From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean
Date: 7 Sep 1992 15:54:24 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

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.


>  It is recognized by Jewish and Christian scholars alike
>     that the New Covenant emphasis on blood atonement is based  on  JEWISH
>     beliefs  of  the  day.

"Based on" is a rhetorical smokescreen here.  You could alse
say that the Latter-day-Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are based on
Christianity, but doesn't mean they're compatible.


>   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.


>     Blood sacrifices formed the main part of the ancient Israelite  Temple
>     service,  and, according to Leviticus 16, on the Day of Atonement (Yom
>     Kippur) THE HOLY PLACE ITSELF, as well as the High Priest and all  the
>     people  of  Israel,  were to be cleansed by the BLOOD of a sacrificial
>     goat.  On the eve of Israel's exodus from Egypt, it was the  BLOOD  of
>     the  Passover (Pesach) lamb, put upon the two doorposts and the lintel
>     of the house, that would be a sign to the destroying  angel,  and  the
>     LORD  said,  "And  when  I  see  the BLOOD, I will pass over you" (Ex.
>     12:13).  Even the giving of the Torah at Mount Sanai was ratified with
>     the  shedding  of  BLOOD  ("This is THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT that the
>     LORD has made with you in accordance with  all  these  words"  --  Ex.
>     24:8, and the Aramaic Targum to this verse reads:  "And Moses took the
>     blood and poured it on the altar AS ATONEMENT FOR THE PEOPLE ...").

Nowhere in these passages does it say that blood is the only means
of atonement.

>     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.


>     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_.

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

>     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.


>     The references to "atonement money" actually have nothing to  do  with
>     atonement  for  sins.   One example is found in Exodus 30:11-16, where
>     every male Israelite who was to be counted in the census was to pay  a
>     kopher  ("a  ransom";  see Ex.  21:30 -- the owner of a goring ox that
>     killed a man would have to pay a  kopher,  i.e.,  a  fixed  amount  of
>     ransom  money).   Since  the taking of a census was considered to be a
>     dangerous enterprise (according to 2 Sam.   24,  when  David  numbered
>     Israel,  a plague broke out among the people), God told the Israelites
>     to contribute an offering to the Tabernacle, SO THAT NO  PLAGUE  WOULD
>     BREAK OUT AMONG THEM.

Mike Brown has the process mixed up.  The process is (1) give the offering
(2) which atones for your lives (3) so that no plague breaks out.

It is because one has atoned that the plague is withheld.

>     Thus, the kopher here had to do with PROTECTION FROM A PLAGUE, and not
>     the   forgiveness  of  sins  or  personal  atonement.   In  fact,  the
>     expression in verse 15 "to atone for  your  lives"  should  really  be
>     translated  as "to pay a kopher (ransom) for your souls."

Wishful thinking.  The Torah uses the root of 'pidyon' for redemptive
ransom, as in Ex. 13:13, "v'chol bechor adam bivanecha tiphdeh"
('and you must [also] redeem every first-born human among your sons')

From this verse we learn about the mitzvah of "pidyon ha-ben" -
redemption of the first-born.  'Kappara' refers to an atonement,
not a ransom.

See also Numbers 3:44-5 where the redemption is indicated by similar
language.

>  This is also
>     the best way to translate Numbers 31:50, since the  reference  to  the
>     children of Israel offering gold jewelry to the LORD again has nothing
>     to do with atonement.  Having just counted the soldiers who  had  gone
>     into  battle  with  Midian  (again,  they  had  taken  a CENSUS!), the
>     officers decided to offer some of the spoil to God and thus to  pay  a
>     kopher for their souls.  What connection is there between any of these
>     narratives and the concept of personal  atonement  or  forgiveness  of
>     sins?

There's a very simple connection which R' Ovadia Sforno 
(the brilliant Italian-Jewish Torah scholar of the 15-16th century)
points out  (paraphrasing):

Recall back in Numbers 25, when the Midianite and Moabite women
caused many Israelites to worship Baal Peor.  Because the 
soldiers didn't protest, so must they atone with women's
jewelry as was used in the incident, hence verse 51: "articles
prepare for use" and verse 54: "as a remembrance for the children
of Israel" who had sinned at that time.


>     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.

If Christians believe that blood atonemnt is the only means, then
go ahead and believe it, but call your beliefs "Christianity."


>     The prophets taught that sacrifices without  mercy  and  justice  were
>     vain,  and  that bringing an offering without a repentant and contrite
>     heart  was  unacceptable.   Both  of  these  themes   are   constantly
>     reiterated in the New Covenant, and one of Yeshua's favorite texts was
>     Hosea 6:6:  "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of
>     God  rather  than burnt offerings" (see, e.g., Matt.  12:7).  In fact,
>     when Yeshua gave the Great Commission, he said  that  "REPENTANCE  AND
>     FORGIVENESS  OF  SINS will be preached in his name to all nations ..."
>     (Luke 24:47).

Finally, a correct set of sentences.

>      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.


>     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.

Hebrews 9:11-14 is one of the passages which demonstrates
how Christianity theologically diverged from Judaism.

>     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.

>     ...  Another good example is Psalm 141,
>     where David asks that HIS PRAYER be set before  God  as  INCENSE,  and
>     that  the LIFTING UP OF HIS HANDS be as the EVENING SACRIFICE.  Yet no
>     one would suggest that King David, who  brought  the  ark  of  God  to
>     Jerusalem,  and who desired to build a permanent "house" for the LORD,
>     wanted to abolish incense or the evening sacrifice!

Kindly send home your straw men.  Nobody is talking about *wanting* to
abolish sacrifice.  Rather, that prayer and repentance accomplish the
same effects.  In this particular Psalm, however, King David is
asking that his prayer show his trust in G-d, just as the evening
sacrifice shows our trust in G-d "when the bright sun of our fortunes
declines." (S.R. Hirsch)


>     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.

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

>     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.

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.

If you believe in the need for a new covenant, go ahead and believe
that, but don't call your religion Judaism.  Is that too much to ask?

Rob

-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM
Newsgroups: alt.messianic