Home
I was confronted by the two Jehovah's Witnesses as they tried to give me their understanding of Daniel 9:20-27. They had already ignored my previous points, and I was unphased by their weird but typical interpretation of scripture. But then one of them still had a point to make. He started to go along the logical path, stating that there were so many sacrifices written of in Leviticus and that they must have been so important, especially the ones for sin. He claimed that the ritual spoken of in Leviticus 16, namely the Day of Atonement, was the most significant day in the whole Jewish calendar because that was when one man entered the Most Holy place in the Temple to offer sacrifices and face Deity. Surely sacrifices must be of paramount importance, he implied. Surely they are the means by which man can get forgiveness and atonement. He said that he had previously asked a Jew how "God" could give such important rituals and laws, such as the Day of Atonement, if the Jews can no longer keep it due to the destruction of the Temple in 70CE. It was a time when all the sins of the Israelites were forgiven. And now, with the Temple gone, how could they get forgiveness? How could we get forgiveness and atonement?
Of course, those with experience in christianity know why he is forcing the issue of sacrifice. He is trying to "lead" someone to the conclusion that they do need a blood sacrifice, and the only acceptable one is the death of the man, Jesus. This can be and has been dealt with on another occasion.
But his views are not totally impotent and powerless. When a person leaves christianity through certain processes, because they see that there is no basis to accepting Jesus either as Messiah, Deity, or even an acceptable sacrifice for sin or anything whatsoever, sometimes they are left wondering if sacrifices are still so important, how does one go about sacrificing today? If Jesus' sacrifice was never acceptable, but sacrifices are still so essential to a relationship with Deity, then how can one get forgiveness and atonement? What was the point of all those sacrifices anyway? Essentially, the question on the person's mind is this: don't I need to do something?
Well, I may be able to offer some insight using the scriptures I've always used and maybe some other sources that are strongly linked to the Hebrew Scriptures. Maybe we can help each other to find out what the Almighty really wants from us.
If there is something that we all respect, those of us who are somehow or somewhat connected to the Deity of Israel, then it is the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. So that will be the bedrock of this article. If you don't see any sense in my words, then, at the very least, the scriptures shall make my point. For anyone else who is reading this, at least you know the approach that this article will be taking.
The really important question that needs to be asked is whether it is true, based on the Hebrew Scriptures, that sacrifices are necessary to obtain forgiveness or atonement. I've already done an article dealing with forgiveness and atonement where I compared the doctrine as stated in the Hebrew Scriptures with what is put forward by the christian scriptures, the "new testament". But I want to focus this article more on the supposed necessity of sacrifices and how they may affect us non-Jews now. Let's just start with that simple question and see where scripture leads us.
Let me point out a simple point of logic that such a person has to make in order to come to that conclusion: sacrifice, or more properly, the use of sacrifices where blood is spilt or an animal is killed is the only way to get forgiveness or any sort of reconciliation with Deity. In such a mindset, the only way for the Creator to accept our apologies is to spill the blood of some animal. This is part of the reason why christians put so much importance on Jewish festivals like the Day of Atonement.
But if such thinking is true, then the message of the prophets and the example of scripture, even the Torah (the five books of Moses, from Genesis to Deuteronomy), should be pasted with sacrifices for each time the people sinned, or sacrifices should be advocated by the Hebrew Scriptures as THE means to get back in friendship with Deity after Israel, or any man, had sinned against Deity. But what does the Hebrew Scriptures say? Here I shall give some key scriptures for you to read and give a summary of what they say. I'll say now that I do not go through every piece of scripture that can be used as evidence for the case of forgiveness without sacrifice. These are just examples picked from the different sections of the Jewish Bible.
Here are some passages in the Torah, which is relevant to this subject. Please take note that this is in the Law of Moses, the very place where sacrifices are meant to be emphasised. Thus it is more significant than any other place.
It is important to note that forgiveness in scripture is not always what people nowadays call forgiveness. Biblical forgiveness can still include punishment. So forgiveness isn't simply getting away with something totally freely. Consequences can still occur. So, some who thought forgiveness included getting rid of a punishment will ask, what then is forgiveness? Speaking practically, since that is the mindset of such a person, forgiveness is where the full consequences of a sin are turned aside. Any bad action that may happen after is then for instructive purposes to teach, rather than simply to pay back some sort of debt. [Many have the erroneous concept that biblical sacrifice is akin to paying a debt.]
A small aside: some rabbis say that there is no proper Hebrew word for our word "punishment", which is normally understood as payment or y which we see our obligations. It shows a different into the meaning of why bad things happen when we sin. Also other words that are commonly translated as punish, at least in the King James version, also have slightly different meanings: the Hebrew word "yasar" means to instruct or discipline through chastening; and the Hebrew word "paqad" meanings to invest with attention, to attend to, thus it means that the Lord is paying a special sort of attention to an action.
To complete this Torah section, I just need to make a point. I was listening to a biased debate between rabbi Tovia Singer and missionary Michael Brown, an apostate Jew who had turned to mainstream christianity in the form of messianic "judiasm". The arbiter/umpire of the debate, who was also christian (as can be seen in his biased and uneven handling of the debate and the questions he gave), and Michael Brown tried to make it a point that the Torah, the Law of Moses, didn't have any forgiveness or atonement without sacrifice. Through the points I've made above, I hope you can see that such an assertion is wrong. [Toviah Singer made the valid point that it is unjust to isolate the Torah when the message of the prophets, which is based on the Law of Moses, also pointed this out. Not surprisingly, this point was ignored at that time.]
Here are some relevant passages in the Prophets section of the Jewish Bible.
NOTE: Those same Jehovah's Witnesses I mentioned earlier tried to tell me that the only reason that the prayers would have been effective is that the prayers were directed to the Temple, where sacrifices were done. It is as if they were still trying to show that the sacrifices were still needed. The only problem is that their interpretation is based on their own addiction to sacrifices. The text is silent on such a link. Christians will try to say "it's obvious, sacrifices were done in the Temple and you pray towards the temple so it has to be linked to sacrifices". But it is not so obvious. That same temple was the place where the Lord put his name, where he distinctly chose to put his presence. With such holiness attached to the place, it is only superficial and ultimately pagan thinking (i.e., addiction to blood and sacrifices) which makes a christian conclude in such a way.[END NOTE]
As I continue with this, it is necessary to re-iterate one of the main points of doing this. In the minds of some, sacrifice is the only or main means to get forgiveness and/or atonement. Any one of these points refutes the idea that sacrifice is the ONLY. Two or three of these examples of the prophets does away with the notion that sacrifices were the main means of forgiveness or reconciliation with Deity. What makes my point even stronger is the fact that my lists are not even exhaustive: I don't go through every single occurrence in the Torah, Prophets, or the Writings where the message is forgiveness through repentance or prayer.
Another point to be made is that the message of these passages has a universal application. That means that both Jews and Gentiles can follow these principles in order to get right with the Supreme King.
And finally here are some relevant passages to read in the Writings section of the Jewish Bible.
A sort of appendix to the above passages: at least the Jehovah Witnesses that I met wanted to emphasis the importance of the Day of Atonement. They tried to make it seem as if it was the most important and crucial time of the whole year.
Not to lessen the significance of any holy day that is put forward in the law of the Most High, but if it is so much more important than any other of Yahweh's holy days, then why is it never clearly mentioned again in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, after the giving of the Law of Moses? None of the later scriptures mention it clearly again. If it were so important, or essential, why is there no clear mention of it again? Whenever a righteous king gets back in power during the days of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the first festival to be reinstated is not the Day of Atonement, but rather Passover (2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 30). Wouldn't the day of atonement be more appropriate to atone for past sins? Even the feast of tabernacles is mentioned as well (Nehemiah 8:13-18). Yet the day of Atonement remains understated.
Again, this is not to depreciated the Day of Atonement. Every holy day that the Deity instituted had its purpose, including the Day of Atonement. But it is inconsistent with such a viewpoint where sacrifice is so important for atonement and forgiveness for the Day of Atonement to remain so quiet.
Why go through all of these scriptures and points? To show that forgiveness without sacrifices is not an unusual, exceptional thing. It happens so many times in scripture, it seems to be the more desirable path. So seeing that prayer and repentance can atone for sin, we can see that if a person asks "am I not supposed to do something when I sin?" then the answer is to have a sincere heart, pray acknowledging one's sin, and start to live a righteous life, turning your back to sin.
So is this all to say that sacrifices are simply useless games? If anyone should think that I'm saying that sacrifices have no signficant important use, I strongly state here and now that such a conclusion is dead wrong! In order to approach this subject to the people who need it, it is so important to show not only the existence, but also the importance of repentance without sacrifice. But that's never the full story!
What will always be pointed out by missionaries or people trying to convert you is the fact that sacrifices are so prominent in Leviticus. More knowledgeable ones will point out the sacrifices of Abraham and the huge amounts needed for the festivals (Numbers 28-29). What was the purpose of them then and what about now?
It is very important to state that the scriptures never outright gives us the meaning of sacrifices. It doesn't say why some species of animals, like bulls, were necessary for some sacrifices, and other species, like rams, were necessary for others. What was the reason for all those drink offerings with the oil and the fine flour? This is a tremendous weakness for sola-scriptura christians who make the claim that they start with scripture and they end with scripture. They can never convince a person from scripture alone that these sacrifices really point to the death of a man unless they really distort other portions of scripture or rip them from their context like Isaiah 53, which is their main proof for a sacrificial character.
But what about a person who isn't a christian yet still struggles to understand their meaning and significance? This signficance can help them understand how to fit these foreign ideas into their worldview. I mean, lets be honest, these acts are so far removed from us in our day. They come from a ancient, probably more intelligent and "religiously" sensitive, culture for whom these rituals had a deeper meaning. But we are stuck in our so called "modern" and "scientific" culture who wonders what offerings could possibly have to do with worshipping a god. And whenever the "scholars" in our culture try to give it some meaning, all they can do is bathe in their own arrogance about our "advanced" civilisation and call them primitives. And very possibly, some of them were primitive. But it is dangerous and foolish to over-generalize. Remember, according to prophecy, these sacrifices are coming back!!!
But even if we can't understand what these sacrifices mean, what is clear in scriptures is that they were a valid means of worship. They are as old as mankind is (Genesis 4). And they weren't simply for the atonement of sin. This is seen in the fact that there were offerings called "peace-offerings" or "slaughterings of shelamiym" (Leviticus 3) - related to the word "shalom", peace, harmonization, wholeness - and also thanksgiving offerings (Leviticus 7:12). When some sort of offering is mentioned is scripture, atonement for sin is not mentioned at all. In fact, if you noted the path of ritual animal slaughter throughout Genesis, there is almost no sign, if any, that it is primarily about sin.
Lets take a brief look at all these sacrifices. The first one mentioned is the minchah (Genesis 4:3) which could either be meat or fruit of the ground. Its root meaning is a bestowal, a donation, a free-will gift. It appears to come from a natural outflow of man's heart. And the context gives no link to atonement or sin, just free-will giving. I won't comment more on that.
The next mention is Noah's giving of "olah" offerings (Genesis 8:20). Now this is the strangest sacrifice to me, and I think it's for the weirdest reason. I was raised reading King James Version. I did "stray" and look at other versions, but it was mainly King James. I found that it and many other versions translated this word "olah" as "burnt offerings". The weird thing I learnt about this was that the word "olah" doesn't come from a word meaning "burn" or "to burn". Its root verb is "to ascend" or "to go up". Of course, those already programmed into "burnt offerings" will think, "but it's obvious that it means to go up in smoke, therefore it is burnt". But that's almost like circular reasoning: they already believe in burnt offering, so therefore they already know the Hebrew must be related to burning. But doesn't the word "to ascend" mean a whole lot more than "to burn", especially in religion? I mean, if someone wants to ascend to heaven, shouldn't we warn that person not to because "ascend" must mean "burn"? Who wants to burn to get to heaven?
Another strange thing I found out about this word is that the ancient Greek translation of this word was ολοκαρπωσις, holokarposis. Do you wanna know what the oddest thing about this word is? Well I'm gonna tell you anyway. It comes from two greek words and none of them strongly means "burnt". The first, ολος, holos, means "whole", "complete". The second, καρπωσις, karposis comes from a verb that primarily means "to bear fruit". The word itself is said to have the primary meaning of "use" or "profit". If we were to translate it literally, what we would have is "whole use", or something that is used completely. If we move a little bit away from the primary mean, we still have "a whole offering".
Lets be honest with this Greek translation. It isn't as literal as possible. That's not a bad thing. It's just a fact. "to ascend" (from the Hebrew) does not mean "to be wholly used or offered". But what these two meanings have in common is that neither means "burnt". It's as if the translators wanted to take any openness of interpretation out of the text and leave you with only their understanding. I bet the reader would get even a slightly different understanding if they read "ascending offering" or "ascent-offering" or "whole offering". Why? Because when you read "burnt offering" there is no question as to what is being "burnt" and it is a little more difficult to see a deeper meaning! But if you see "ascent offering", what is doing the ascending? Is it simply the smoke, or is it the soul giving the offering? If it is a whole offering, it gives you another understanding. But "burnt"? Something's definitely missing there.
Now to be totally clear, I am not saying there isn't a word in the greek that means a whole burnt offering. But it is not used in Genesis 8:20, but rather in places like Leviticus 1, where it translates the same Hebrew word with the greek word ολοκαυτωμα, holokautoma, which does come from a verb that means "to wholly burn" or "to offer something wholly burnt", contextually meaning "to offer a wholly burnt offering". So it is understandable where the english speaking translators got their word from, since our english bibles came after greek translations and then latin translations that were based a lot on the greek. The question is still whether it properly conveys the meaning or concept of the Hebrew word which does not mean "to burn".
Anyway, back to the main point. Noah offers these "olah" offerings after the catastrophic flood using only clean animals. Yet there is nothing really shown to say that this is only or primarily for sin. Could there be other reasons for offering these animals? I'll leave that question open as we continue.
Abraham was the next giver of offerings. Starting from Genesis 12:7 and verse 9, Abraham seems to start a habit of building altars, or more properly, places for [ritual] slaughter (since the Hebrew word mizbeach, means slaughter place) wherever Deity appears to him, and then appears to travel between where the slaughter places are. If he moves to another place, he builds a slaughter place there (e.g., Genesis 13:8). When the Almighty tests Abraham by asking him to offer his son as an "olah" offering and Abraham goes all the way to complete the request until stopped by Deity since he passed the test of devotion, a ram was used in the place of Isaac his son, and it was used as an "olah" offering.
Two more offerings are mentioned before Leviticus: zevach, which are ritual slaughters, or simple meals between people (Genesis 31:54 [for those who only read English and see the words "offer sacrifices" in their translation, see some commentaries, such as Rabbi Hirsch, or the christian John Gill]); and shelamiym, which are slaughterings that have to do with peace, or harmony (Exodus 20:24).
When Leviticus 1-7 gives a number of animal and grain or bread offerings, it has "olah", then the "minchah", following that the "shelamiym", and then the "chata'th", the "unwitting-sin"-offering, and the "asham", the guilt-offering, and finally, the "zevach hattodah", the slaughter of thanksgiving. All of these had their different meaning and purpose. You can even see a few new ones not previously mentioned, like the sin and guilt offering, and the thanksgiving slaughter. What surprised me reading all these sacrifices is that they are not consistent with the view that sacrifice is only about sin. The "shelamiym" didn't have any atoning quality, yet it still involved animal slaughter. The "olah" offering could be brought freely, not directly connect with any sin, and still have the power to atone for a person's sin. There was even a sin offering which could be done by a poor man that was just flour and some other ingredients that involve animal meat or blood.
It must also be noted that one of the primary names for offering is "qorban". This is important because it show the inadequacy of our english word "sacrifice", and even the word "offering", both of which do little to bring across the meaning of many of the Hebrew terms or concepts. Our english word, sacrifice, has the meaning of losing something, either by giving it away or by destroying or killing it. It is synonymous (has similar meaning) with "forfeit" or "ritual killing". Our english word "offering" means more to give or provide. But the Hebrew word "qorban" comes from a verb meaning "to approach, come/draw near, enter into". Thus the word properly means "that which is brought near". Although the word "offering" is closer to this meaning, it still limits us, like the word "burnt offering". The question is what is the purpose or meaning of qorban, this drawing near? Is it simply focused on the animal being brought near? Or is it about the person who is giving the offering approaching, being brought close to, his Deity? If we compare it to the names of the other rituals - for example, "peace offering" or "thanksgiving offering", or even "guilt and sin offering", we see the focus is more on the state of the giver, than the animal!
Another notable thing about this word "qorban" is that it is used to speak of both animal sacrifices and offerings that have nothing to do with animals, like the flour offering, or the bread offering. So what can that tell us? Think about it. That which can draws the giver close to his Deity, his "qorban" doesn't have to be animal sacrifices. It can also be done using offerings of flour or bread. This may be a reason why the Almighty would accept such things for a "sin-offering" from a poor man (see Leviticus 5:11-13). Surprising to me is that such a word is used for wood offerings and offerings involving silver (Numbers 31:50; Nehemiah 13:31).
With the various functions, methods, and motives of sacrifice or more properly "offering", it is plain that sacrifice wasn't simply about sin, but about praise and worship between man and Deity. And there was a much deep spiritual aspect of it, as is seen in the Psalms which paints such a high and elevated desire and meaning behind these sacrifices (e.g., ibid. 4:6 [xtian v.5]; 27:6; 51:21 [xtian, v19]; 66:13-15; 107:22; 116:17). Although the prophets warned against over-reliance on sacrifices to try to pacify Deity while still living a wicked life, the Temple was a very holy and spiritual place. This is not simply because sin-offerings or guilt-offerings were given, but because it was a centre place of worship and reverence to the King of All using the different materials, like animals or oil or wine or flour, to show him free-will gratitude.
I hope you got something from this somewhat unstructured section, and that you see that sacrifices were for a lot more than sin, and were a very important means of worship in the past that has lasted with mankind since the beginning of our history. For more understanding on what all the offerings in Leviticus is about, I refer the reader to resources such as Hertz Pentateuch and Artscroll Chumash. These I have experienced and they gave me a lot of understanding about the sacrifices and offerings and their possible meanings.
Well, after that last chapter, we have to ask ourselves a question. Are we allowed to these sorts of offering today? Are these valid means of approaching Deity today?
Now such an answer is simple if you are a Jew. Based on Deuteronomy 12, they can only do such offerings in the place where Deity has chosen to place his name. Since such a place lies in ruin, and the law still is in force, then they are not able to do such offerings. That is one of the bitter and sad effects of the on-going exile they presently face, even in their own land. Thankfully, this will come to end at the coming of the true prince (meaning, leader or ruler) of Israel who will establish the sanctuary and most of the offerings that come with it (see Ezekiel 37:24-28; chapters 40-46).
But what about non-Jews? Now this is not such an obvious view. Non-Jewish "God-fearers" are not under the Mosaic covenant, although it has allowances for them. And even before the coming of the tabernacle or the temple, people like Noah and Abraham were offering "olah" offerings. So there is a chance that the descendants of Noah (apart from the Israelites) who try to follow in his footsteps, or endeavouring to follow the example of the non-Jew, Job, can still, at the very least, do "olah" offerings.
This leads me to the the views of Noahides, aptly named after Noah, who are non-Jews trying to follow his example, but under the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. That means they generally follow the oral Torah. That does not automatically make them wrong, since I do have respect for the oral law based on research and experience, even though I don't believe everything about it. What surprised me recently was what their Jewish teachers and other Noahides leaders were saying about "sacrifices". Here is a quote from an eminent book for non-Jews.
If, after the destruction of the Holy Temple, the Jew could offer his sacrifices to God in a spiritual way by prayer and study, what could the Noahide do?
The answer is a great surprise. Although the Jew is forbidden to offer sacrifices anywhere but in the Holy Temple, the Noahide, in the opinion of many authorities, is permitted to build private altars and present offerings to the God of Israel upon them even today![4] (This in no way implies that a Noahide is discouraged from praying to God.) [from "Path of the Righteous Gentile", in the chapter entitled "Sacrifices" by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky, available online at www.moshiach.com]
According to a more in-depth codificiation of the [rabbinic] seven laws of Noah by Rabbi Shmuel [or Samuel] ben Hofni, Goan, one law given to non-Jews is "to offer ritual sacrifices". He bases this on Genesis 8:20 where Noah offers the clean animals to Deity after the flood (see www.noachide.org.uk in the section called "30 Noahide Laws"). And in a document called "RECOMMENDED HALACHA BY RABBI SCHWARTZ PART III", the rabbi writes the following:
4. A Noahide is allowed to make animal sacrifices to G-d. But this must be carried out strictly according to the Torah. For this purpose he must seek the advice of a Jewish Torah authority that knows well all the commandments connected with the sacrificial rites. This wise person is allowed to teach the Noahide everything connected with the sacrificial rites, but is not allowed to help him carry out the sacrifice itself. [http://www.geocities.com/rachav/rschwartz3.html]
This view does make an awful lot of sense to those of us who know scripture. But I think one of the articles make an important point that definitely restricts us from just going out and slaughtering anything that moves right now. Man today lacks the sensitivity that the ancients have. As I hope you got a hint of previously, sacrifice isn't just about killing an animal, or even killing the animal offering in the right place. The heart and mind has to be in the right place, a place which may be distant to us moderns. But it still may be very possible.
But although orthodox Jews do say that it is permissible to do offerings, they rightly point out that the ritual is not readily known to us today. So if you are in the mood to give a hearty offering to the Most High, it is best not to go off on your own and do it how you feel like, but get proper instruction from people that know how. That means, get a hold of a Torah-knowledgeable Jew, and learn before you go and just make a smoking mess or a forest fire.
To bring all this to an end, lets just draw upon the essential messages of this.
The offerings spoken of in scripture were a valid and highly spiritual means of worship, confession, and praise to the Most High. They most probably had a deeper meaning that is distant from most of us today. There were many sorts of offerings that were done for several different reasons, and using different materials, including animals, flour, oil, frankincense and bread, amongst other things. To limit the offerings of Leviticus to sin is inaccurate and, if done with an agenda, such as by missionaries and christians, deceptive.
There were different ways of achieving forgiveness and atonement for sin. Effective ways of rectifying one's relationship with the Creator are simple: apologise and try to live a better life. Another way of saying this is: if you want to get back right with Deity, you do have to do something: confess by means of prayer and change your bad ways and do the right things (repentance/teshuvah/return).
Can a person do offerings today? For a Jew, no! A gentile can, but it is best to learn what to do before doing anything. If all else fails, you still have the prayer of confession and repentance and even charity, which is definitely a good deed.
I hope this article is any help to you. It has definitely opened my understanding more!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.