|
The shedding of blood, substitutionary atonement, was
something that God had required from the very beginning, starting with the
animal skins that God had prepared for the first sinners. Although today’s
rabbis largely disagree with this, we find substitutionary atonement required
throughout the Bible. (Written for the Christian
Research Journal, 2009)
|
One of the best ways to demonstrate the New and Old
Testament unity is to compare the understanding of the rabbis with that of the
NT. We find that the rabbinic sages of Israel miss the meaning of their Hebrew
Scriptures, while the writers of the NT are spot-on. This suggests that these
uneducated men had been inspired from above.
According to the New Testament, forgiveness requires the
sacrifice of a substitute: “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed
with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb.
9:22, NIV). However, since the destruction of the temple in AD 70, Orthodox
Judaism has tended to regard the Old Testament sacrifices as unnecessary. In
favor of this point of view, Rabbi David Rosen writes, “Judaism does not accept
the idea of vicarious [substitutionary] atonement. We can only atone for our
own sins and are responsible for our own actions.”1
If animal sacrifice is necessary, and the temple no longer
exists, then the Christian claim that Messiah has fulfilled and replaced them
becomes embarrassingly compelling. This represents a threat to Judaism. If,
however, animal sacrifice wasn’t necessary, why then had God commanded it? For
its symbolic value! Rosen writes:
Our ancient sages
affirm that…“sincere repentance and works of lovingkindness (charity) are the
real intercessors before God’s throne” (TB Shabbat 32A) and that “sincere
repentance is the equivalent to the rebuilding of the Temple, the restoration
of the altar and the offering of all the sacrifices” (TB Sanhedrin 43B). In
terms of Jewish understanding of the sacrificial rites in the temple, while the
blood of the sacrifice did indeed represent life, it was seen precisely in a
representational role symbolizing “the complete yielding up of the worshipper’s
life to God” (Hertz, Pentateuch and
Haftorahs).2
While the New Testament understands the sacrificial system
as a foreshadowing of the once-and-for-all substitutionary offering of God’s
Son, much of Rabbinic Judaism maintains that it represents the yielded life.3
The Orthodox Jewish columnist, David Klinghoffer, also argues in favor of divine
forgiveness without blood: “The idea that penitence was not enough would have
come as a surprise to the large majority of first-century Jews, who lived in
the Diaspora and therefore had no regular access to the Temple rites. In not
availing themselves of these rites at all times, they were relying on
scripture, which taught that forgiveness could be secured without sacrifice.”4
Klinghoffer supports this claim by citing Solomon’s prayer at the consecration
of the temple as proof:
And when they return
to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their
enemies who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land which You
gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen and the temple which I
have built for Your name: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place their prayer
and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who
have sinned against You, and all their transgressions which they have
transgressed against You; and grant them compassion before those who took them
captive, that they may have compassion on them (1 Kings 8:48–50).5
For Klinghoffer, this constitutes proof that a sacrificial
offering isn’t necessary. This is odd. How could Solomon, on the one hand,
bless the inauguration of his costly, God-ordained temple, while, at the same
time, preach that the temple wasn’t necessary? There are, instead, other ways
to explain the fact that God would forgive the Israelites without an immediate
temple sacrifice. Simply because blood wasn’t required at that time doesn’t
mean it wasn’t required! A bank will grant a loan, without a present outlay of
money, if repayment is guaranteed. The loan doesn’t represent a free ride, but
a postponement of payment. Similarly, God could postpone payment of the debt in
view of the Messianic guarantor (Gen. 15:8–21; Heb. 9:26), even for the sins
that had formerly been committed during the first covenant (Heb. 9:15).6
Even though the sacrificial system was symbolic, the
shedding of blood was also a requirement (Lev. 16:34) through which God passed
over Israel’s sins (Rom. 3:25). Thus, it could-n’t simply be set aside or lose
its potency, but had to be fulfilled by a once-and-for-all bloody atonement
(Heb. 10:14), through which God Himself would make atonement (Deut. 32:43).
AN UNNECESSARY SYSTEM IS A WASTEFUL SYSTEM
The expenditures underlying the temple system were
tremendous. Add to this the cost of maintaining the priesthood and the lives of
multitudes of animals. It seems unreasonable that God would require this merely
as a symbol that Israel should live in submission to God.
SACRIFICES WERE A REQUIREMENT
The sacrificial system had been so central to God’s workings
with Israel that Moses and Aaron informed Pharaoh, “The God of the Hebrews has
met with us. Please, let us go three days’ journey into the desert and
sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He fall upon us with pestilence or with the
sword” (Exod. 5:3).
Either Israel would sacrifice animals or they would be
sacrificed. Christian apologist Michael Brown correctly concludes, “The very
reason God gave for calling his people out of Egypt was to offer sacrifices to
him.”7 He adds, “A careful study of the Five Books of Moses indicates that more
chapters are devoted to the subject of sacrifices and offerings than to the
subjects of Sabbath observance, high holy days, idolatry, adultery, murder, and
theft combined.”8 Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was
necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11). Sacrifice was never
optional. When the Angel of Death destroyed the firstborn from the land of
Egypt, he passed over and spared those Israelite homes that had the blood of
the offering on them (Exod. 12:23). Any firstborn without the blood on his
doorposts would have been killed. Blood was also required to cover all the sins
of Israel (Lev. 16:21–22) in accordance with the New Testament (Heb. 9:22).
Anti-Missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer also asserts that animal
sacrifice was unnecessary: “The prophets loudly declared to the Jewish people
that the contrite prayer of the penitent sinner replaces the sacrificial
system.”9 He assumes that since Israel no longer had its temple, prayer and
repentance would now suffice. He cites Hosea 14:2–3 to prove that the
sacrificial system had been replaced by “words”: “Take words with you, and
return to the Lord. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity; Receive us graciously,
for we will offer the sacrifices [‘bulls’ in Hebrew] of our lips.’”
Singer is correct in pointing out that Hosea foresees
“words” replacing the offering of “bulls.” This change, however, is associated
only with the culmination of the old system, starting with the Cross, as
illustrated by God’s declaration that “I will heal their backsliding, I will
love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him” (Hos. 14:410).
Therefore, it wasn’t a matter of blood sacrifices being unnecessary, but rather
being fulfilled!
SACRIFICES COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE UNDER MOSES’ LAW
There is nothing in the Mosaic covenant that suggests that
sacrifices were an option or that they would be abrogated apart from the
Messianic atonement of Jesus.11 Even so, there are a number of verses that
communicate God’s displeasure with the offerings (Psalm 50:8–15; Prov. 15:8;
21:3; Isa. 1:11–17; Jer. 7:23; Amos 5:21–27; Hos. 6:6). Such passages, however,
in no way indicate that God was doing away with offerings and leaving no
substitutionary blood offering in their place. Instead, these verses can be
explained in either of two other ways.
First, God’s displeasure didn’t reflect a problem with the
offerings themselves, but the hypocrisy of the offerers. Psalm 51:16–19
illustrates this: “For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit, a broken and a contrite heart—these, O God, You will not despise.…Then
You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering
and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar” (emphasis
added). God was “pleased…with burnt offerings” when they were offered with a
broken and repentant heart. When they were offered hypocritically, however, God
refused to hear the prayers of Israel (Isa. 1:15). In this regard, the esteemed
Jewish thinker, Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote, “Of course, the prophets did not
condemn the practice of sacrifice in itself; otherwise we should have to
conclude that Isaiah intended to discourage the practice of prayer.…Men may not
drown out the cries of the oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the
Lord with increased offerings. The prophets disparaged the cult [of animal
sacrifice] when it became a substitute for righteousness.”12
Second, the other verses that assert that God didn’t desire
the blood of animals (even though He commanded it) are explained by
understanding that animal blood was merely a symbol of the ultimate Messianic
offering. Israel had a dim under standing that something had to take the place
of the Mosaic system and that the repeated offering of the same sacrifices gave
Israel only a temporary reprieve (Heb. 10:1–4). They also had been graphically
instructed by the temple and offerings that intimacy with God was not yet a
reality. They could not enter into God’s presence (nor did they dare to!), and
yet, they had been promised betrothal to their God (Hos. 2:18–19). Furthermore,
they had been promised a “New Covenant” through which their sins would truly
and permanently be forgiven (Jer. 31:31–34). Consistent with this
understanding, Psalm 40:6–8 declares that Israel’s God was preparing a
sacrifice that would put an end to all other sacrifices: “Sacrifice and
offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I
have come—in the volume of the book it is written of Me—to do Your will, O
God’” (Heb. 10:5–7 quoting Ps. 40:6–8, emphasis added).13
After the two times where Psalm 40 dismisses animal
sacrifice, it then presents a human body, suggesting that the latter sacrifice
will take the place of the former. This shouldn’t have been foreign to
Israelite ears. They often had been promised, starting with Moses (Deut.
32:43), that God Himself would atone in the end for Israel’s sins. NEVER A
MATTER OF EITHER BLOOD OR REPENTANCE
Although Job had never been short on animal sacrifices,
Elihu counseled him that a special ransom was required in addition to
repentance (Job 33:24–28).14 Tovia Singer claims, however, that there are three
types of atonement (sacrificial, repentance, alms), and that any one will
suffice! This is contradicted, however, by the fact that any one of them by
itself was incapable of bringing forgiveness: “Speak to the children of Israel:
‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against
the Lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall [1] confess the sin which he
has committed. He shall [2] make restitution for his trespass in full…in
addition to the [3] ram of the atonement with which atonement is made for him’”
(Num. 5:6–8, emphasis added; see also Lev. 5:5–6).
Similarly, Gerald Sigal writes, “It is clear from the
Scriptures that sin is removed through genuine remorse and sincere repentance.”
In support, he cites Micah 6:8, stating that the Lord requires justice and
mercy.15 However, this also falls short of proving that sacrifice isn’t part of
the equation.
Blood atonement, without confession and repentance, never
accomplished anything (Amos 5:21–24). Nevertheless, it was still mandatory.
There is no biblical evidence that it was or could be simply set aside apart
from the Messiah’s coming. After surveying the rabbinic literature, Michael
Brown concludes, “It was only after the Temple was destroyed [in AD 70] that
the Talmudic rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided other forms of
atonement aside from blood.”16
PROPHECY: A RANSOM AND REDEEMER
There Had to Be The Payment of a Ransom. Even in the midst
of God’s earliest response to humankind’s sin, a ransom was cryptically
provided when He replaced the first couple’s inadequate fig leaves with animal
skins (Gen. 3:21), foreshadowing His Messianic endgame (Isa. 61:10). A ransom
is inseparably and necessarily connected to Israel’s return to God (Isa. 35:10;
48:20; 51:10–11). “‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a
shepherd does his flock.’ For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him
from the hand of one stronger than he” (Jer. 31:10–11).
God Himself Would Have to Pay the Ransom. The Israelite
couldn’t afford it (Ps. 49:7–9)! So God Himself would pay the price (49:15): “I
have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud,
your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you” (Isa. 44:22).
Without God’s ransom, Israel couldn’t return to God (Ps.
65:3–5; 78:38; 130:7–8; Deut. 32:43; Isa. 54:5–8; Hos. 13:12–14). Although
repentance is necessary, it isn’t sufficient (Isa. 59:16–20). Psalm 24 offers a
graphic, if perhaps cryptic, demonstration of this principle. It asks the
question, “Who may stand in His holy place!” The answer is discouraging—only
those who are perfect (Ps. 15)! Because of this dismal response, even the gates
are hanging their heads in despair, until the mysterious appearance of the
“King of Glory” entering through the temple gate into God’s presence to make
intercession!
Messiah Would Pay with His Own Blood. Singer asserts, “Nor
does Scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for
the sins of the wicked.”17 However, according to the Zohar, the most highly
esteemed Jewish mystical book, in its commentary on Isaiah 53:5, “The children
of the world are members of one another, and when the Holy One desires to give
healing to the world, He smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake
heals all the rest.”18 Israel’s salvation depended on Messiah’s substitutionary
atoning death and not on the Israelites sufficiently yielding themselves:
“Break forth into joy, sing together…For the Lord has comforted His people, He
has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has made bare His holy arm” (Isa. 52:9–10; cf.
59:16; 63:5). His “holy arm,” the Son (53:1), will pay the price: “But he was
pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and
the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:5–7, emphases added;
see also Ps. 40:6–8; Dan. 9:24–27; Zech. 12:10–13:1, 7; Ps. 22; 69).
Singer maintains that God’s provision of a ram in the place
of Isaac (Gen. 22) proved that He would never accept a human sacrifice: “When
Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, the Almighty admonished him that He did
not want the human sacrifice…The Almighty’s directive—that He only wanted
animal sacrifices rather than human sacrifices—was immediately understood. This
teaching has never departed from the mind and soul of the faithful children of
Israel.”19 This, however, wasn’t the lesson that Israel learned, but rather it
was that God would provide: “And Abraham called the name of the place,
The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, ‘In the Mount of The Lord it
shall be provided’” (Gen. 22:14). Additionally, it was more than just a matter
of God’s faithfulness. It was also prophetic of Messiah’s atonement. The
mountain wasn’t named “The Lord-has-provided,” but that He will provide! Nor
was the promise that God would provide in general! Instead, God would provide a
greater offering (overshadowing what He had already provided) “in the mount of
the Lord,” a phrase that “referred to the Temple mount in Jerusalem”!20 This
became the very place that God did provide for our sins on the Cross at
Calvary.
Rather than symbolizing our yielded lives, the animal
sacrifices symbolized the very opposite—our unyielded, condemnation-worthy
lives. That’s why every Israelite had to confesshis sins on the head of the
sacrificial animal, which paid the price for his unyieldedness. In this way,
the Israelite was taught that his hope couldn’t be in his own righteousness or
virtue (Deut. 27:26), but in a perfect substitution.
Blood has a lot to say about grace. It speaks eloquently
about God’s ultimate ransom. After I debated Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi at Temple
Gabriel, Queens, New York, an Orthodox Jew from his congregation called me.
When I mentioned God’s grace toward King David, he protested, “You don’t understand.
The Talmud explains that Bathsheba’s husband Uriah was an evil man who deserved
to die. Besides, Bathsheba had already been divorced from him. And so David had
done righteously by killing Uriah and marrying Bath sheba!” Fortunately, David
didn’t see things according to the Talmud. He confessed his sins (2 Sam. 12:13)
and acknowledged the blessedness of God’s grace (Ps. 32:1–2) and His
willingness to receive blood offerings from the sin-broken repentant heart (Ps.
51:16–19).
The Talmud likewise justifies the sin of all the patriarchs
and therefore fails to recognize our profound need for grace. No wonder blood
atonement can also be put away with such ease.
Oddly, the NT commentary fits the Hebrew Scriptures far more
closely than that of the rabbis. What makes this possible? The inspiration that
comes from above!
Notes:
1 R. T. Kendall and David Rosen, The Christian and the
Pharisee (New York: Faith Words, 2006), 109–10.
2 Ibid., 109.
3 However, this latter view is hard to maintain in light of Mosaic
revelation. Unblemished animals, representing sinlessness, were substituted for
Israel’s sins. That’s why the Israelite had to place his hands on the
sacrificial offering (Lev. 1:4; 4:4, 15, 29, 33), confessing and conferring his
sins on it (Lev. 16:21).
4 David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (New York:
Doubleday, 2005), 111.
5 All Scripture quotations are from the New King James
Version except where otherwise noted.
6 This same reasoning can also reconcile other verses that
seem to suggest that a covering (“kipper”) could be obtained by means other
than blood. In any event, these verses can’t be used to overturn the many
explicit verses requiring blood sacrifice.
7 Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.
2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 73. This book contains a very extensive
rebuttal of rabbinic arguments.
8 Ibid.
9 Tovia Singer, “Could Jesus’ Death Alone for Any Kind of
Sin?” online at www.outreachjudaism.org/ jesusdeath.html.
10 This conclusion follows from Hosea 14:4 because God’s
healing of Israel’s backsliding is only accomplished at the end (Jer. 32:37–41;
Ezek. 36:25–27).
11 Although the poor could offer grain as a sin offering,
this was only because this offering was laid alongside a blood offering (Lev.
5:12).
12 Brown, 86.
13 Hebrews quotes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of
the Old Testament. In this instance, the text differs from its competitor, the
Masoretic text. Although the Masoretic doesn’t read, “A body you have prepared
for me,” both texts read, “Behold, I have come to do thy will!” This “coming”
seems to suggest a replacement of the sacrificial system.
14 It might be objected that citing Elihu is not persuasive.
However, in context Elihu’s words are just as authoritative as those that
follow. Notice how his words blend thematically, without break or interruption
by Job, into God’s beginning in 38:1.
15 Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary (New
York: KTAV Publishing House, 1981), 16.
16 Brown, 111.
17 Singer.
18 Brown, 157.
19 Singer.
20 The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 38.
No comments:
Post a Comment