Biblical Jewish faith takes teshuvah (repentance) along with blood sacrifice as both essential for atonement. This topic of blood can seem bizarre or primitive, but it is to teach us the real horror of sin: sin kills. Rather than explain away as unnecessary the principle of blood atonement found in the sacrificial system, we suggest that sacrifices in their function were like promissory notes paid off by Yeshua. All of the pieces were meant to point to something greater than the symbols themselves (and this is true both before and after Yeshua's Coming).
It is in this vein that I am putting up these notes by Sam (with son) in response to a Jews for Judaism article. It was sent by a Jewish friend who in the past has had some great questions about Messianic faith. Since she did not have a specific question this time - the upshot of the email was just "I don't know what to do with this ... Can you respond to it?" - we tried to oblige and just respond to what is said. Sadly, their article 1) misreads the context of Leviticus 17:11, 2) completely misunderstands the point of symbol of (sacrifical system --> Yeshua), 3) argues against a straw man of the Messianic point of view, failing to note, for example, that followers of Yeshua also assert the need for repentance, and 4) gets other non-trivial facts wrong, some of which are noted only briefly (below the jump).
ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11While it is important to note as the writer does that the life of the atoning sacrifice is what is biblically at issue in the prohibition against consuming blood, it is he who fails to take into account the full context of the verse. Moses brings up Lev. 17:11 within the passage as an understood principle immediately following Lev. 16 and the bloody atonement prescribed of Yom Kippur. Whatever one learns in junior high, hopefully by college they understand that a mere paragraph is not always enough for context. Often, in fact, the surrounding passage and indeed the entire book are important. The point of Lev. 17:11 stands.
You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:
"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"
What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.
Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.By saying “a means of atoning for our sins” he misreads the text which says “to make atonement for your souls," minimizing it to refer to merely “a means.” Blood atonement (without faith-repentance) is not a sufficient means, of course; but it is necessary. In every case the author is avoiding the obvious issue of the tabernacle in general and the altar in particular – it was a place of blood sacrifice, constantly and daily. Those contextual details matter as well.
In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47,In Num 31:50, because of the bloodshed of war they are also giving gifts to the tabernacle that will be used there where atonement is made. In each case the items are identified with the tabernacle activity which was a place of bloody sacrifice.
In Num 16, the incense was symbolic for the sacrifice as it was representative of Aaron’s office to make sacrifice. In Exodus 30:15-15, it was the silver money (kesef) that was used in the atoning work in the Tabernacle that they contributed towards and so identified with the atonement made there, and so it was called atonement money. and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls' - the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11.
In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (ie. someone didn't know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31)Agreed; one still had to pay the consequences for intentional sin and repent. But unintentional does not mean unimportant. In fact, unintentionality is involved in all sins, as is ignorance. There’s always an aspect of ignorance in all sin; therefore sacrifice is always necessary for all sin. While Yeshua was being crucified, while they were driving in the nails, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing." As professional executioners they knew very well what they were doing, but they did not know they were crucifying the Messiah. Those who sin consciously are unaware of the impact of the sin upon themselves, in both the sin’s corruption of them and their culpability.
Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?In this case as well, blood is essential for the next verse in Lev 5:12 states that the flour of poor was given “with the offerings of the LORD by fire: it is a sin offering.” The flour was offered upon the altar with the bloody sacrifices - only then was it a sin offering!
"But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering." (Leviticus 5:11)
Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement.
Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn't be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don't have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Maccabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn't allow sacrifices.Remember the sacrifices pointed to something beyond themselves. Even as the Prophets from Moses onward prophesied only of the days of Messiah (Berakhot 34b), the Scriptures are clear that the bulls and goats themselves are not the final atonement (Heb. 10:4), but were given as types or pictures of what was to come. Does that mean we can then disregard the principle of blood atonement as given in Leviticus 17:11? If so, how?
Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).This is incorrect, since the ark top was actually the mercy seat where the atonement blood of Yom Kippur was sprinkled (Leviticus 16:14; Exodus 25:22). So this affirms the principle of blood atonement.
Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.As 1 Kings 8:46-48 states that we “pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name” what this saying is that when out of the land, we had to pray toward the Temple in Jerusalem. This was to identify with the bloody offerings made there for forgiveness. Daniel 6:10 "Daniel …entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God." Why did he pray with his window opened toward Jerusalem? Because Daniel knew his bible. It is a false assumption that in his prayer Daniel somehow minimized the principle of blood sacrifice of the Temple, the house of God. Incidentally, that’s also why from wherever we are we pray in Yeshua’s name- He is the final sacrifice we look to, identify with and depend on. This is what God has provided that we might have assurance of atonement and forgiveness. As for King Solomon’s speech it assumes the blood sacrifices throughout as noted above, even as Solomon dedicated the Temple and its altar he made many blood sacrifices (1 Kings 8:5, 64).
"If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50).This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement.
Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.
Christian dogma holds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach.
However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won't fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.We will address this below (see: "bottom line"), as it reflects a startling confusion.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls..."
Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus' crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament,by the way, the New Covenant writings are written what may be called "Judeo-Greek," as the writers were Jews who wrote in Greek (much as their writers and we are all Jews who are writing in English, or RaMBaM wrote in Arabic, or Daniel wrote in Aramaic, etc.). By this author's contrast with "Jewish Bible," it is clear he intends the phrase "Greek Testament" to indicate a sort of Gentile and foreign thing, but this is not the case.
but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandatesWhen Scripture states “upon the altar” it is not saying that God-given sacrifice is limited to the altar, but that was the altar was representative of the gracious provision for sacrifice and that it was G-d ordained. But this is true for all of the things which variously point to Messiah.
There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.On Galatians 5:12 (equally Philippians 3:2) - and this should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the text - Paul (a Jew, who in Acts 16:3 had his fellow worker Timothy circumcised, since he was Jewish but his father was not) was making the point that those who require Gentiles be circumcised are mutilators of the flesh, because Gentiles do not have to become Jewish.
Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus' death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case.Bottom line: they reverse the symbolic relationship here. No, the sacrifice of Yeshua is not symbolic, merely spiritual, or metaphorical; yes, it is considered real. On the contrary, with respect to Him it is the entire sacrificial system which is ultimately "symbol" - not because it is "ethereal" or unreal, but because it points to a fulfillment which is outside itself (outside the system).
To illustrate this idea, consider a sign, one of many that might be located alongside the interstate, which reads "Boston - Next Seven Exits" or "Boston 21 miles." Yes, it is indeed functioning as a sign, but it also has to have regulations: it must be a certain strength, height above the ground, visibility range, etc.
But should anyone expect the city to which the sign was referring - Boston itself - to meet all the same requirements that are given for the sign? For example, should the city of Boston be no less than 10 feet above the interstate so as allow for clearance of oncoming traffic? That would be ridiculous. More to the point, it would be a misunderstanding of the way signs work. The relationship between a sign (the sacrificial system substituting year to year to remind people of the fatal seriousness of sin) and thing which it signifies (the Messiah who atones truly and once-for-all as a substitute) is indeed a symbolic relationship, and that is precisely why there are going to be differences. This doesn't imply Messiah isn't the real thing.
The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such "But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs...in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.'" (John 19:33-36)Since Messiah fulfilled all sacrifice there is by necessity a combination of elements involved in Messiah’s once and for all fulfillment. However, with signifying relationship there will be dissimilar aspects to the two things. Whether or not an approach which requires one-to-one correspondence between the types in a many-to-one analogy is "legalistic nit-picking" is beside the point; its just confusion.
The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can't dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.
One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement.In Hebrews 9-10:18 Messiah is also seen as the final Yom Kippur sacrifice.
We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt.As noted, Messiah fulfilled all sacrifice for both sin and redemption. Passover pictured the redemption Messiah would bring our people, as Seh HaElohim, the Lamb of God.
Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn't a help to other people in the family, and didn't serve as an atonement for the first born. A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people.Perhaps it bears repeating that in Hebrews 9-10:18 Messiah is also seen as the final Yom Kippur sacrifice. They even quote from this text below in order to try to make a different point.
It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.As if the shedding of blood did not also take place along with the scapegoat at Yom Kippur! Clearly, the principle is affirmed there that the shedding of blood as well as repentance is a sine qua non for atonement.
The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.
"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).The writer of Hebrews uses a Greek translation of Tenakh called the Septuagint, commonly used by Greek speaking Jews. Its later separation from what would be called the Masoretic text tradition notwithstanding, the Septuagint was not unfaithful or taking liberties. A nuance or facet of a word is often used to make a point by a teacher (cf. Targumim)
In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:
"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required" (Psalm 40:6).
The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:This section deals with the Return of the Messiah after our people nationally “turn away from the transgression” of unbelief in Messiah Yeshua and He comes directly from heaven, the real Zion, that Jerusalem represented. Paul is not only quoting Isaiah 59:20, but, combining in a manner similar to the Siddur, also looking at Psalm 14:7, Psalm 20:2. Checking context of Romans 11, it is clear that they are misconstruing Paul's usage (which gets the substance right), since he is not talking about "eradicating sin," but talking about the fullness of Israel 's redemption, even when "all Israel will be saved." And it is not about showing worthiness, but about repentance (returning to HaShem).
"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, `The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob'." (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)
However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.
"And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd."
Isaiah didn't teach that the Messiah's purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?This is clearly false (Mt 20:28, John 3:15-16).
One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world
Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!" (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:Scripture is clear that we are all responsible for out own sins –but that doesn’t preclude that a sacrificial victim is graciously provided as atonement on behalf of the repentant offerer, as is obvious from the Scriptures.
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30).
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).
"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).
"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).
Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to the L-rd" (Proverbs 17:15).This Proverbs portion is dealing with a bad judge not a good G-d who has forgiven through His provided atonement, ultimately in Yeshua! Remember, blood atonement is necessary but so is repentance. In order to repent, a person must recognize he or she is ungodly. Just because they want to leave out blood atonement does not mean we want to leave out repentance. They not only are pretending as if we think repentance is unnecessary, but they act as if to repent means to not have sinned in the first place!
If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?The rebuilt Temple etc will be a memorial to Messiah’s sacrifice. Just as those before Him pointed toward Him, so those in the future will be memorials or point back to King Messiah's work. This is what all our present “sacrifices” of time, talent and treasure do also in a small way. His sacrifice alone is effectual for atonement of sin.
"Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." (Isaiah 56:7). "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings." (Zephaniah 3:10)
"All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house." (Isaiah 60:7)
"And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever." (Ezekiel 37:26)
"And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years." (Malachi 3:3-4)
"And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them." (Zechariah 14:21) "And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations...to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 45:17)
The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. "Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love." (Micah 7:18; cf.Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don't seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:Yes, He is merciful and gracious - that is why He provided sacrifice s as atonement to begin with and Messiah as the fulfillment of His gracious provision. There is no question of His mercy, but His attributes of Love and Mercy, rather than being limited, are to be understood alongside His Holiness (Kodesh) and His Righteousness. There is the offense of sin to be dealt with through the sacrifice, this is why something (as noted in the Torah portions above) had to be done to appropriate His forgiveness and mercy. This argument by the writer that other means such as incense, etc could be used for sacrifice contradicts his statement before when he (or she) argued against “blood” as the only means.
"Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity...remembering that they were but flesh." (Psalms 78:36-39)
"You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings...or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins...Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:23-25)A reading of the three verses in their context will show this is not what Isaiah is saying.
"Is. 43:21 “The people whom I formed for Myself
Will declare My praise.
Is. 43:22 ¶ “Yet you have not called on Me, O Jacob;
But you have become weary of Me, O Israel.
Is. 43:23 “You have not brought to Me the sheep of your burnt offerings,
Nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices.
I have not burdened you with offerings,
Nor wearied you with incense.
Is. 43:24 “You have bought Me not sweet cane with money,
Nor have you filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices;
Rather you have burdened Me with your sins,
You have wearied Me with your iniquities.
Is. 43:25 ¶ “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake,
And I will not remember your sins.
Is. 43:26 “Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together;
State your cause, that you may be proved right.
Is. 43:27 “Your first forefather sinned,
And your spokesmen have transgressed against Me.
Is. 43:28 “So I will pollute the princes of the sanctuary,
And I will consign Jacob to the ban and Israel to revilement. ”
What is being said here is not that G-d will forgive them without sacrifice, but that they have not yet brought Him sacrifice - even though (Nevertheless, vs. 25) He is the One who can forgive them and wipe out their sins!
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENTIn all of the above the writer is leaving out that at the time that the these Scriptures were written blood sacrifice was going on. The Scriptures are clear that for those that may have made sacrifice as a religious duty without sincerity, and that repentance (sincerity of heart) is essential with the sacrifice, but is inadequate without the sacrifice. This is exactly what a careful reading Psalm 51, etc will show. This is the teaching as well in the New Covenant –it is not merely that Yeshua died but that you turn from your sins and believe sincerely upon Him. Faith was and is an essential element in atonement and salvation.
One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn't one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that's the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?
"That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin." (Jeremiah 36:3).
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7).
"I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd', and You did forgive the guilt of my sin." (Psalm 32:5).
"And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14). "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live...When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life...Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).
"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).
"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).
"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).
The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn't effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:
"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats...Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey..." (Isaiah 1:11-18).
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd." (Proverbs 15:8).
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3). "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings." (Hoseah 6:6).
"Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams." (I Samuel 15:22).
"With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d." (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).
Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don't have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d.
This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn't come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d's response?In both of these cases, repentance by the pagan Ninevites (Assyrians) and Babylonians merely held off judgment but did not remove their judgment which eventually came upon both countries.
"When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:10).
In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:
"Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." (Daniel 4:27).
This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn't get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:Actually many who sincerely sought the Lord from the northern country of Israel went to Jerusalem to worship though it was contrary to the political correctness of their country, see 2Chronicles 11:16; 15:9-12
"Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'." (Hoseah 14:1-2).
We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:As noted before, all this was prayed along with the sacrifices at the time.
"Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise." (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).
"I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs." (Psalm 69:30-31).
"For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications." (Psalm 86:5-6).
"And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive." (II Chronicles 6:21).
Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!These arguments are not sound, and are in some cases quite misleading as shown. Blood sacrifice was and is scripturally essential for atonement and forgiveness.