asham and your understanding it as a reference back to the sacrifices in Leviticus and that is a valid way of saying that the sacrifice they're pointing to something then you should acknowledge that Psalm 51 verse 19 which says the sacrifices of the Lord are a broken heart that the sacrifices are pointing to repentance. Now in the book of Proverbs, I pointed out that the sacrifices of the wicked are abomination before God. And Dr. Brown says, of course, we believe in repentance and I know that Dr. Brown believes in repentance. The difference between me and him is that we have different definitions of repentance. My definition of repentance is the biblical definition of repentance which is the definition provided by Deuteronomy 30 turning back to the law of Moses which includes obeying God, whatever God commanded including the blood sacrifices when and where God commanded us to bring them. That's a direct message of God about getting right with God. But according to Dr. Brown, repentance and blood sacrifices work hand in hand. One is invalid without the other. According to the Bible, repentance comes first. God is not interested in your blood sacrifices. He's not interested in your temple even if you don't have repentance as a nation. Like I mentioned, our standing is right now without a temple wicked. And in order to get right with God we need repentance. That's open teaching of the Bible and the repentance will be accepted without any blood sacrifices. The repentance will bring us back into God's favor and then we will have the blood sacrifices of Leviticus of Ezekiel brought back as God promised. So now that we put Dr. Brown's rhetoric aside we can just go back to the same questions. Why does the Bible not tell us explicitly that there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood? Why is this a deduction? Something that God left to the Christian theologians? Why didn't he say it explicitly? If it's as foundational as the Christian theologian makes it to be why didn't he say it explicitly? Why is Leviticus 16 which is supposed to be so foundational on atonement not introduced as a teaching on our need to get right with God? And those passages which are introduced as a teaching about getting right with God, namely Deuteronomy 30 Ezekiel 33 point to repentance. What does the Bible say? Not Dr. Brown, not Rabbi Wine. What does the Bible say that the biblical sacrifices of Leviticus point to something bigger and better? And finally Proverbs chapter 15 verse 8, 21 verse 27. What do they say where it says that the offerings of the wicked are abomination before God? How is a wicked person who wants to bring an offering supposed to change his standing without an offering? Because he can't bring that offering because he's wicked. What is he going to do now? And it's obvious that the message of the Bible is first repentance, then blood offerings. Let's move on to my third point. And again, I simply pointed out a contradiction in Dr. Brown's presentation. When it comes to the miracles of the Messiah, Dr. Brown says that my monadies who say the Messiah doesn't necessarily have to perform miracles, it must be his bias against Jesus why would he ever come to such a conclusion? And when Dr. Brown, and he says this, no problem. When it comes to the sacrifices, the return of the sacrificial system in the messianic era, Dr. Brown tells us, since there's only so few prophecies in the Bible that teach us about that, then it's possible to interpret them on a non-literal, it could be literal, it doesn't have to be literal, he minimizes the significance of the sacrifices. And my point was, how could the sacrifices be insignificant? How can you use that standard to minimize and downplay the sacrifices and not apply the same standard when it comes to the miracles of the Messiah? Dr. Brown gave us a slew of verses and I demonstrated some other verses at a simple point. Read the Bible from cover to cover. You can read the Bible from cover to cover and at no point will the author explicitly tell you that if you see someone healing a blind person, that's how you're going to know that he's a Messiah. But when you're going to read the Bible from cover to cover, it will be pretty clear to you that in the messianic era, the sacrifice will be brought back to the Jerusalem temple. Let's recap. In my previous presentation, I appealed to you, the audience, read Scripture as a Jew would have read Scripture before Jesus appeared on the scene, without rabbinic commentary, without Christian missionary commentary. Just read the Bible itself. And Dr. Brown wasn't happy with my proposal. He said, well, if you would read the Bible before Jesus appeared on the scene, you would never expect an oral law. He says, well, now that the Messiah has come, we don't have to speculate. One second. Why doesn't he like my proposal? What's wrong with it? All I'm saying is read the Bible. Why is he calling reading the Bible speculation? And doesn't he realize that it's circular reasoning to say, well, the Messiah came and we don't have to speculate? The discussion we're having is that man that Dr. Brown is pointing to, is he the Messiah or not? So what do you mean we don't have to speculate? Read the Bible is not speculating. Dr. Brown tells us we should appeal to God and ask God to open our eyes. Of course, no one could read the Bible without appealing to God our prayer. But when God is talking to you and when you read the Bible, God is talking to you. Listen, that's all I'm asking. Just remain clear message of the Bible. I'll just finish with one thought. God is the God of truth. And when you're asking honest questions, when you're asking honest questions, questions that sit well with your sensitivity to truth, you are closer to the God of truth than if you're giving yourself bad answers that don't sit well with your sense of honesty. May the God of truth be with you every step of your journey.