Leviticus and Jesus

[JairCrawford]

This is a bit of a follow up thread to my old Yahweh and Yeshua comparison and contrast thread, and in a way a companion to the Did Jesus abolish the law thread. In this thread though I want to specifically look at some of the laws in Leviticus and compare to Jesus' teachings and actions regarding said laws, and have a discussion on that.

Now, to cover some basics from the start:

1. We know that Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.

2. Jesus does instruct His followers to listen to the Pharisees, but to follow what they preach, and not what they do because they were hypocrites. (This is an important point I want to hit on because to me it's unclear whether here Jesus is truly advocating a strict adherence to the Levitical laws, or if this is more of a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" type teaching, where He doesn't necessarily agree with Caesar but acknowledges that we do need to submit to those in authority as an example of submission to the Father.)

3. Similarly to the above, Jesus does instruct a man that He healed to go to the priests and perform the ritual sacrifice.

4. In contrast, to all of the above, Jesus forbids the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. (This is significant and cannot be brushed aside for if we are to believe that Jesus advocates and condoned following the Levitical laws to a tee, then in order to be directly in submission to what YHWH commanded, He would have had to have had her put to death. But this is not what happens.)

So as we look over the basics that we know, we see that when we get to point 4 we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum, because He ends up doing the exact opposite of what the Levitical law requires. Of course a common solution given to this would be that He advocated the law before He set the new covenant, but that seems to be on a whim when Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. If anything the cross would start the new covenant.

I'd like to know your thoughts.

 

[Nehemiah6]

...He ends up doing the exact opposite of what the Levitical law requires... I'd like to know your thoughts.

1. Since Jesus Himself gave the Law to Moses, there is no way that He would violate His own laws.

2. You seem to be forgetting that Christ twice wrote something on the ground with His finger, but we do not know what it is. If anything, He was spelling out the strict terms and conditions of the Law for the accusers, so that they would understand that they were not fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Law, therefore He would not be taking any action.

3. The New Covenant has absolutely nothing to do with this, since Christ was operating strictly under the Old Covenant until His crucifixion. He would be the last person to violate the Old Covenant, but since He is God, He reinterpreted many of those commandments to draw out their spiritual content and their higher meaning. He did not destroy them but filled them full (hence fulfilled).

 

[JairCrawford]

1. Since Jesus Himself gave the Law to Moses, there is no way that He would violate His own laws.

2. You seem to be forgetting that Christ twice wrote something on the ground with His finger, but we do not know what it is. If anything, He was spelling out the strict terms and conditions of the Law for the accusers, so that they would understand that they were not fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Law, therefore He would not be taking any action.

3. The New Covenant has absolutely nothing to do with this, since Christ was operating strictly under the Old Covenant until His crucifixion. He would be the last person to violate the Old Covenant, but since He is God, He reinterpreted many of those commandments to draw out their spiritual content and their higher meaning. He did not destroy them but filled them full (hence fulfilled).

I always imagined Him writing out the sins the Pharisees committed as they all walked away embarrassed, but you could be onto something there. What He wrote in the sand specifically will remain a mystery for now.

If He was indeed reinterpreting the laws, then would that not indeed be an equivalent to an erasure, or at least an alteration of His own laws? The law in Leviticus specifically commands stoning in this instance. What He did was much more bold than a reinterpretation, surely.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If He was indeed reinterpreting the laws, then would that not indeed be an equivalent to an erasure, or at least an alteration of His own laws? The law in Leviticus specifically commands stoning in this instance. What He did was much more bold than a reinterpretation, surely.

In this case I do not believe that Jesus was reinterpreting anything. Rather He was REINFORCING the terms and conditions of the Law (which the accusers had failed to apply).

Here is what the Law says (Lev 20:10): And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

So when the scribes and the Pharisees approached Christ, they violated this law by failing to bring the adulterer (the man) along with the woman, so that both could be stoned to death.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that some of the accusers themselves may have been guilty, and therefore should have also been presented, along with the women with whom they committed adultery. So in effect, there could have been a mass stoning. Instead, everyone slunk away.

However, in the Sermon on the Mount we see Christ elevating the Law to a more spiritual understanding (Mt 5:27-30).

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee [cause thee to sin], pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee [cause thee to sin], cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

[JairCrawford]

I would say that is a very unique interpretation. The idea that if the man had been present and everything done on the dot according to the law, that Jesus would have carried out the stoning is a very bold interpretation. I think this is the first I've heard of such an interpretation, which is not to say it is invalid at all. But, I do want to call a few things into question. Had this been the case, would it not make more sense for Jesus to say something along the lines of "where is the man? Let the man come forth so that the law is properly carried out."? But He didn't say that. He let them a slink away as He wrote after saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This, to me, implies a much different motivation be Jesus.

The sermon on the mount took everything to a higher spiritual level, absolutely! More than anything, the sermon on the mount shows us just how hopelessly unfeasible it would be to earn our way into Heaven, because nobody can physically submit to those standards. That being said, the message, and the content of the sermon is still very different from Leviticus.

 

[Nehemiah6]

But, I do want to call a few things into question. Had this been the case, would it not make more sense for Jesus to say something along the lines of "where is the man? Let the man come forth so that the law is properly carried out."? But He didn't say that.

How do we know if this was not the very question written on the ground, along with Lev. 20:10? And how do we know that instead of " the man", Christ wrote "All the men and women who have similarly sinned among this group?" Since we do not know (and the Holy Spirit withheld that from us deliberately) then we must conclude that since Christ was "made UNDER THE LAW" (Gal 4:4) it would be impossible for Him to violate the Law in any manner. Hence Christ could say to His enemies "Which of you accuses me of sin?"

He let them a slink away as He wrote after saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This, to me, implies a much different motivation be Jesus.

No the motive remained the same. Since Jesus knew each and every heart, He was implying that there were many in that crowd who had sinned similarly, therefore all the sinners and their sinning women should have come forward at the same time. Since no one there was willing to be stoned, they slunk away, and so the woman could not be lawfully judged or punished. Therefore she was dismissed and told to go and sin no more.

You may or may not be aware but the critics and the modern version have tried to expunge this incident from Scripture, claiming that it is spurious. However that is a total lie, since there is sufficient documentary evidence that the Pericope de Adultera (or Pericope Adulterae) -- John 7:53-8:11 -- is a genuine passage of Scripture. Both the internal and external evidence prove this to be the case.

 

[JairCrawford]

I am aware of what the skeptics think of that passage, yes. I actually like to use their own logic against them. I typically say that since it evidently "wasn't in the original narrative" according to their logic, and since some of the early church disagreed on it being canon because they were afraid that passage 'sent the wrong message about hyper grace', that it actually increases the credibility of the account due to the issue of embarrassment. It is likely very well preserved through oral tradition.

Back to the main topic at hand though. I'm just, not sure there is enough evidence within the gospels themselves that Jesus actually would have done that. Keep in mind I'm trying to take what He said at face value in my current reading, and try to remove any church teaching bias as I read it. There is not enough internal evidence within the account itself to suggest that Jesus would have had all guilty parties stoned otherwise.

And if we dig deeper into the meat of Leviticus, it starts to sound even more absurd. Do you really believe that Jesus would have advocated burning the priests daughter to death if she was caught in prostitution? Or that He truly believed a woman was twice as unclean after bearing a daughter as opposed to a son? Or that certain sacrifices were put on the altar for YHWH because YHWH needed to 'eat them' for sustenance? That last one sounds particularly pagan, I know, but that is all found in Leviticus. And nowhere do we ever find Jesus teaching or condoning such practices.

 

[JairCrawford]

[TABLE="width: 300"]
[TR]
[TD="class: v1Col"]In all future generations, none of your descendants who has any defect will qualify to offer food to his God.
Lev. 21:17 NLT[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Since he has a defect, he may not approach the altar to offer food to his God.
Lev. 21:21 NLT

Usually people question why the disabled are singled out and considered unclean by God in these verses (something that Jesus NEVER did, I might add. His whole ministry focused on the least of these), but we miss perhaps an even more important question here. Why are the Israelites giving "food" to God? And why is God giving them instructions on how to do so here? We know from later in scripture that God does not need food. The idea that the gods are fed by sacrifices comes from Canaanite paganism as well as Mesopotamian paganism even earlier so it comes to no surprise to me that Jesus never included this in His teachings.

Or are we speculating that He did?

I am genuinely wondering here, not trying to be hard. I'm trying to understand as best I can.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I am aware of what the skeptics think of that passage, yes. I actually like to use their own logic against them. I typically say that since it evidently "wasn't in the original narrative" according to their logic, and since some of the early church disagreed on it being canon because they were afraid that passage 'sent the wrong message about hyper grace', that it actually increases the credibility of the account due to the issue of embarrassment. It is likely very well preserved through oral tradition.

That's sound reasonable and we're on the same page here.

Back to the main topic at hand though. I'm just, not sure there is enough evidence within the gospels themselves that Jesus actually would have done that. Keep in mind I'm trying to take what He said at face value in my current reading, and try to remove any church teaching bias as I read it. There is not enough internal evidence within the account itself to suggest that Jesus would have had all guilty parties stoned otherwise.

Yes, we have to keep church teaching out of this since the Old Covenant was fully in force at that time. So what we see in the Gospels is that Christ teaches the ordinary people to hear and do what is taught out the the Law of Moses by the scribes and Pharisees, who "sit in Moses seat", but to avoid their hypocrisy. So that clearly establishes that Jesus of Nazareth would uphold every jot and tittle of the Law.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Mt 23:1-3).

And if we dig deeper into the meat of Leviticus, it starts to sound even more absurd. Do you really believe that Jesus would have advocated burning the priests daughter to death if she was caught in prostitution? Or that He truly believed a woman was twice as unclean after bearing a daughter as opposed to a son? Or that certain sacrifices were put on the altar for YHWH because YHWH needed to 'eat them' for sustenance? That last one sounds particularly pagan, I know, but that is all found in Leviticus. And nowhere do we ever find Jesus teaching or condoning such practices.

Whatever may be our opinion of Leviticus, we should never forget that Jesus Himself was the Lawgiver -- not Moses. So everything recorded in Leviticus is from God, not man. Our duty is to try and understand the spiritual significance of all these items (which would be become rather cumbersome here).

Bottom Line: It is God who laid down the law regarding adulterers and adulteresses. Had the scribes and Pharisees followed it to the letter (including their own sins) Jesus would have definitely upheld His own law.

 

[Nehemiah6]

[TABLE="width: 300"]
[TR]
[TD="class: v1Col"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I am genuinely wondering here, not trying to be hard. I'm trying to understand as best I can.

JC,
Had you quoted from the KJB and maintained the entire context of this verse (Lev 21:16-24) it would have made perfect sense.

1. Just as God required all the animal sacrifices to be without spot or blemish, He demanded that every priest who entered the Holy Place be without any physical defect whatsoever.

2. Every sacrificial animal was a type of Christ -- the Lamb of God. Since Jesus Himself is without spot or blemish, it was fitting that this lesson should be taught to Israel in anticipation of the sinless Son of God.

3. Every priest was also a type of Christ -- the High Priest after the order of Mechizedek. Once again, because Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, it was fitting that every priest who approached the Holy Place be without blemish. Once again a lesson for all Israel concerning Christ as the Divine High Priest.

4. When you read that it was "the LORD" who gave Moses these instructions, you can safely substitute "the Lord Jesus Christ" and you would not be wrong. Jesus is God.

 

[JairCrawford]

JC,
Had you quoted from the KJB and maintained the entire context of this verse (Lev 21:16-24) it would have made perfect sense.

1. Just as God required all the animal sacrifices to be without spot or blemish, He demanded that every priest who entered the Holy Place be without any physical defect whatsoever.

2. Every sacrificial animal was a type of Christ -- the Lamb of God. Since Jesus Himself is without spot or blemish, it was fitting that this lesson should be taught to Israel in anticipation of the sinless Son of God.

3. Every priest was also a type of Christ -- the High Priest after the order of Mechizedek. Once again, because Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, it was fitting that every priest who approached the Holy Place be without blemish. Once again a lesson for all Israel concerning Christ as the Divine High Priest.

4. When you read that it was "the LORD" who gave Moses these instructions, you can safely substitute "the Lord Jesus Christ" and you would not be wrong. Jesus is God.

I understand a bit more the spiritual and prophetic significance of those bringing sacrifices being clean before YHWH. I only said that that's the part most people bring up in questioning. But my main question is the whole "food for his God" part. Literally translated "food for Elohim" in the Hebrew. That's very reminiscent of the pagan practices of the Canaanites around them, and later in Scripture (Isaiah, for instance), the very idea of God needing food is completely rejected. Which is why it makes sense to me why Jesus never taught that in His teachings, but I still wonder, why ever put that in the law in the first place?

 

[Nehemiah6]

But my main question is the whole "food for his God" part. Literally translated "food for Elohim" in the Hebrew.

This is the reason why I recommend and use the KJB exclusively. It is not "food for his God" but "the bread of his God", which has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING (and the Hebrew says precisely the same thing. Check it out).

No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. (Lev 21:21,22).

So the blemished priest must not OFFER the bread of his God, but he could eat it (and only the priests were allowed to eat the shew bread). The shewbread was presented as an offering to God, but eaten by the priests. Therefore there is absolutely no pagan connotation here. But do you understand what this bread signifies?

Jesus said that He is "the Bread of Life", and He contrasted Himself with the manna in the wilderness. In exactly the same way, the shewbread was a type of Christ, and since the priests were also a type of Christ, it was imperative that they be without spot or blemish when offering this bread to God.

When Christ made Himself an offering for sin, He -- as the Divine High Priest -- also presented Himself to God. So He was both priest and offering. Do you see the depth of this?

 

[JairCrawford]

This is the reason why I recommend and use the KJB exclusively. It is not "food for his God" but "the bread of his God", which has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING (and the Hebrew says precisely the same thing. Check it out).

No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. (Lev 21:21,22).

So the blemished priest must not OFFER the bread of his God, but he could eat it (and only the priests were allowed to eat the shew bread). The shewbread was presented as an offering to God, but eaten by the priests. Therefore there is absolutely no pagan connotation here. But do you understand what this bread signifies?

Jesus said that He is "the Bread of Life", and He contrasted Himself with the manna in the wilderness. In exactly the same way, the shewbread was a type of Christ, and since the priests were also a type of Christ, it was imperative that they be without spot or blemish when offering this bread to God.

When Christ made Himself an offering for sin, He -- as the Divine High Priest -- also presented Himself to God. So He was both priest and offering. Do you see the depth of this?

Just looked it up in the Hebrew. On my app it gives me Strongs concordance and Gesenius' Lexicon, both list food as the primary definition of the word "lechem", with bread and grain listed as secondary definitions. But in certain contexts bread does fit better than food, and the KJV does indeed translate it to bread far more than food, so I can see why translations differ on that. If it is indeed bread, and not food, then that would make much more contextual sense since it would then be a type shadow for the body of Christ.

I still have to admit I'm scratching my head on why having a daughter kept a woman unclean twice as long than having a son, and I don't think I have ever met anyone who could wrap their heads around commands to burn anyone to death.

 

[mcubed]

Of course a common solution given to this would be that He advocated the law before He set the new covenant, but that seems to be on a whim when Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. If anything the cross would start the new covenant.

I'd like to know your thoughts.

If Y-shua is the same yesterday, today and forever, why did He change His mind about the Word He wrote? That contradicts itself.... Or did G-d not write the Torah!?! Or is Y-shua not G-d and did not know?

 

[Hizikyah]

I still have to admit I'm scratching my head on why having a daughter kept a woman unclean twice as long than having a son, and I don't think I have ever met anyone who could wrap their heads around commands to burn anyone to death.

Scientifically it takes a more out of a woman to birth a female child than a male child, I believe it is because they are creating a life that can create life, exactly how IDK.

and about buring to death, Yahshua?Jesus will be the catalyst of this when He returns, it was a spiritual fortelling of this in the Law:

2 Peter/Kepha 3, "1 This is now, beloved ones, the second letter I write to you, in which I stir up your sincere mind, to remember 2 the words previously spoken by the set-apart prophets, and of the command of the Master and Saviour, spoken by your emissaries, 3 knowing this first: that mockers shall come in the last days with mocking, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all continues as from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they choose to have this hidden from them: that the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by the Word of Yah, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 And the present heavens and the earth are treasured up by the same Word, being kept for fire, to a day of judgment and destruction of wicked men. 8 But, beloved ones, let not this one matter be hidden from you: that with יהוה one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 יהוה is not slow in regard to the promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of יהוה shall come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with intense heat, and the earth and the works that are in it shall be burned up. 11 Seeing all these are to be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be in set-apart (holy) behaviour and reverence,”
​

Malachi/Malakyah 4:1-4, “For look, the day shall come, burning like a furnace, and all the proud, and every wrongdoer shall be stubble. And the day that shall come shall burn them up,” said יהוה of hosts, “which leaves to them neither root nor branch. 2 “But to you who fear My Name the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings. And you shall go out and leap for joy like calves from the stall. 3 “And you shall trample the wrongdoers, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day that I do this,” said יהוה of hosts. 4 “Remember the Torah of Mosheh, My servant, which I commanded him in Ḥorĕḇ for all Yisra’ĕl – laws and right-rulings."​

 

[JairCrawford]

Hizikyah, great points, as always. I'll have to do some research on the whole giving birth to a female being harder. That's the first I've heard that,but definitely worth looking into.

As for the burning command, yes, I can see how it foreshadows propheticaly to those words of Christ. However, that doesn't make a literal reading of the law any less disturbing. And the real question here is whether Jesus, during His ministry, would have actively condoned such a thing.

 

[JairCrawford]

Ultimately, for me right now, I am trying to determine what the most appropriate interpretation of Leviticus (and even Numbers and Deuteronomy) should be, given comparison to Jesus' teachings.

I am reading (and you all are very helpful in helping me see them) more and more type shadows and prophetic foreshadowing to Jesus in Leviticus now, so, they are clearly not to be disregarded to the modern reader. What I question is whether a literal reading of what was demanded in the Law is a correct interpretation or not, because I still run into many issues trying to go with a literal interpretation.

For instance, if YHWH subjected Israel to that Law literally, then it seems to defeat the purpose of all the forshadowings of Christ within it because any foreshadowing to Jesus is simultaneously a foreshadowing to grace, which it would seem the Israelites didn't really have much of.

Another problem would be, let's say, if the Law was the only way to truly have remission of sins, then only Israel would have had any chance of being 'saved' (however that worked back then) for a very long time. It wouldn't be until Jonah that any missionary work would start. Knowing Jesus, can we assume that for the time God was -only- concerned about Israel and nobody else?

And then when we relate all of this to Jesus' teachings, I understand a quickness to compare the sermons on the mount and plain to the Law, however, it is very clear that Jesus is teaching how it is impossible for any mortal to keep these laws. It simply cannot be done. The disciples and apostles would come to understand this, as does Paul, which reflects in all of their writings.

So so how can this all be reconciled? How can the Law foreshadow grace if the Israelites were literally under the brutal letter of the Law? How could they have stood a chance? How could anyone under such circumstances?

 

[Nehemiah6]

...I still run into many issues trying to go with a literal interpretation.

Christians should not try to over-think or second guess the laws of the Old Covenant. They are given in very plain language and were meant to be applied TO THE LETTER.

For instance, if YHWH subjected Israel to that Law literally, then it seems to defeat the purpose of all the forEshadowings of Christ within it because any foreshadowing to Jesus is simultaneously a foreshadowing to grace, which it would seem the Israelites didn't really have much of.

Not really. You will notice that grace and the shed blood of innocent animals who were without spot or blemish was consistently connected throughout the Torah. And so grace and the Cross (the shed blood) are consistently connected in the New Testament. God could not possibly offer His grace and mercy to sinners without the sin question being addressed. In the OT it was the animal sacrifices. In the NT it is the Lamb of God. Same principle.

Another problem would be, let's say, if the Law was the only way to truly have remission of sins, then only Israel would have had any chance of being 'saved' (however that worked back then) for a very long time. It wouldn't be until Jonah that any missionary work would start. Knowing Jesus, can we assume that for the time God was -only- concerned about Israel and nobody else?

We should simply rest in the fact that the glory of God and the reality of God were already presented to all humanity through His creation.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world... (Ps 19:1-4)...Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse... (Rom 1:19,20).

And then when we relate all of this to Jesus' teachings, I understand a quickness to compare the sermons on the mount and plain to the Law, however, it is very clear that Jesus is teaching how it is impossible for any mortal to keep these laws. It simply cannot be done. The disciples and apostles would come to understand this, as does Paul, which reflects in all of their writings.

The Sermon on Mount is focused on the moral and spiritual laws of God (the Ten Commandments). And yes, it is clear that from Christ's teachings, no man can keep those laws perfectly, and unless we are as perfect as God, nothing less will be accepted. Therefore the sinner is driven to the Savior, and justified by grace through faith.

But we have been discussing all the other laws, and the law for adultery was a CIVIL LAW. The law about the priests was a CEREMONIAL LAW connected with sacrifices. There was nothing impossible about obeying these laws.

 

[JairCrawford]

So the law had nothing to do with the salvation of the Israelites, but it was a mixture of civil and ceremonial laws that foreshadowed Christ? That I can start to wrap my head around a bit.

 

[Hizikyah]

Hizikyah, great points, as always. I'll have to do some research on the whole giving birth to a female being harder. That's the first I've heard that,but definitely worth looking into.

As for the burning command, yes, I can see how it foreshadows propheticaly to those words of Christ. However, that doesn't make a literal reading of the law any less disturbing. And the real question here is whether Jesus, during His ministry, would have actively condoned such a thing.

Science may not be able to fully measure the giving birth to a female being more taxing, however I trust Yah's word and while it does not explicitly state that it seems right to me, but Im open to other views. Think about how complex the human body is, science still can not cure some common aliments and is clueless on many bodily issues. If you find anything interesting concening this I would like to hear it.

He mosy likely by every account we have of Him would not have, however He will when He returns, literally He will, not easy or soothing but true. Remember He came as a Lamb and returns as a Lion, to lose sight of this is to ignore who the Messiah really is.