|
|
"...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)
Answer for yourself: Is this statement from the epistle to the Hebrews really true or is it a contradiction of the Eternal Word of God and the Bible Jesus used?
The central theme of Christianity and the New Testament (NT) is the sacrificial offering of the blood of 'Jesus Christ' as atonement for the sins of the entire world. "The blood of 'Jesus' was shed in our stead and is the only means of atonement for sin."
Answer for yourself: Is this claim truly consistent with The Holy Scriptures (OT)?
Before you say “yes” you might possibly need to be honest with yourself by answering this question: “Just how well do I really know the Old Testament Scriptures and their meanings since I am a New Testament Christian?”
Christians claim that the absolute need for blood is rooted in the Law of Moses (the Torah). Traditionally they will often cite the book of Leviticus as proof:
"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, 'No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'" (Leviticus 17:11)
What should immediately be apparent is that this passage is concerned first and foremost with the prohibition against consuming blood. The subject of atonement here is secondary. We are told that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the life or vitality of the animal. Strong’s number 3722 is the Hebrew word “Kaphar”; Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon explains this to mean (1) to cover over, to over spread as with pitch. (2) to obtain forgiveness. (3) to make expiation for an offender, to free him from charge.
Another reason is that consuming blood was a very important part of the idolatrous religious practices of the people and nations surrounding Israel (Gen. 9:4 and Deut. 12:23).
Israel was clearly instructed by The Holy One of Israel through Moses not to imitate this abhorrent pagan practice in any manner (and this has serious implications for Christian communion, both Catholic and Protestant). Although the actual blood was later to be substituted with wine in many of the sacred banquets of pagan religions, there is ample evidence to support the claim that literal blood was consumed as part of the ritual worship of pagan deities, and this as a form of atonement.
Please listen to this! Since this passage from Lev. 17 is predominately concerned with the prohibition against consuming blood, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for instructions concerning atonement for sins. This passage in Leviticus will become clearer later on. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, it can be used as a means of atoning for our sins. It does not say, however, that blood is the only means of atoning for sins. Indeed, The Holy Scriptures tell us of several other things that can be used instead of the blood of a sacrificial ram or bullock.
"And Moses said unto Aaron, 'Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from [YHVH]; the plague is begun.' And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people." (Numbers 16:46-47)
Here, incense can be used to atone for sins in the same manner as the blood sacrifices of animals.
Notice what else could be used in place of blood:
"The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel (offering of money), when they give an offering unto [YHVH], to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before [YHVH], to make an atonement for your souls." (Exodus 30:15-16)
Here, one’s offering to the LORD can be used to atone for sins in the same manner as the blood sacrifices of animals.
The phrase "to make atonement for your souls" in these verses is the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11:
"We have therefore brought an oblation [again items of worth and money] (Deut. 12:23-25, 30) for [YHVH], what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before [YHVH]." Numbers 31:50)
In these passages, money could be used to make atonement for the children of Israel. The principle here is not that atonement can be bought [this was the practice of the great universal church whose priests routinely sold forgiveness]. Rather, this is about doing charitable things with money. In this case, the money was to be used for the physical maintenance of the temple building.
According to the Bible, blood sacrifices held only limited atonement capabilities. Foremost among it's limitations was that blood sacrifices were only brought for unintentional sins. If a person committed some sin out of ignorance, such as doing work on the Sabbath when perhaps they mistakenly thought it was Sunday, then atonement could be made through a sacrificial sin offering. Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally. Notice the instructions to the priests concerning this:
"And [YHVH] spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of [YHVH] concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto [YHVH] for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before [YHVH]; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before [YHVH]. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before [YHVH], before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before [YHVH], which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" Leviticus 4:1-7)
This claim that only blood could atone for sins raises many questions. What happens if someone could not afford to purchase a ram or bullock for his sin offering? Is it possible that a loving CREATOR would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy?
"And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto [YHVH]; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering." Leviticus 5:7)
Here, if a person could not afford the sacrificial ram or bullock for a sin offering, certain types of small birds could be used instead.
Answer for yourself: However, what if someone was so destitute, that 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)
This is very interesting, but seriously damaging to the Christian doctrine. If birds could not be afforded, some simple flour could be used instead and would be just as effective in the eyes of Israel's CREATOR. The scriptures are quite clear on this. Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is evident that blood was not the sole means of atonement. The Christian position that only the shed blood of 'Jesus' could atone for sins is falling by the wayside in light of the Holy Scriptures. Actually, considering the beating and torture which 'Jesus' is said to have suffered at The hands of the Romans, you have to wonder why he didn't just bring a sack of flour to the Romans and let them whip, beat, mock and crucify it instead!!!
While the Temple stood, sacrifices without question served as part of the atonement process. If you read the first articles in this series then you understand the meaning of the presentation of the “blood” on the altar within the Temple.
Answer for yourself: What, though, was to be the fate of the people who did not have access to the Temple?
Answer for yourself: What were the Israelite people supposed to do after 586 B.C.E. when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon?
Answer for yourself: What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Maccabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and did not allow sacrifices?
After king Solomon completed the spectacular temple building in Jerusalem, he dedicated it with a very moving speech. This lengthy and very beautiful speech can be read in the books of 1 Kings 8 and II Chronicles 6. Notice, however, that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! If sacrifices were the focal point of the temple, this omission would be very curious. Rather, the focus of the Temple was shown to be the Ark, containing the Laws which our CREATOR wanted us to live by. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of the Shechinah, or presence of The Holy One of Israel.
"I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. (I Kings 8:13)
"And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" (Exodus 25:8).
Toward the end of the speech, Solomon addresses the subject of the Israelite people being denied access to the temple:
"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 which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50)
This passage helps us understand Leviticus 17:11 properly. The Bible clearly teaches that blood sacrifices were not necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are shown to be the effective means of atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and if one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. What Leviticus 17:11 teaches us is that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we are not allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement. In addition, we were not to consume the blood because this was the practice of the pagan people who worshipped the sun-god 'baal.'
Another focal point of the NT is the Christian claim that the crucifixion of 'Jesus' served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. However, if the sacrificial instructions set forth by the Law of Moses are examined closely, and you see the guidelines set forth for how sacrifices are to be brought, it will be clear that 'Jesus' could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Clearly, not just any blood shed in any manner would satisfy the biblical requirements for atonement. Notice the instructions set forth in the Torah concerning sacrifices:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls..." (Lev. 17:11)
Notice that the blood of the acceptable sacrifice was to be shed upon the holy alter of the temple, and not on the pagan phallic symbol of the cross. Besides Yeshua died on a stake without a crossbar as was customary of the Romans. Clearly, not just any spilled blood is acceptable as a sacrifice. YHVH set forth very meticulous rules and laws governing acceptable sacrifices brought to Him. "Jesus'" crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to theGreek Testament of Mithraism but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in compliance with what The Holy Scriptures of Israel's CREATOR requires.
There are many other factors that would render the crucifixion of 'Jesus' an unacceptable sacrifice according to scriptural guidelines. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Levite Priest, a descendant of Aaron. According to the "gospel" accounts, 'Jesus' was killed by pagan, gentile Roman soldiers.
Biblical law also prohibited any sacrifice that was blemished or maimed:
"Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto [YHVH] to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beefs or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen [cyst], or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto [YHVH], nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto [YHVH]. (Leviticus 22:19-21).
Now we have a problem. The "gospels" of the NT clearly teach that 'Jesus' was beaten and whipped, which would have made him blemished and maimed and therefore an unfit sacrifice. Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that "Jesus'" death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. Christians will insist, indeed the NT itself makes the claim, that 'Jesus' was literally our Passover sacrifice. Remember in the book of John, when the Roman soldiers pierced 'Jesus' [after he was already dead, mind you]? Here we are told that they did not break his legs because this would violate the rules of the proper Passover sacrifice (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, and John 19:3). The legs of the crucified were sometimes broken to hasten death. It was necessary that crucifixion victims must prop themselves up using their legs in order to facilitate breathing. This could prolong death for days at times. The legs were broken so that proper breathing could be prevented, and the lungs crushed the diaphragm and breathing was extremely difficult.:
"But coming to 'Jesus,' when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs...in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: Not a bone of him shall be broken." (John 19:33-36)
The gospel of John portrays 'Jesus' as the Passover lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (cf. Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). If Christians insist that 'Jesus' was the literal Passover sacrifice, and his blood atoned for our sins, then 'Jesus,' as that sacrifice, was subject to the literal guidelines set by the Law of Moses given by CREATOR of Israel governing an acceptable sacrifice. Christians always seem to want to have it both ways. The NT itself proposes that 'Jesus' was a literal sacrifice. When confronted with the clear Biblical instructions on how acceptable sacrifices were to be offered, however, they will complain that this is just legalistic nit picking.
You may wonder why I present this material to you, our readers. Simply, knowing what I know and what I have uncovered which is not taught to the Christian Church but which Jews seem to have always known, behooves me to share it with my brothers and sisters in hopes that they might learn as well the truth behind the New Testament and repent thereby accepting the true faith of Yeshua. Such honors God and guarantees acceptance when we die. More to follow. Shalom.