Note: Elaine the correspondent is fictional, but Karol Joseph is real
and serves on the staff of Jews for Jesus. She can be reached by
e-mail.
Dear Karol,
I didn't tell you everything that was on my mind in the last letter,
because there's a second area where I need some clarification.
It's regarding the blood atonement. Jerry asked me if you had used Leviticus
11 in trying to convince me that blood atonement was needed for atonement
(he really does know a lot about the arguments you guys use) and showed
me several verses to demonstrate that you are wrong, and that there are
numerous other means of atonement found in the Tanakh, not just shedding
of blood (e.g. prayer, repentence, charity, even flour!). He also tried
to make the point that the blood sacrifices were the least important of
the ways of making atonement, especially since they were only for unintentional
sins. I was surprised when we looked in Leviticus, to see that the sacrifices
really were only for unintentional sins.
Jerry also gave me a tape by Tovia Singer on the topic, which I listened
to last night. He made mostly the same points as Jerry, but one thing
that was different was where he pointed out that the sacrificial system
is the only thing that the prophets were constantly degrading. He said
that sacrifice was prominent in the pagan world to appease the gods. The
Jewish people had become obsessed with this whole blood issue, so that
prophets kept saying that God wants other things rather than this. Have
you ever heard of this? It didn't seem quite right to me, and he didn't
really give any scriptures to back up what he was saying, but I thought
I'd ask. Tovia Singer's tape also raised an entirely new question for
me, that you and I have never even talked about. He said that even if
we needed blood atonement, we have never needed the blood of a man. I
must admit that it does sound a bit strange that God would ultimately
want His son, Jesus, to be sacrificed, after repeatedly commanding Israel
not to do as the other nations, who sacrificed their children to the god
Molech.
I hope that you'll have time to again respond.
Sincerely,
Elaine
Dear Elaine,
It was good to hear from you again. Let me begin in responding to your
questions about the atonement, with some background on how the notion
came about in the first place that other means of sacrifice, such as prayer,
repentence, and good deeds, could replace blood sacrifice in the Jewish
faith. No one, not even the great Jewish rabbi Rashi, would disagree that
while the Temple was standing, blood sacrifice was essential. According
to the Talmud, "there is not atonement without the blood" (Yoma
5a, Zebahim 6a, Menahot 93b). By the way, although the anti-missionaries
often accuse Christians of citing Leviticus 17:11 to prove that God required
blood atonement, is actually the rabbis of the Talmud who quoted this
verse in this way.
Remember when we talked back in June about the two main commentaries
on the Talmud, the Tosafot and Rashi? Well, in the Tosafot, the blood
is actually called the "fundamental principle;" Rashi's commentary
would agree, and so would the Encyclopedia Judaica. It was foundational;
the blood sacrifices were the heart and soul of biblical atonement. Read
Leviticus 16 and try to imagine the Day of Atonement without blood sacrifice.
It's really quite a leap to go from the biblical requirement to the rabbinic
practice today, isn't it?
The question of what else besides blood could make atonement really didn't
became a critical issue in Judaism until after 70 C.E., when the Second
Temple was destroyed by the Romans. It's interesting that in the Talmud,
in Sukkah 45a, it says that as the Temple is being destroyed, one of the
sages said, "stupid Romans, while the Temple was standing we could
make atonement for you. Now what will you do?"
In the midst of the crisis and chaos that followed the destruction of
the Temple, Yohanan ben Zakkai (remember him, the father of "Rabbinic
Judaism," who organized the schools at Yavneh?) offered a solution.
He told the people that just as sin was surely followed by punishment,
so repentance would surely be followed by redemption. But how could this
happen without the Temple? Johanan had the answer to this, too; in fact
he had an answer that changed the course of Jewish practice from that
day forward. Read this legend about the great rabbi:
Once as Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai was coming out of Jerusalem, Rabbi
Joshua followed after him, and beheld the Temple in ruins.
"Woe unto us!" Rabbi Joshua cried, "that this place,
the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste."
"My son," Rabban Johanan said to him, "be not grieved;
we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is
acts of lovingkindness, as it is said, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice
(Hos. 6:6)... What then were the acts of lovingkindness in which he
was engaged? He used to outfit the bride... accompany the dead, give
a perutah [coin] to the poor and pray three times a day.1
Yohanan taught that although there could no longer be sacrifices, there
could be prayer and lovingkindness, chesed, and through them, the Jews
might make atonement for their sins. "Just as the Jews needed a redemptive
act of compassion from God, so must they now act compassionately in order
to make themselves worthy of it." 2 In this Yohanan provided an interim
ethic by which Israel could live. No longer would prayer worship be a
supplement to the true cult, it was the true cult!. Over the years at
Yavneh, that's what became incorporated into the Jewish liturgy and practice.
What happened at Yavneh was the recreation of Judaism without the Temple.
Notice, however, that this is not biblical teaching so much as it is
rabbinic teaching, and as we've discussed many times before, that is a
key issue--whether or not the rabbinic teaching, the Oral Torah, is authoritative
or not. As you know, I totally reject the Oral Torah as authoritative,
and I believe that if you were to examine it closely (we can do that together
if you want), you would too. Don't get me wrong, however; I don't mean
to say that just because it's in the rabbinic teachings it's automatically
wrong. For that we need to look more directly at the teachings themselves,
both in the Bible and in the rabbinic literature, e.g. the Talmud, and
we can do that in a moment. First, however, let me challenge you to think
of why the rabbis would ever believe that our God, who commanded sacrifice
to make atonement, would then bring the destruction of the means of atonement
as a judgment on His people, and then require less for the people to make
atonement? Could it be that the rabbis got it wrong? I think so.
With that in mind, let's take a look at some of the specific biblical
citations that I'm sure Jerry gave you to argue that there were other
means of atonement than blood in the Hebrew Bible. But, first let me tackle
an easy issue you raised, because Jerry actually didn't tell you the truth
when he said that the biblical sacrifices were only for unintentional
sins. In all of the verses he did show you, I'm certain you must have
skipped over the following from Leviticus Chapter 6:
Leviticus 6:2-7 "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD
by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in
his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property
and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such
sin that people may do--when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must
return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted
to him, or the lost property he found, or whatever it was he swore falsely
about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to
it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.
And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD,
his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of
the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him
before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he
did that made him guilty."
So, blood sacrifice was needed for all guilt, intentional and unintentional.
Again, go back and read about the Day of Atonement in the Hebrew Bible
and see if the scapegoat carried only the unintentional sins of the people
away; you'll find it was both.
As to the verses regarding the use of other means of atonement, let me
start with the easiest to see: the use of flour as an atonement for sin.
The answer becomes immediately obvious simply by looking at the verse
itelf from Leviticus 5:
Leviticus 5:11-13 "'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or
two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth
of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or
incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the
priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn
it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It
is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him
for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The
rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the
grain offering.'"
As you can see, the use of flour alone wouldn't have made atonement for
sin; it was only effectual when mixed in with the blood sacrifices of
the entire community. The blood sacrifice was what was necessary, the
flour offering allowed the poor person to join in on the communal sacrifice.
As to the other verses that speak of making "atonement" in
ways other than blood, I think in looking at them you'll see that they
generally fall into one of two categories. The first relate to those where
the verse wasn't actually referring to "atonement" in the sense
of forgiveness of sin. Let me explain. The Hebrew word lekapper, that
is often translated as "atone" in many English Bibles, doesn't
always mean that sin is forgiven. It may mean just "remove"
or "wiped away" as in Isaiah 28:18, Your covenant with death
will be annulled (lekapper), your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by, you will be beaten down by it.
Or it may mean "ransom" rather than "atonement money,"
as in Exodus 30:12: "When you take a census of the Israelites to
count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom (kopher)for his life at
the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number
them. In this instance, it wasn't atonement money in the sense that it
bought forgiveness of sin, it was rather a protection from a plague. It's
interesting that this is the verse from which Judaism today derives the
notion of giving charity (money) as a means of making atonement. It is
also interesting that this is the same notion as in the New Testament
when it speaks of Jesus, in Mattew 20:28: "...just as the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a
ransom for many." In Jesus' death on the cross, He made the payment
that prevented God's wrath from falling on those who deserved it (namely
us).
The second category of verses bring us back to Yohanan ben Zakkai, as
we deal with the question of whether prayer and sacrifice can replace
blood sacrifice in atonement. Now I would guess that one of the verses
Jerry showed you included Psalm 51, where King David says in verses 16-17:
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not
take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. What I would
guess he didn't show you was the rest of the psalm, where David continues
in verses 18-19, Psalm 51:18 "In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem. Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your
altar." David, like all the prophets by the way, recognized that
without a right heart attitude all the sacrifices in the world were meaningless.
He wasn't saying that a right heart alone would suffice, but that sacrifices
without a right heart wouldn't either. In fact, this is the core of what
the Bible teaches, that it takes both repentence and sacrifice to receive
forgiveness from God, one without the other simply will not do.
Similarly, other verses that speak of prayer bringing atonement without
explicitly mentioning sacrifices can do so only because the Temple was
standing, and sacrifices were being made. It's a fallacy to think that
people would have to run to the Temple and make a sacrifice every time
they sinned. No, the priests were offering sacrifices daily for the community;
therefore on an individual basis the need would be to have a right heart.
That's why in 1 Kings 8:46-50, King Solomon can ask God to forgive the
people when they turn back to Him and pray:
"When they sin against you--for there is no one who does not sin
--and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who
takes them captive to his own land, far away or near; and if they have
a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent
and plead with you in the land of their conquerors and say, 'We have
sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly'; and if they turn
back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies
who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their
fathers, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built
for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer
and their plea, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who
have sinned against you; forgive all the offenses they have committed
against you, and cause their conquerors to show them mercy;
Notice that the Temple was still standing! Solomon wasn't praying that
when the Temple would not be there, accept their prayers as atonement,
but that coupled with the sacrifices being offered in the Temple, the
repentent cries of the people would be heard and their sin forgiven. If
you want, look up for yourself 2 Chronicles 7:19 and see that God rejected
the Temple in judgment against the people, leaving them with no means
of atonement. That's why Daniel, in chapter 9, is looking toward Jerusalem
and crying. He doesn't have any assurance of the forgiveness of his sins,
the national means of atonement was gone. Because the Temple is detroyed,
there is either no means of atonement for Israel (or anyone else for that
matter), or God has given us the ultimate means of atonement through Jesus.
Before moving on to your final atonement question regarding human sacrifice,
and how that is dealt with in Christ, I simply have to comment on your
saying that Tovia Singer's tape said something to the effect that "....sacrifice
was prominent in the pagan world to appease the gods. The Jewish people
had become obsessed with this whole blood issue, so that prophets kept
saying that God wants other things rather than this..." I was amazed
to hear a Jewish rabbi speak in such a cavalier way about the system that
God clearly established in the Law of Moses. I don't know that it deserves
much more attention than that.
Now lets take just a few minutes to deal with the question of human sacrifice,
and of Jerry saying that God never wanted the blood of a person, only
of a goat or a lamb. Without going into a whole Biblical analysis (we
can do that together in the fall if you want) let me suggest that after
you've read through Leviticus 16, about the Day of Atonement, then turn
to the book of Hebrews, Chapters 9 and 10 in the New Testament, and you'll
see how the Day of Atonement was pointing to the death of Messiah, who
in one act would provide the blood of atonement anad remove our sins once
and for all.
In addition to the biblical analyis, you might be interested to know
that the notion of "the death of the righteous" making atonement
for sin is a very Jewish concept, going all the way back to the binding
of Isaac in Genesis 22, and carried forth in the Law and later in the
rabbinic literature. Look, for example, at Numbers 35:33+ which discusses
the death of the high priest atoning for those who have been guilty of
manslaughter and have run for safety to a City of Refuge. Then in a little
known midrash (Jewish commentary) on this text notes that the high priest
atones because he is at a high level spiritually. So the death of the
righteous is very powerful. This is a concept that has continued in Judaism
to this day, as a way of giving reason to the sensless deaths of "innocent"
people like in the Holocaust, that their death (their blood) made atonement
for sin. And the more righteous the person, like the high priest, the
more powerful their death. So, imagine what the death of the Messiah would
bring! That could atone for the sin of the whole world! And that's exactly
what happened when Jesus died:
1Peter 2:22-24 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in
his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate;
when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself
to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the
tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his
wounds you have been healed.
It's interesting that Peter should be quoting here also from a key messianic
prophecy, that you and I have reviewed many times together, Isaiah 53.
Perhaps you could read that chapter again, and pay special attention to
verse 10: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him
to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,..."
The word for "guilt offering" is the same as would be used in
the Hebrew word, asham used in Leviticus. This Messiah, prophesied by
Isaiah some 700 years before Jesus, would be sacrificed as a guilt offering.
I don't know that you'll ever get a clearer statement of the substitutionary
death of Jesus, whose blood coupled with our repentence, makes the way
for the forgiveness of sin.
Ultimately it is the forgiveness of sin that is at issue. As a believer
in Jesus, I can have the assurance that my sins are forgiven and that
I will spend eternity in heaven with God. Can Judaism say the same? In
the end, can the rabbis assure you that they are right, that atonement
is certain through prayer, repentence and good deeds? Absolutely not!
Just read the legendary account of the end of Yohanan's life. The conclusion
is obvious:
"In his last hours, rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai kept weeping out
loud.
'O master,' his disciples exclaimed, 'O tall pillar, light of the world,
mighty hammer, why art thou weeping?'
He said to them, 'Do I then go to appear before a king of flesh and
blood, whose anger, if he should be angry with me, is but of this world?
and whose chastening, if he should chastise me, is but of this world?
Whom I can, moreover appease with words or bribe with money? Verily,
I go rather to appear before the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One,
blessed be he, whose anger, if he should be angry with me, is of this
world, and the world to come, and whom I cannot appease with words or
bribe with money! Moreover I have before me two roads, one to paradise
and one to Gehenna, and I know not whether he will sentence me to Gehenna
or admit me into Paradise. And of this a verse says, Before him shall
be sentenced all those that go down to the dust, even he that cannot
keep his soul alive (Psalm 22:30) - and should I not weep?" 3
For all the efforts to maintain and preserve Jewish life, at the end
of it the rabbis cannot say even that God will be pleased, let alone whether
or not they will receive eternal life. To have that, you need to accept
Y'shua's sacrifice for your sins. I hope that you'll want to do that even
now.
Sincerely,
Karol
1The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan,
tr. Judah Goldin (Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 34-35. Cf. Wylen,
Stephen M., Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, (Paulist
Press, 1989), p. 175. 2Neusner, Jacob, First Century Judaism
in Crisis, (Abingdon Press, 1975), p. 170. Emphasis in the original. 3Babylonian
Talmud, Berakhot 28b.
