Continuing our series of instructive Jewish responses to Christian missionary polemics (see also articles 1, 2, 3)

Does The Blood Imperative Make Sense?

The Christian insistence that atonement is only possible through blood sacrifice runs into trouble when the Torah discusses the question of those who can’t afford to purchase an animal. In certain situations, the Torah allowed a poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn’t afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if he was so destitute, he couldn’t afford even these small birds?

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 absolutely necessary for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could expiate sin creates a dilemma. Could it be that God would set up a system of atonement that wouldn’t be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did, under certain circumstances, serve as part of the atonement process. But what would be the fate of Jewish people who don’t have access to the Temple?5 What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 423 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed6 and we were exiled to Babylon? Or, how did we atone for our sins after the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 CE? Christians erroneously claim that after the destruction of the second Temple, Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with the atonement issue since sacrifices could no longer be brought. They assert that Jesus’s crucifixion in the year 30 CE served as a special sacrifice replacing the entire sacrificial system of the Temple.7 Therefore, they explain, after the destruction of the second Temple, we can be forgiven for our sins through faith in Jesus’s sacrificial death.

However, those making this claim fail to explain how Jews living in Babylon and Persia after the destruction of the first Temple hundreds of years earlier could be forgiven for their sins. What did they do without the ability to sacrifice in the Temple? It wasn’t Talmudic innovation at all that provided a path for those seeking atonement after the second Temple was destroyed.

The Bible itself had already anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices.8 When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the first Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost fifty 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 containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost symbolic of God’s presence and revelation to the Jewish people (Exodus 25:8, I Kings 8:13).9

Toward the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being without access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.

When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near; and they take to heart in the land where they were taken captive and repent, and pray to You in the land of those who took them captive, saying, “We have sinned and done wrong and have been wicked.” 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 that they have transgressed against You. (I Kings 8:46–50)

This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian distortion of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren’t absolutely necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing forgiveness. Certainly, when the Temple stood, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins.10 Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we offer such an animal on the altar, its blood that contains the life force of the animal is the critical part of the sacrificial ritual. This is the only permissible use of blood and it may never be consumed. To summarize, Leviticus 17:11 does not say that only blood sacrifices can atone for sin, and I Kings 8 informs us that there are other means of atonement.

Before moving on, we should point out that the Christian Bible went to great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Tanach.11 In the New Testament book of Hebrews, a verse from the Psalms is cited as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of God’s original plan for the world:

Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me. (Hebrews 10:5, referencing Psalm 40:7)

Verse ten of this chapter in Hebrews informs us that the body spoken of is the body of Jesus. However, the Christian Bible took great liberties, distorting the verse quoted from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared. What follows is the actual verse from Psalm 40:

Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired, but my ears You have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required.

The Christian claim of fidelity to the Biblical text is exposed here as a very hollow one.

—

Notes

5 Sacrifices could be offered only in the Temple and the Bible prohibited bringing them elsewhere. See Leviticus 17:1–9 and Deuteronomy12:5–14.

6 This is the date according to traditional Jewish chronology. Other sources date the destruction of the first Temple to 586 BCE.

7 The New Testament claims that Jesus’s mission was to die as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of those who would believe in him: Matthew 1:21; John 1:29, 3:16-18, 36; Acts 5:31; Romans 5:8–9, 11:26–27; I Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; Hebrews chapters 9–10; I Peter 1:19, 2:24; I John 1:7, 2:2; Revelation 1:5.

8 See Hosea 3:4–5.

9 See the commentary of Nachmanides to Exodus 28:1. The Holy Ark was the first part of the Tabernacle that God commanded us to construct (Exodus 25:10–22).

10 The Korban Chatat (sin offering) is discussed in Leviticus, chapter 4, and was only offered for sins committed unintentionally. (For example, someone didn’t know it was forbidden to cook food on the Sabbath. Or, they knew that it was forbidden, but were unaware it was the Sabbath when they were cooking). See also Numbers 15:27–31 which states that sacrifices were available for the person who sinned unintentionally but not for the one who sinned with intent.

In his Akedat Yitzchak, R’ Isaac Arama explained that both body and soul are involved in intentional sin, while only the body is implicated in unintentional sin because there was no mental intent. Therefore, a physical sacrifice could atone for an unintentional sin since only the body was involved in transgressing. A physical sacrifice could not atone for a deliberate sin because it can’t correct an evil intent rooted in the soul.

Quoted from: You Turn! The Jewish Response to a Christian Challenge by Rabbi Michael Skobac. Published by Jews For Judaism.

Categories: Bible, Judaism