Blood is not necessary for atonement

[IndigoChild5559]

JPS 1985. Numbers 17:12 'Aaron took it, as Moses had ordered, and ran to the midst of the congregation, where the plague had begun among the people. He put on the incense and made expiation for the people.'

You say that these passages prove that blood is not used to expiate for sin. But this is not what the passages say. In the KJV 'he [Aaron] put on incense, [comma denotes separation] and made an atonement for the people.'

In the JPS version, the distinction is not so evident but there could still be a separation between the putting on of incense and the making of an expiation. This version is ambiguous.

As you have pointed out, in the JPS version, there is no comma denoting separation. Even in the KJV, the comma is there to separate clauses, not actions. You are simply reading an entire action into the story that is not there in the text. That is never a good idea.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By what I see, they are not required. There is just rules how to do it, if people want to do it.

If there are rules governing how to do is, these same rules are commandments to do it.

How it is for our benefit? (I am not against it, I just think it is not demanded).

As I stated previously, many human beings have a hard time with abstractions. Repentance is simply not real unless there is something physical involved in it. Sacrifice provides that. Same with offerings for thanksgiving, etc. They give substance to abstractions.

I think “let them” is not commandment. I think God allowed it, but didn’t demand it,

When God says "let them," it is not just a suggestion, but a command.

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.

Acts 17:24-25

Again this is Christian doctrine, not Jewish doctrine. For Jewish theology, see the Tanakh, not the Christian scriptures. Jews, of course believe that God is everywhere, but that God is present in a special way in the holy of holies of the Temple, as the Shekinah above the Ark. Any Christian doctrine that goes against this, is in contradiction to the teaching of the Torah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You should share the photo with the rest of us. When did you see him?

You can't see God, since God has no form.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As you have pointed out, in the JPS version, there is no comma denoting separation. Even in the KJV, the comma is there to separate clauses, not actions. You are simply reading an entire action into the story that is not there in the text. That is never a good idea.

Since the passage in Numbers cannot clarify the issue, we are forced to look to the other texts. Leviticus 4 seems to prove the point that all atonement or expiation required blood. The commentators in the JPS make this exact point.

Are there any other texts in the Tanakh that supposedly support the view that blood is not used to atone for sin?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Since the passage in Numbers cannot clarify the issue, we are forced to look to the other texts. Leviticus 4 seems to prove the point that all atonement or expiation required blood. The commentators in the JPS make this exact point.

Are there any other texts in the Tanakh that supposedly support the view that blood is not used to atone for sin?

Leviticus 4 clearly commands sacrifice for unintentional sins. That's the ideal. Nowhere in Leviticus 4 does it say that blood is necessary.

I've given you a hole bunch of verses that speak to non-blood sacrifices, and non-sacrifices being ok, especially under certain circumstances.

In addition, there is the exception made for the poor who cannot afford an animal to sacrifice for sin, who may bring a grain offering instead.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Leviticus 4 clearly commands sacrifice for unintentional sins. That's the ideal. Nowhere in Leviticus 4 does it say that blood is necessary.

I've given you a hole bunch of verses that speak to non-blood sacrifices, and non-sacrifices being ok, especially under certain circumstances.

In addition, there is the exception made for the poor who cannot afford an animal to sacrifice for sin, who may bring a grain offering instead.

Are you reading the same Leviticus! Throughout chapter 4, there is regular mention of blood sacrifice. In fact, not one of the sacrifices mentioned is without blood!

And those that are too poor to afford a blood sacrifice are covered by the priest, who makes a blood sacrifice on their behalf.

So what other passages do you have to support this erroneous belief?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are you reading the same Leviticus! Throughout chapter 4, there is regular mention of blood sacrifice. In fact, not one of the sacrifices mentioned is without blood!

And those that are too poor to afford a blood sacrifice are covered by the priest, who makes a blood sacrifice on their behalf.

So what other passages do you have to support this erroneous belief?

Why does Leviticus 4 only apply to unintentional sin? And why are those who are poor allowed to sacrifice grain? No where does it say that the priest sacrifices a blood sacrifice for their sin offering.

Leviticus 5
11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest's, as the meal-offering.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why does Leviticus 4 only apply to unintentional sin? And why are those who are poor allowed to sacrifice grain? No where does it say that the priest sacrifices a blood sacrifice for their sin offering.

Leviticus 5
11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest's, as the meal-offering.

Look again at verse 13! 'And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin'. The priest makes a blood sacrifice. The remnant, which is for the priest, is from the sacrifice, which is an animal [meal offering]; it's not flour!

Jewish compilers of the Jewish Study Bible write this,

'The sacrifices in these two chapters [Leviticus 4,5] do not reflect the individual's voluntary resolve to serve God, but are occasioned by specific violations or wrongdoing. The Rabbis therefore called these sacrifices 'hova': debts, penalties incurred. Such sacrificial rituals are said to 'atone' (Heb.kiper'), traditionally understood as amends for wrongdoing. Atonement, in this view, is a sort of payment made to propitiate an angry deity and be reconciled with him. However, Heb. 'kiper', actually means 'wipe clean', and the atoning act consists of the application of the blood of the animal to the sanctuary as a whole and to the objects within it.' [Notes from the Jewish Study Bible, 1985]

If you don't find this argument convincing, go to Leviticus 16 and read the procedure that Aaron follows to atone for himself and his house. Read Leviticus 16:11-17, verses 12-14 tell us this,
' And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward: and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle the blood with his finger seven times.'

Ask yourself, is there a distinction made between the use of the censer, and the atonement!! The two things are quite separate. The censer creates the cloud so that he doesn't die THEN he takes the blood of a bullock to make atonement.

In Numbers 16:47, the KJV was quite correct to add a comma and make a distinction between the 'putting on incense' and the 'atonement'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Look again at verse 13! 'And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin'. The priest makes a blood sacrifice. The remnant, which is for the priest, is from the sacrifice, which is an animal [meal offering]; it's not flour!

It doesn't say it's blood. It says it's flour in this case. Read verse 12 specifically, and all three verses make reference to meal.

Leviticus 5
11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest's, as the meal-offering.

 

[Wandering Monk]

At any rate, the Temple sacrifices are not about the world to come. They are part of the rituals when individuals approached the place of God's presence on earth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At any rate, the Temple sacrifices are not about the world to come. They are part of the rituals when individuals approached the place of God's presence on earth.

The world to come *is* on earth.

I don't know that that there will be sacrifices in the world to come, but certainly there will be sacrifices in the messianic era.

 

[Milton Platt]

You can't see God, since God has no form.

An invisible god looks exactly like a non-existent god....just saying.....

 

[PearlSeeker]

With sacrifice you show you really mean it when you repent. The best offering is to avoid sin and to do good (especially when it is difficult to so) - "I want mercy, not burnt offerings."

 

[Redemptionsong]

It doesn't say it's blood. It says it's flour in this case. Read verse 12 specifically, and all three verses make reference to meal.

Leviticus 5
11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest's, as the meal-offering.

Interestingly, the KJV says, ': and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.'

If you look through chapters 4, 5, there are repeated passages that say, 'and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.'

For example,
Lev. 4: 20, 26, 31,35.
Lev. 5: 6,10,13,16,18.

Why, if the priest does the same thing each time he atones for sin ie. by putting blood (of the bullock, goat or lamb) on the horns of the altar and at the base of the altar, would he fail to do so in the case of the poor? The poor are just as needy of forgiveness as anyone else!

What is clear is that the priest believed that it was necessary to use blood to make the sanctuary pure; and the priest represented the people. This is the procedure known as Hb.'hata't', the application of blood to the altar.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interestingly, the KJV says, ': and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.'

No, it says MEAL offering, not meat offering. Meal is cereal, or grain.

If you look through chapters 4, 5, there are repeated passages that say, 'and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.'

Using what? The only offering that has been discussed is meal aka grain. No animal or blood has entered the discussion.

Verses outside of the discussion regarding those too poor to bring an animal simply don't apply.

Why, if the priest does the same thing each time he atones for sin ie. by putting blood (of the bullock, goat or lamb) on the horns of the altar and at the base of the altar, would he fail to do so in the case of the poor? The poor are just as needy of forgiveness as anyone else!

Why wouldn't the priest offer up a blood sacrifice? Because they didn't bring one, and a grain offering atones per this passage of the Torah.

 

[Ebionite]

3. From the PROPHETS: Hosea deals with the times there will be no temple. How will ANY sacrifices be made if there is no temple? Hosea 9:22 "The words of our lips [prayers] shall be as bullocks [sacrifices]."

Hosea is also referred to from the Gospels regarding sacrifice.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

 

[coconut theology]

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22 This is a great part of their reasoning for the necessity of Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins. ...

Yom Kippur (Hebrews 9:25, context of Hebrews 9:22). Blood Required. That which was forgiven by other means, could be revoked in the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16 & 23). It required blood, the blood of the Lord's Goat.

In fact, the true High Priest is needed.

In fact, the true sanctuary/tabernacle/Temple is needed.

In fact, the true Ark of the Covenant and Mercy Seat is needed.

 

[Muffled]

2. I believe 250 people died. Guess there was no blood there.

 

[Iymus]

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins."

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Lev 17:11 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: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Lev 17:11 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: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

1. The verses from the Tanakh do not address your point, even your verse stating that the life is in the blood.

2. Of course your verses from the Christian scriptures say it: it is a Christian doctrine. I said nothing to the contrary of that.

Your inability to use your own words, but rather simply inundate with verses that do not speak to the quote remind me a little too much of another forum member. Have you had a name change, by chance?