From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Atonement
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:51:09 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

Rob Levene sez:

>Bruce Tiffany posts Mike Brown's comments on atonement:
> 
>>     Until the Temple was destroyed in A.D.  70, Jewish teaching emphasized
>>     the  necessity of blood atonement.  According to the Talmud, "There is
>>     not atonement (kapparah) without the  blood"  (Yoma  51;  Zebahim  6a;
>>     Menahot 93b).
> 
>Mike Brown ignores the context of these passages, namely, animal
>sacrifices.  An animal sacrifice requires blood.  Atonement which
>does not involve animal sacrifice obviously doesn't require blood.

I think this pretty well demonstrates how the Tanakh has been twisted to
avoid the obvious meaning.  It has been turned completely upside down by
the rabbis.

This is the same vacuous "logic" Rob Strom was spouting forth.  But if
atonement could have been made *without* blood, there would not have been
any need to atone with blood at *all*.

Or perhaps you would like to explain why blood was required at certain
times or for certain sins (or whatever you think the criteria was, or whatever
you think the blood was for), and not others.  And why not the others?
How did your other forms of "atonement" actually secure atonement?  On
what basis were they effective?

>>   And, although many Jews today think that it is
>>     the New Covenant writers who cited Leviticus 17:11 to prove  that  God
>>     required  blood atonement, it is actually the RABBIS of the Talmud who
>>     quoted this verse in this way!  They recognized that because "the life
>>     of  a  creature  is  in  the blood" God gave it upon the altar to make
>>     atonement for His people ("It is the blood that  makes  atonement  for
>>     one's life" Lev.  17:11).
> 
>Again, the context is performing animal sacrifices, not atonement
>in general.

On the contrary, the context is atonement.  Read chapter 16.

>>     It is with good reason that the letter to the Hebrews says  that  "the
>>     law  requires  that  nearly  everything  be  cleansed  with blood, AND
>>     WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS"  (Heb. 9:22),
> 
>This just demonstrates that the author of Hebrews had a different
>understanding of atonement than that of Judaism.

The author of the letter was most probably a Pharisee who studied under
Gamli'el.

>>     since  the  central  importance  of the blood, and, in particular, the
>>     blood of atonement, is clearly seen in the Tanakh.  Any  other  system
>>     of atonement which does not include the blood is not biblical, and any
>>     other  system  of  atonement  which  fails  to  offer  SUBSTITUTIONARY
>>     atonement,  i.e.,  an innocent sacrificial victim dying on behalf of a
>>     guilty sinner, is not able to provide real forgiveness of sins.
> 
>If you want to get technical, Mike Brown has it completely backwards.
> 
>The "korban chatas" - "sin/guilt offering" is only made (1) in the
>case of inadvertent sin (2) *after* one repents for the sin and
>makes restitution.  Leviticus 5:20-26 provides a typical example
>of this process.  See Maccoby's _Judas Iscariot_.

So where's the contradiction?  Repentance must precede sacrifice.  Sacrifice
without repentance means nothing, as Mike Brown made clear.

>Furthermore, many sacrifices were of other types:  regular
>gift-offerings, peace-offerings, thanksgiving-offerings, none of
>which relate at all to vicarious self-sacrifice.

Mike refuted you below:

>>     How  then  do  we  account  for  references  to  flour  offerings  and
>>     "atonement  money"  in  the  Torah?   The  answers  again  are simple.
>>     According to Leviticus 5:11-13, a poor Israelite  who  was  unable  to
>>     bring  the  required trespass offering of a lamb, goat, turtledoves or
>>     pigeons could bring instead an offering of fine flour.   According  to
>>     verse 12, the priest will "take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a
>>     memorial portion, AND BURN IT ON THE ALTAR ON  TOP  OF  THE  OFFERINGS
>>     MADE  TO  THE  LORD  BY  FIRE."  Then (verse 13) "the priest will make
>>     atonement for him." In other words, the priest,  in  his  capacity  as
>>     mediator  for  the people, AND HAVING MINGLED THE FLOUR WITH THE BLOOD
>>     WHICH WAS ALREADY UPON THE ALTAR, would make atonement for his  fellow
>>     Israelite.    Nowhere   is  it  written  that  "the  flour  will  make
>>     atonement," or that "the life of a creature is in the flour."  Rather,
>>     the  whole basis for atonement remained in the sacrificial blood which
>>     was upon the altar.
> 
>That the person didn't contribute the blood further illustrates
>that this is not a vicarious self-sacrifice.

You constantly amaze me with your ability to call black white and white black.

The fact that the person didn't contribute the blood (even if he contributes
an animal it isn't his own blood) further illustrates that this is a
vicarious sacrifice.

>>     As to the belief that "the prophets indicate clearly that God  doesn't
>>     want  blood  sacrifices,"  it  is clear from reading the prophets' own
>>     words that what they really opposed were  empty  sacrifices  and  VAIN
>>     offerings.
> 
>Correct.
> 
>>     ...  If  one wishes to say that the prophets wanted to ABOLISH
>>     the sacrificial system, then one would  also  have  to  say  that  the
>>     prophets  wanted  to abolish Sabbath!  (See Is.  1:13:  "Stop bringing
>>     MEANINGLESS OFFERINGS!  ...  New Moons, Sabbaths, and convocations  --
>>     I cannot bear your evil assemblies.")
> 
>I'm not saying that they wanted to abolish the system, only that
>the system was not the exclusive Jewish way to atonement, as Mike Brown
>incorrectly asserts.

You haven't demonstrated from Scripture that anything other than blood ever
secured atonement.

>>      Without repentance, the sacrifice of Yeshua will do the
>>     sinner no good.
> 
>But you still haven't established that the murder of Jesus
>was a valid means of atonement in Judaism.

Not murder, Tom Albrecht's antisemitic theology notwithstanding.  He lay down
His life freely -- Isaiah 53.

>>     When the Temple was destroyed in A.D.  70, the rabbis instituted  what
>>     they  thought  were  other  forms  of  atonement, such as prayer, good
>>     deeds, and charity.  They found support for this  in  verses  such  as
>>     Hosea  14:2 (verse 3 in some versions), which states poetically, "That
>>     we may offer the fruit of our lips." Yet, while  the  Bible  sometimes
>>     describes  prayer, repentance and worship with "sacrifice imagery", it
>>     never implies that  these  things  were  to  take  the  place  of  the
>>     sacrifices themselves.
> 
>A crucial semantic distinction.  While they are technically not the
>sacrifices, they achieve the same effect.  We have already established
>that sacrifice is not the only means to atonement.

That has *not* been established, only claimed.  There is no support for such
a claim in Scripture.

*HOW* can prayer effect atonement?  Surely the learned "sages" must understand
this, since they assert that it does.  How do mitzvot secure atonement?

>>     Thus, in Psalm 51, after stating that "the sacrifices  of  God  are  a
>>     broken  spirit"  (v.   17), David says:  "Then there will be righteous
>>     sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls  will  be
>>     offered  on  your altar" (v.  19).
> 
>This Psalm is talking about the uselessness of insincere sacrifices,
>which G-d does not desire.

Agreed.  Note that David didn't say, "Then we will do the mitzvot and repeat
prayers by rote ..."

>>     The rabbis have taught us much that  is  beautiful  regarding  prayer,
>>     repentance  and good deeds.  Yet, as beautiful as this teaching is, it
>>     provides us with no suitable replacement for the blood  of atonement.
> 
>See other posts where I show examples of atonement without blood.

I have yet to see an example of atonement without blood.  The references I've
seen from you so far show no such thing.

>The need for the blood of atonement is part ofthe  process of making
>a sacrifice which requires blood, not atonement in general.

WHY did those sacrifices require blood?  Do you not know?  Why all the blood,
if there were other ways of atoning?  Why the slaughter?

>>     To this very day, there are still Orthodox Jews who, recognizing their
>>     need for an atonement sacrifice, kill a chicken on Yom Kippur, wave it
>>     around  their  heads  and  say:   "This  is my substitute!  This is my
>>     atonement!"
> 
>First of all, note that the ritual can also be performed without
>a chicken, using charity instead.  Also, for those who use an
>animal, one may NOT use an animal which would be suitable as a
>sacrifice, lest people associate this ritual with a sacrifice.

Want to tell us who made up these rules?  I haven't seen them in Torah.

But I *do* understand that the rabbis in fashioning their Oral Tradition
were concerned with not having the people associate such action with a
sacrifice [another real leap of "logic"!].

>Most importantly, either the chicken or the charity must be
>given to the poor; one who does the ceremony then keeps the
>chicken has *not* accomplished anything.
>
>
>>     ...  What  a  sad  testimony  to  our  people's  lack  of  true
>>     forgiveness  outside  of  God's  way  through Messiah!  And what clear
>>     evidence of the fact that,  with  the  Temple  destroyed,  traditional
>>     Judaism offers no new covenant, RATIFIED WITH BLOOD, and acceptable in
>>     the sight of God.
> 
>We have no need to offer a new covenant, as ours is still in force.

Then you are a dead man, according to your covenant.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried;
     /\		... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was
____/__\____	crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being
\  / || \  /	fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  All of us
 \/--++--\/	like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own
 /\  ||  /\	way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on
/  \ || /  \	Him. ... By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will
----\--/----	justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.
     \/							-- Isaiah 53
		Bruce Tiffany