The Blood Atonement Deception: How Christianity Distorted Biblical Atonement

By Gerald Sigal

THE ATONEMENT DECEPTION, explores the Christian theological fiction that belief in Jesus is the only way to receive divine forgiveness for ones sins. Biblically, both Jews and gentiles can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentant confessionary prayer directed to the God of Israel. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called intercession role Jesus is supposed to play in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian contention that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. Jesus death does not bring atonement from sin nor is it in any way a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Nov 19, 2010
• ISBN: 9781503581357

Book preview

Copyright © 2010 by Gerald Sigal.

ISBN:      Hardcover          978-1-4535-9624-1

                Softcover            978-1-4535-9623-4

                Ebook                  9781503581357

Bibliography: p.

Includes index.

1. Christianity—Controversial literature. 2. Judaism—Apologetics.

3. Bible—Criticism. 4. Atonement—Biblical. 5. Sin—Biblical

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

28176

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Preface

PART 1

Delineating The Differences

Martyrs Of Israel

Judaism And Atonement

PART 2

Original Sin

Predestination

The Law Of Jesus

That Old Time Religion

Christianity And Atonement

Weighing The Evidence In The Balance

Bibliography

Scriptural Index

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With deep appreciation I thank Bernard Yadlovker of Gybec Systems for his many hours of tireless work in producing the cover design art and preparing the manuscript for publication. His invaluable comments are a product of his wit and wisdom. Many thanks go to Michael J. Alter and M.S. for their careful reading of the manuscript and their invaluable suggestions concerning grammar and content. This work is made possible through the generous support provided by Rabbi Tzvi Kilstein and Mark Powers and for this special thanks are due. As ever and in all ways I thank my wife Frances, my gift from HaShem.

PREFACE

In reading the Torah, one is struck by the large proportion of the text that is devoted to the details of the sacrificial system. Of that system, a significant part is dedicated to the specific sacrificial offerings required for transgressing certain of the Torah’s precepts. So, it comes as a surprise to many thoughtful readers of the overall biblical text that when chastising Israel for its wayward behavior God never calls for the bringing of sacrifices to placate Him. What God requires and calls for throughout the Jewish Scriptures is a return to Him through sincere remorseful repentance. In the days of the Tabernacle and Temple certain transgressions required animal offerings to accompany contrite repentance through prayer. However, there has never been a time or space limitation to coming before the Almighty in humble remorseful prayer. The general biblical rule is that the only prerequisite for coming before God in order to receive divine forgiveness is contrite repentance. The Jewish Scriptures contain many idiomatic expressions describing the action to be taken by the transgressor in the process of repentance. For example, one is called upon to incline the heart to the Lord (Joshua 24:23), make oneself a new heart (Ezekiel 18:31), circumcise the heart (Jeremiah 4:4), wash the heart (Jeremiah 4:14), and break one’s fallow ground (Hosea 10:12). However, the one term which is most descriptive of God’s desire and which dominates the biblical call to repentance is the root verb shuv (to return). This word is the foundation of the rabbinic concept of teshuvah, repentance, but it is not a rabbinic innovation. In this word is combined the dual aspects of biblical repentance—the turn from evil (Isaiah 33:15; Psalms 15, 24:4), and the turn to good (Isaiah 1:17, 58:5 ff.; Jeremiah 7:3, 26:13; Amos 5:14-15; Psalms 34:15-16, 37:27). The implication of the turning motion is that sin is a straying from the right path but that by the effort of turning back one can redirect his life to the way of God. Teshuvah applies to gentiles as well as Jews. It is said of the people of Nineveh: And God saw their works that they had turned from their evil way (Jonah 3:10). The people of Nineveh did not simply say they turned away from their misdeeds, they showed it through their good works.

Christianity seemingly has a system of repentance that is based on the Torah’s sacrificial model. As such, emphasis is placed on the need for blood atonement. Upon further consideration, however, the notion that Christian repentance rests upon a biblical foundation is found to be more illusory than substantive. According to mainline Christianity, all humans are born depraved having inherited Adam’s original sin. Newborns are guilty of sin even before they actually sin. Repentance is not by coming directly before God with remorse but through the medium of belief in Jesus. For some there is a belief that "who will accept Jesus and be saved from damnation" is a predetermined divine decision made prior to a person’s birth. Emphasis is placed on accepting Jesus and that becomes the primary goal of what is considered the spiritual experience of establishing one’s relationship with the Almighty. And if the truth be told, less attention has been given to the issue of repentance and atonement than to simply accepting Jesus. At best, repentance takes a secondary role. This is not to say that the Gospels’ John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-2) and Jesus (Mark 1:15) did not call for repentance or that the apostles did not preach repentance (Mark 6:12). But, interestingly, these Gospel verses calling for repentance have nothing to say about the need for blood or belief in Jesus (that is left to later Christian mythmakers). Only following the death of Jesus does the call to repent become a call to believe in him as a celestial savior come to earth.

The founding documents of Christianity (e.g. The Letter to the Hebrews, and the Pauline letters) spread a scandalous deception concerning the biblical atonement system. That is, they claimed that only blood can bring atonement and, at that, it is only the blood of Jesus that can bring reconciliation between the sinner and God.

Since there is no original sin that condemns mankind to eternal damnation and no predetermined divine decision as to who will be saved the whole premise for accepting Jesus as some sort of celestial savior-god is flawed. In fact, repentance does not need a blood sacrifice, atonement is not contingent on acceptance of Jesus as intermediary between man and God, and Jesus himself did not qualify as a sacrificial offering in the biblical mode. How do we know this? The Bible told us so.

PART 1

DELINEATING THE DIFFERENCES

The biblical idea of sacrificial offering to God has to be put into perspective. There is no value in asking whether God prefers meat over vegetables or meal offerings over jewelry. God has no need of, or preference for, anything we could offer. It is our attitude in giving of ourselves which is all important both in the physical item offered and the spiritual mental perspective embraced.

There are at least four lessons to be learned in making a sacrifice:

• It must be based on our need to recognize God, and our dependence upon Him for everything, including our very life, and the food we require to sustain it.

• Everything in the universe belongs to God. Nothing that we have, acquire or accumulate is ever ours except on a temporary basis, and that includes our lives.

• Our offering must come from what we have earned and strived for and is our possession in the temporal world. The object offered is not something given to us by God or man without any effort on our part.

• The material object offered must be accompanied by that which is most difficult to obtain—a repentant, contrite, life-changing attitude.

The Torah tells us that Abel sacrificed the choicest firstlings of the flock—the very best of the best—while Cain brought an offering of the produce of the ground. But no mention is made of the quality of Cain’s offering (Genesis 4:3-4). We can only assume that Cain was just doing as little as possible. Indeed, a midrash indicates that Cain’s offering was from the worst of his crop.¹ From the biblical episode of Cain and Abel we learn that sacrifice is not to be just a perfunctory offering done with a yawn and a wink but a serious showing that one is sincerely willing and able to give of his very best—this is sacrifice.

The traditional rabbinic and traditional Christian views of atonement both appeal to common biblical ideas of sacrifice and repentance. To understand the conflicting views on atonement between these two religious systems one must understand the nature and purpose of the biblical sacrificial system as outlined in the Torah. Biblically, sacrifices are not offered to placate God’s anger, but rather serve as part of a process whereby the worshiper establishes a renewed relationship with God. Despite its prominence in the biblical record, the Temple sacrificial offering is only one part of the biblically provided vehicle for repentance that leads to reconciliation with God. Repentance involves turning away from sin, experiencing contrition of heart, confessing sin and commitment to change one’s spiritual condition. It is a misunderstanding of the institution of sacrifice to relate the worship of God to the act of just bringing the sacrifice. Rather it is the intention that must accompany the act that is the essential core expressed through the physical act.

Sacrifice was offered as part of the process of atonement. However, the supplicant was not to believe that his sins were simply removed when a sacrificial offerning was placed on the altar, as if something occurred that made his own moral actions irrelevant. The physical sacrificial component of the atonement process symbolically helped to connect the supplicant to God, thereby providing the external basis for effective inner repentance. Forgiveness of sin was brought about through the combined actions of God and the supplicant. The sacrificial system was a gift from God through which one can be reconciled to God. However, to be effective it had to involve human action offered in sincere repentance and obedience. The sacrificial act provided an opportunity for penitence for the transgressor and gave concrete expression to his desire to repent. Nevertheless, the biblical expiatory sacrificial process was never meant to rival or supersede the essential response to God—sincere contrite prayer.

The Temple was God’s earthly showplace to display His loving kindness and willingness and ability to grant atonement for sins. However, the atonement system was virtually reserved for transgressions done in error, not for deliberate transgressions. The deliberate sinner, with few exceptions, could only approach God through repentant prayer. It is important to understand that even while the Temple was functioning as the center of national and cultic religion, the great majority of sins were forgiven through a process of contrite remorseful repentance alone. This process was very private and took place between the sinner and his Creator at any time and anywhere.

Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. it was recognized that atonement would now have to be made without the blood offering component of the Temple sacrificial service. But was this possible? Could lessons be learned from Israel’s past history or even contemporary conditions? There were occasions in Israel’s past when Temple sacrifice was inaccessible for reasons beyond its control. Moreover, non-blood atonement leading to repentance and forgiveness of sin had been going on for generations in the Diaspora and in particular for those who had committed deliberate violations of the Torah. The rabbis understood that sacrifice was never effective as an external rite in itself. That is, sacrifice could not automatically provide forgiveness apart from the supplicant’s own repentance. Atonement cannot be effective without genuine expression of sorrow for one’s sin and sincere desire to reform one’s behavior by obedience to the will of God. The rabbis therefore emphasized the biblical view that atonement is primarily made possible through the individual’s repentant confession of sins apart from any ritual sacrifice.

Some Christian commentators allege that the Temple offerings worked on the principle of a life for a life. This claim misrepresents key aspects of the Temple service. The shedding of the animal’s blood might be symbolic of what could be the fate of the offerer but was not a substitute for him. Within the limits of the sacrificial system, it was the blood that represented the life-force of the animal and as such was used in one aspect of the atoning process. It was a graphic representation not a substitution. Within the totality of the Temple service, animal offerings certainly took up the majority of the holy place functions. However, the animal offerings were not the only activities that were necessary or that had the power to bring about atonement. Animal offerings worked in conjunction with other ritual items and requirements. For example, in the intricate system of the Temple service even the gold head-plate of the high priest in addition to the offerings was instrumental in obtaining atonement for Israel (Exodus 28:38). The intricate system ordained by God for the Temple service clarifies why the rabbis never suggested that in the absence of the Temple, animal sacrifices or, indeed, any physical offering could be offered elsewhere. There could be no substitute for the Temple location or ritual as it was ordained. For example, there could not be animal, incense, or meal offerings outside the divinely designated area. Specific rituals were ordained for the Temple service and could only be practiced within that designated area. Herein can be found the foundational ordinance upon which rests the structure of a proper relationship with the Almighty. The detailed strictures of the divinely ordained Temple ritual did not work elsewhere. They worked in the Temple because doing them there was obedience to the will of God. Atonement was gained through obedience to the will of God as expressed through following the Temple rituals as divinely decreed. The Temple ritual was not based on the principle of a life for a life, it was based on the principle of And they did… as the Lord commanded Moses, which is stated repeatedly in Exodus 39, 40. These two chapters are concerned with the construction of the Tabernacle and the ritual objects connected with that structure. The fact is that every aspect of the Temple ritual worked in conjunction with each other. There was nothing that stood independent of the rest. If the altar had not been constructed as God had commanded Moses, the blood would not have atoned. Why? It is because the main ingredient would have been lacking. That ingredient is obedience. Sincere obedience to the will of God is the guiding principle that brings repentance and repentance brings atonement.

With the Temple’s destruction the focal point of much of Jewish ritual observance disappeared. Reorganization and formalization of daily religious life became the premier responsibility of the Sages of Israel. Despite persecution by the Roman authorities and the spiritual dangers emanating from heretical sects, the sages were able to spiritually unite the majority of the Jewish people around the Written and Oral Laws of the Torah. The growing rivalry emanating from the followers of Jesus offered a system of belief to the gentiles that allowed the movement to grow proportionally to its increasing denial of the validity of the Torah’s precepts. Thus, biblical continuity and consistency in the post-Temple ritual period could only be found in what is commonly called rabbinic Judaism. In particular, one focus of this study investigates the way in which the sages coped with the problem of continuing a right relationship with God without the Temple ritual. How to achieve atonement from sin was a serious issue exacerbated by the counter-claims of the heretical sect of followers of the would-be messiah, Jesus. How the sages answered this problem was not only in the biblical spirit but actually got to the very heart of the biblical atonement process—one that was as old as the Torah itself. There is no novel innovation in this process but simply a reemphasis of the basic human quality that is central to the atonement process. Repentance and restitution were always first required in order to obtain forgiveness—even when the Temple sacrifices were being performed. These requirements underlay and accompanied the sacrificial offering for sin and these biblical duties remained in effect even without the shedding of blood. The Temple provided a unique showplace setting of God’s presence, dwelling among His people. Here one came to offer a sacrifice to accompany inner repentance. But in essence, a severed relationship with God could be reestablished anywhere and at anytime by Jew or gentile alike through sincere repentance without the need to dash blood upon the side of the Temple altar. Nevertheless, traditional Judaism looks forward to a restoration of sacrificial offerings in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. The relationship between God and the Jewish people that was openly manifest in the Sanctuary was uniquely special. Jews look forward to the Temple’s restoration (which included but was not limited to the sacrificial system) and the reestablishment of the intimate connection with God that it afforded.

The early followers of Jesus dismissed the biblical options for acquiring atonement for sins committed and reinterpreted the concept of the Messiah. Biblically, the Messiah is God’s agent for the redemption of Israel from physical and spiritual suffering; not one who atones for their sins. The early followers of Jesus, however, were confronted with the need to explain his violent death. They first and foremost came to view the mission of their martyred messiah as an atoning sacrifice. These first followers of Jesus were Jews and they were familiar with the Jewish sacrificial system and its role in acquiring atonement. They, therefore, figuratively appealed to this sacrificial terminology to explain the death of Jesus. Later they literally applied this new interpretation to Jesus. Their concept of atonement, which was originally rooted in Judaism, soon diverged considerably from its Jewish biblical antecedents. They maintained redemption could occur only through Jesus’ death resulting from the shedding of his blood. In this way, the early Christians gave significance to Jesus’ death unlike any concept found in the biblical record.

The New Testament reliance on Jesus as a supposed onetime sinless offering on behalf of mankind falls short of achieving that goal. This New Testament claim is based on unproved tendentious assumptions. First, who says Jesus was sinless? Second, who says he was a sacrificial offering when he meets none of the biblical requirements for such an offering? To say the New Testament gives proof is circular reasoning. Moreover, to interpret verses in the Jewish Scriptures to prove that Jesus died as a sacrificial offering result from making assumptions that have no rational basis in the scriptural passages themselves.

The crucial differences that separated the early Christian conception of atonement from that of the biblical model can be summed up as follows: First, because of the violent nature of Jesus’ death early Christians developed a belief that only a blood sacrificial offering was a valid means for attaining atonement from sin. Second, they made the death of a human being the central act of atonement—a once-for-all sacrifice that is sufficient and that cannot be duplicated. Third, was the development of the thought that Jesus’ death brought atonement that was universal in scope (biblical sin-offerings were only given to Israel) that paved the way for the eventual mission to the gentiles. These ideas separate the Christian view of atonement from the biblical view.

The early Christians seeking to biblically justify their newly formed beliefs introduced the innovative interpretation that the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 suffers for the sins of others as a superlative one time sacrifice and then applied it to Jesus. The idea that the death of righteous martyrs may atone for the sins of the people is a later development not found in the Bible. It has its origins during the Syrian-Greek period of persecution, which led to the Maccabean revolt (168 B.C.E.). Explaining Jewish suffering during this period, Jewish writings proposed the idea that the death of martyrs could bring about atonement for the sins of Israel. The idea became more fully developed during the period of persecution in the first and second centuries C.E. It was believed that by their upright example, righteous individuals who died on account of their faithfulness to the Torah of God set an example of humble submission to the will of God that provided a catalyst for repentance by all Israel. Their sacrifices inspired others to righteous acts and repentance. In this sense, their lives are said to be sacrifices atoning for the sins of others. Even though this concept was developed most explicitly in texts written after Jesus’ lifetime, it appeared much earlier. Consequently, we should expect that the first followers of Jesus were familiar with it. The belief in the atoning power of Jesus’ death initially evolved out of a Jewish understanding of martyrdom as a form of representative atonement. However, this was soon taken to an extreme unrelated to biblical teachings.

The sacrificial concept of Jesus’ death was further developed when some early Christians expanded their peculiar message of salvation beyond the boundaries of Israel in order to seek converts from among the gentile population of the Roman Empire. As given in the Torah, God gave the sacrificial system exclusively to the Jewish people. That is why, for example, Naaman was not required to offer an animal sacrifice to God on being cured of his leprosy (cf. 2 Kings 5:9 ff.). Christianity discarded the Torah claiming to be under grace through faith in Jesus. They alleged that this supposed divine favor was equivalent to upholding the Torah, which they declared as obsolete. But, to maintain a façade of continuity with the biblical sacrificial system it was claimed that Jesus died as a one time superlative sacrifice for the sins of everyone in the world. This notion was not rooted in the Jewish Scriptures. However, it was appealing to pagan thought and made the Christian mission to the gentiles possible. In the gentile world the messianic idea was soon metamorphosed into one of a savior-god doctrine familiar to the gentiles. Among the non-Jewish population there were many popular myths of gods who died and were reborn to bring new life and salvation to the world. Rather than as a Jewish messiah figure gentiles could more readily accept Jesus’ death in such mythic terms.

Thus, a Jewish belief that the death of a righteous individual can reconcile others to God by his sacrifice of suffering and death (but not in the sense of or as replacement for a biblical sacrificial offering) became perverted under Christian influence. The meaning placed on Jesus’ death distinguished Christian concepts from those of (non-Christian) Jews. These ideas distorted if not negated the Jewish form and content of any initial understanding of Jesus’ alleged sacrifice as a martyr. As such, the Christian view of atonement as originating in the Bible or in other Jewish literary works lost all meaning