Is the
Bible internally consistent? More specifically, does the New Testament line up
with the Old, or does it misrepresent the Hebrew Scriptures as the rabbis have often
charged? If the rabbis’ indictment is correct, then the NT cannot be considered
God’s words. However, if the uneducated NT writers have a more accurate
understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than do the rabbis, this would suggest
that they had been divinely inspired.
This
chapter will examine just one example where the NT and the rabbis differ. 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”
(Hebrews 9:22). However, since the
destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, 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. Well, if 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]
The New Testament also understands
the sacrificial system as symbolic (but also mandatory), a foreshadowing of the once-and-for-all substitutionary
offering of God’s Son. Instead, 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).
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? Instead, there are 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,
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).[5]
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 couldn’t
simply be set aside or loose 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 this was merely as a symbol
of Israel’s duty to live in submission to God.
It was 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. (Exo 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.”[6] 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.[7]
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 upon them (Exo. 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-Christian-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…”[8] 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.” However, this change is associated with the Cross and God’s
declaration that "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely,
for My anger has turned away from him” (Hos.
14:4). Therefore, it wasn’t a matter of blood sacrifices being unnecessary, but
rather fulfilled by the Messianic
atonement!
No Indication that Sacrificial
Offerings were ever Set Aside under the Mosaic Covenant
There is nothing in Moses’ Law that suggests that
sacrifices were optional or that they would be abrogated apart from the
Messianic atonement of Jesus.[9]
However, 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). However, these in no way indicate that God was doing away
with offerings, 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 disdain for the offerings themselves but for 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.
God was
“pleased…with burnt offerings” when they were offered with a broken and
repentant heart. However, when offered hypocritically, God refused to hear even
the prayers of Israel (Isa. 1:15). In this regard, the highly regarded 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.[10]
Second, the other verses that assert that God didn’t
desire the blood of animals (even though He commanded it) are explained by recognizing
that animal blood was merely a symbol of the ultimate Messianic offering.
Israel had a dim understanding that something had to take the place of the
Mosaic system and that the repeated offering of the same sacrifices only gave
Israel a temporary reprieve (Heb. 10.1-4). They had also 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” (Hebrews 10:5-7 quoting Psalm 40:6-8).[11]
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 had often been
promised, starting with Moses (Deut. 32:43), that God Himself would ultimately
atone for Israel’s sins.
Never a Matter of Either Blood Sacrifice 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). However, Tovia
Singer claims that there are three types of atonement (sacrifice,
repentance, alms), and that any one will suffice! However, this is contradicted by the fact that any one of them 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. (Numbers 5:6-8; Lev. 5:5-6).
Gerald
Sigal erroneously 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.[12]
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 70
AD] that the Talmudic rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided
other forms of atonement aside from blood.[13]
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;
51:10-11; 48:20):
·
…“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 (Psalm 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 (Psalm 65:3-5; 78:38; 130:7-8; Deut. 32:43; Isa 54:5-8;
Hosea 13:12-14). Although repentance is necessary, it isn’t sufficient (Isaiah
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 the perfect
(Psalm 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.”[14]
However, according to the Zohar, the most-esteemed Jewish mystical book:
·
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 [according to
Isa. 53:5—Zohar].[15]
Israel’s salvation depended upon Messiah’s
substitutionary atoning death and not
upon 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; 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. (Isaiah 53:5-7;
Psalm 40:6-8; Dan 9:24-27; Zech 12:10-13:1, 7; Psalm 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.[16]
This,
however, wasn’t the lesson that Israel learned, but rather the opposite - 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). However, it
was more than just a matter of God’s faithfulness. It was also prophetic,
Gospel-centered! The mountain wasn’t named “The Lord-has-provided,” but that He will
provide! Nor would God 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”[17]!
This became the very place that God did provide on the Cross at Calvary.
Rather than
symbolizing our yielded lives, the animal sacrifices symbolized the very
opposite—our un-yielded,
condemnation-worthy lives. That’s why every Israelite had to confess his sins
upon the head of the sacrificial animal, which paid the price for his
un-yieldedness. 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.
The
Secular Form of this Challenge
“If God is truly
omnipotent, why couldn’t He have simply forgiven without the bloody murder of His
Son? That’s child abuse! Why couldn’t He have merely said, ‘You’re forgiven?’”
This
challenge is based on a misconception about the “omnipotence of God.” While it
is true that God can accomplish anything that He so desires, He can’t accomplish it through any means. Jesus
prayed that, if possible, He wouldn’t have to endure the Cross (Mat 26:39, 42).
However, if He was to redeem humankind, the Cross wasn’t optional!
“But why was
forgiveness, apart from the Cross, not possible for God?” I could explain that the Cross was
psychologically necessary for humanity (Heb. 9:14-15). I could also explain
that God had to demonstrate that He is dead serious about sin and that His
righteous nature required propitiation (Rom. 3:25). However, whatever I’d answer,
the skeptic would always be able to question, “Why couldn’t your God have accomplished this in a less costly way?”
This
unanswered challenge doesn’t reflect a defect in our Biblical conception of God
but rather our human inability to answer such questions comprehensively. A quick survey of these why-questions can
illustrate this. We can’t answer why God made the sky blue or the grass green.
Oh yes, we can say that green was necessary for photosynthesis, but we’d never
be able to eliminate the question, “Couldn’t
He have done it with red?”
Instead,
it must suffice us to conclude that His holy nature requires an adequate
payment for sin. The buck must stop with God.
I
have tried to point out how the rabbis missed the message of their Bible in
many regards, while the uneducated writers of the New Testament understood it,
but how? Simply this - they had been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
[1] R.T.
Kendall and David Rosen, The Christian
and the Pharisee (New York,
Faith Words, 2006), 109-110.
[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 upon the sacrificial
offering (Lev. 1:4; 4:4, 15, 29, 33), confessing and conferring his sins upon
it (Lev. 16:21).
[4] David
Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
(New York,
Doubleday, 2005), 111.
[5] 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.
[6] Michael
Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, vol. Two (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2007), 73. Contains a very
extensive rebuttal of Rabbinic arguments.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Tovia
Singer, www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html.
[9] 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).
[10] Brown,
86.
[11] Hebrews
quotes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In this
instance, this 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!” However, this “coming” alone seems to
suggest a replacement of the sacrificial system.
[12] Gerald
Sigal, The Jew and the Christian
Missionary (New York, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981), 16.
[13]Brown,
111.
[14] Singer.
[15] Brown,
157.
[16] Singer.
[17] The NIV
Study Bible (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1985), 38.
