Shmuel Silberman
Missionaries present a
contradictory message about blood sacrifice. On the one hand, they insist that
only blood sacrifice- and nothing else-atones. At the same time, they maintain
that the blood sacrifices of the
Leviticus 4 speaks of
bringing sin offerings to the
Missionaries claim to
know better than Leviticus. They quote from the New Testament, "But those
sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the
blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Hebrews 10:3-4)."
This puts missionaries in
an odd position, for they regard blood very highly- actually indispensable.
"In fact the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood,
and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement (Hebrews 9:22)."
If Hebrews 9:22 means
there is no other way of atonement in the Bible, it is simply false. There is
atonement through repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42,
Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16), kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24), prayer (Hos.
14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19), removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9),
punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22), death (Is. 22:14), flour offerings (Lev.
5:11-13), money (Ex. 30:15), jewelry (Num. 31:50), and incense (Num. 17:11-12).
The missionary claim that
these other sources of atonement were effective when combined with blood
sacrifices is also incorrect. Several of the sources cited above speak of the
Babylonian captivity when there were no sacrifices. Others, such as Isaiah
27:9, refer to the second exile. Even those verses which apply to the
Since the doctrine of 'no
atonement without blood' is easily disproven, the missionaries' next move is to
say that Hebrews 9:22 is talking about Jesus' blood alone. It is not a
statement about sacrifices. This view is problematic:
1. Hebrews 9:22 is making
a general statement which is then applied to Jesus specifically. Without the
premise that atonement requires blood, no one can need possibly Jesus' blood.
2. Hebrews 9:22 is
understood by Christians as a paraphrase of Leviticus 17:11 which says,
"the atonement is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11 is speaking of a
prohibition of eating animal blood, and is certainly not a reference to Jesus
alone.
If a general statement
that atonement must involve blood is false, and if Hebrews 9:22 is not limited
to Jesus, why does anyone need the blood of Jesus? At this point missionaries
seize on passages which downplay the sacrifices. Those verses supposedly prove
that the
"Why do I need your
many sacrifices, says G-d. I am sated with burnt offerings and rams and the fat
of fatlings; the blood of bulls, sheep and goats I do not desire (Isaiah
1:11)."
This verse read in
isolation seems to say G-d rejects blood sacrifice. However, if we look at
verses 16-17, we get the true intent: "
"You do not desire a
feast offering, or I would give it, a burnt offering You do not want (Psalms
51:18)." These are King David's words after his indiscretion with
Bath-sheva. Missionaries claim that David expresses the inadequacy of the
sacrifical system. This is totally wrong. The reason David cannot bring a
sacrifice is because there is no sacrifice for this particular sin. Personal
sin offerings are brought only for unintentional sins and a few intentional
ones (Leviticus 4, 5).
If David cannot bring a
sacrifice, what is he to do? He tells us: "The sacrifices of G-d are a
broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart You will not despise, G-d
(51:19)."
That is not all. 51:20
reads, "Do good in Your favor to
Far from establishing
that atonement is only through blood (the New Testament view), David teaches
that repentance alone can atone for sin. This is indicated in II Samuel 12:13
after David confesses that same sin. "Nathan said to David, 'also G-d has
removed your sin; you shall not die'." Nathan tells David he is forgiven
immediately, without a sacrifice.
"I did not speak
with your forefathers or command them, on the day I took them out of the
This passage obviously
cannot be taken literally. Since G-d in fact commanded sacrifices, Jeremiah
cannot deny that. "Listen to My voice" teaches us two lessons.
Sacrifices must be accompanied by repentance, as indicated in Isaiah 1. Also,
it is obviously preferable if the nation keeps more of G-d's laws and are not
liable to bring numerous sacrifices.
This preference is
reflected elsewhere in the Bible: "Does G-d desire burnt offerings and
feast offerings like obedience to the voice of G-d? Behold obedience is better
than a feast offering, to listen is better than the fat of rams (I Samuel
15:22)."
The same point is found
in an additional verse: "I desire kindness, not sacrifice, and knowledge
of G-d more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6)."
"Feast offerings and
meal offerings You did not desire, ears You have opened for me, burnt offering
and sin offering You did not request (Psalms 40:7)." This sounds like G-d
rejects sacrifices, or does it? What does G-d seek instead? "Ears you have
opended for me" is about obedience to the G-d (recall the statement in
Jeremiah "listen to My voice" as counterpoint to sacrifices). The
Psalmist himself says, "I delight to do your will, my G-d, and your Law is
within my inwards parts (40:9)." Not an invalidation of sacrifices, this
is rather an invalidation of the missionary view that blood atonement, apart
from the Law, is the path to salvation.
Apparently, the New
Testament was not comfortable with Psalms 40:7, for it altered the words of the
Bible!: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a BODY you
prepared for me (Hebrews 10:5)." This total distortion of Psalms 40:7 is
used to justify the "body" of Jesus as superior to sacrifices. A
verse which downplays blood in favor of G-d's commandments is stood on its
head: all is inferior to the blood of Jesus.
The hammer blow to the
allegation that sacrifices are ineffective is that sacrifices will be
reinstituted! Missionaries, however, maintain Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice:
"By that will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all
(Hebrews 10:10)."
"And when these have
been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin" (10:18)."
""He did not
enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the most holy
place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption
(9:12)."
This belief is against
the Bible. Several End of Days prophecies speak of the return of sacrifices in
the End of Days:
"Their
burnt-offerings and sacrifices will be accepted favorably on My altar, for My
Temple will be called a house of prayer for all the nations (Isaiah
56:7)."
'"For seven days you
shall offer a sin-offering each day, also an unblemished young bull from the
herd and an unblemished ram from the flock (Ezekiel. 43:25)."
"'Every pot in
"He will sit
refining and purifying silver. He will purify the descendants of Levi, refine
them like gold and silver. Then they will present G-d with offerings of
righteousness (Malachi 3:3-4)."
It is impossible to
maintain that sacrifices are ineffective, a mere shadow of a future
crucifixion, if sacrifices will be offered in the
Summary: Sacrifices
ordained in the Bible effectively atone. At the same time, they are not the
only source of atonement. G-d prefers obedience to sacrifice and rejects
sacrifices only when they are not brought with sincere repentance. These
limitations in no way invalidate the sacrificial system nor do they provide
justification for Jesus as the means of atonement.