Judaism-Jesus Christ, and Atonement?

[meltzerboy]

Thanks. Yes, I do know that Judaism is not obsessed with disproving Christian claims about Christ (I hope I did not imply that).

I think when you mention the different worldview, that’s really what I’m curious about. It seems as if Jewish apologists that address the matter tend to claim that the Christian view of Jesus and His Atonement and Messiahship solves problems that Judaism doesn’t claim are problems in the first place. So, it’s interesting to me to wonder if these different worldviews were apparent in the Judaism of the Bible, during the time of Christ.

You are right. Judaism claims that there is no problem regarding salvation in the first place. As another Jewish poster often states: “Salvation from what?” Judaism does not believe we need grace or the vicarious atonement of Jesus or anyone else to avoid eternal damnation. In fact, there is very little focus on hell in Judaism. The main focus is on loving G-d by obeying His commandments, many of which instruct us concerning how to behave in an appropriately moral manner with other people, as well as animals. Our reward for this is the gratification that we are leading a good life in the service of G-d’s will. If we err, which we are bound to do since we are human and therefore imperfect, then we seek G-d’s mercy and forgiveness in prayer and, if we have wronged our fellow human, we ask forgiveness from the person whom we have wronged. We must also try to behave better the next time. This is all part of the Pharisaic tradition of Judaism from ancient times to the present day.

 

[meltzerboy]

If God can forgive by means of prayer alone then what was the point of the Yom Kippur sacrifices?

Again, these were for unintentional sins only. However, since the Temple no longer exists for the present time, our prayers and good deeds cover both intentional and unintentional sins, as the latter portion of the Book of Isaiah indicates.

 

[Augustine3]

In other words there wasn’t a form of atonement adequate to atone for intentional sins against God. This idea that “prayer and repentance suffices” is a later development after the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D. According to the classic midrash in Avot D’Rabbi Nathan (4:5):

The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory. But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple ruins one day, he burst into tears. “Alas for us! The place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel lies in ruins!” Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: “Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.”

After this turnaround the Jews would find passages in their newly developed theology in the Jewish bible just like you’re doing with Isaiah. A clear case of eisegesis. This new theology was never sanctioned by God or any of his prophets. You do not have any evidence prior to the destruction of the second temple supporting prayer and good deeds alone. All you can do is quote the scripture as your evidence using your eisegetical method.

 

[meltzerboy]

I beg to differ. So-called rabbinical Judaism is not a newly developed theology; Jews have always believed that the codification of the Oral Law (Talmud) accompanied the Written Law (Torah) at Mount Sinai. In fact, the Oral Law was necessary to fill in the gaps that the Written Law never fully explained. Further, the portion of Isaiah I referred to alluding to the primary importance of good deeds for atonement is explicitly stated by the prophet. And there are several other passages in the Hebrew Bible that make it clear that prayer and works are essential for atonement rather than sacrifices, which G-d does not favor in comparison. Rabbi Yohannon ben Zakkai is not fabricating something out of cheesecloth; he is appropriately stating what is already part and parcel of Jewish belief, namely that intentional sins had always been atoned for by means of prayer and good deeds, never by animal sacrifices, and that the latter were used as a secondary means of atonement only for unintentional sins.

 

[Augustine3]

I beg to differ. So-called rabbinical Judaism is not a newly developed theology; Jews have always believed that the codification of the Oral Law (Talmud) accompanied the Written Law (Torah) at Mount Sinai.

Agreed, there always was the Oral Law passed down but it wasn’t written down until post 70 A.D. But how do you know the Oral Law was preserved over the centuries in its purity? It wasn’t protected by the Holy Spirit. We cannot use any tools to test the consistency and purity of the Oral Law being passed down over the centuries prior to 70 A.D.

Further, the portion of Isaiah I referred to alluding to the primary importance of good deeds for atonement is explicitly stated by the prophet. And there are several other passages in the Hebrew Bible that make it clear that prayer and works are essential for atonement rather than sacrifices

Again eisegesis.

 

[Kaninchen]

The sacrificial system was very much a minority activity.

 

[Augustine3]

The book of Leviticus does not seem to agree with you.

 

[Kaninchen]

The book of Leviticus does not seem to agree with you.

Ah, a biblical literalist.

 

[fhansen]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

So, from my brief reading on this, it seems as if Judaism comes from an entirely different perspective on sin (including original sin), to the point where the Christian concept of atonement and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice aren’t necessary in their worldview. What are some thoughts on this matter? I’m interested in both Christian and Jewish perspectives. Is the fact that there Judaism has evolved throughout time relevant? Did the Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?) differ on this from the Rabbinic Judaism of today?

God doesn’t dance to anyone else’s tune: He came to show man what he wasn’t expecting: the ultimate reality of sin and man’s ultimate incapacity to overcome it-in spite of man’s attempts, in spite of man’s sacrifices-without God, without His Spirit dwelling within, in an intimate relationship of love. The Atonement, Jesus act of self-sacrifice, accomplishes both: the conviction of sin and the conviction of God’s forgiveness of it, simultaneously.

God didn’t create man to sin, and the answer to it must lie somewhere, and it lies in the person of Christ, who reunites us with God, so we can know Him, from the least to the greatest, whereupon He can place His laws on our hearts and write them in our minds, fulfilling the New Covenant prophecies of Jer 31. The New Covenant can accomplish what the Old could not: the righteousness-the justification-of man.

 

[fhansen]

You are right. Judaism claims that there is no problem regarding salvation in the first place. As another Jewish poster often states: “Salvation from what?” Judaism does not believe we need grace or the vicarious atonement of Jesus or anyone else to avoid eternal damnation. In fact, there is very little focus on hell in Judaism. The main focus is on loving G-d by obeying His commandments, many of which instruct us concerning how to behave in an appropriately moral manner with other people, as well as animals. Our reward for this is the gratification that we are leading a good life in the service of G-d’s will. If we err, which we are bound to do since we are human and therefore imperfect, then we seek G-d’s mercy and forgiveness in prayer and, if we have wronged our fellow human, we ask forgiveness from the person whom we have wronged. We must also try to behave better the next time. This is all part of the Pharisaic tradition of Judaism from ancient times to the present day.

Salvation is salvation from sin-and the separation from God that ensues as a result. We don’t love God by following His commandments; rather we follow His commandments by first coming to love Him. And this, according to Christianity, is impossible without grace.

 

[Augustine3]

Ah, a biblical literalist.

You’re right perhaps the sacrifices prescribed were merely metaphors, maybe the temple was not even real but just a literary device…are you sure you’re Jewish?

 

[Simca]

In other words there wasn’t a form of atonement adequate to atone for intentional sins against God.

I have been re-looking at an EXCELLENT Leviticus commentary, called ‘Vakira/Leviticus, a new translation with a commentary anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources’ from the ArtSchroll Tenach Series (in 2 volumes). In the 2nd volume, it does a great job in explaining every detail of the Yom Kippur service. In commenting on Leviticus 16:16-32, on page 301, the commentary explains that the sins placed on the Scapegoat atoned for all sins, ‘even for their willful sins’ . This seems to be the only sacrifice that accomplished this. The commentary also says, though, that without repentance, this sacrifice is of no consequence. (page 284)

This idea that “prayer and repentance suffices” is a later development after the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D. According to the classic midrash in Avot D’Rabbi Nathan (4:5)

I have heard this many times, too.

An interesting comment is made in the book I quoted from above. On page 291 it says, ‘The primary atonement of an offering is afforded only by the blood service, not by confession, but confession, too, is an essential part of repentance, and hence of atonement’ (the writer cites 1:4; Yoma 5a)

(I would highly recommend any book by ArtScroll Publications if you want information from a Jewish perspective. Another excellent book is called ‘The Temple-its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ’ by Alfred Edersheim. He has an extensive knowledge of Judaism and explains every feast and offering in not only a Jewish perspective, but he explains the fulfillment in the Lord.)

 

[Kaninchen]

You’re right perhaps the sacrifices prescribed were merely metaphors, maybe the temple was not even real but just a literary device…are you sure you’re Jewish?

Well, the sacrifices might as well have been metaphors in Babylon, the Temple wasn’t available in Egypt and there weren’t planes out of Ostia full of sacrifice awayday tourists bound for Jerusalem.

Might I suggest that, before exercising your obvious abilities as a wit any further, you could possibly consider questions such as population distribution and logistics in the Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East?

Then reconsider my original observation.

 

[Augustine3]

Well, the sacrifices might as well have been metaphors in Babylon, the Temple wasn’t available in Egypt and there weren’t planes out of Ostia full of sacrifice awayday tourists bound for Jerusalem.

Might I suggest that, before exercising your obvious abilities as a wit any further, you could possibly consider questions such as population distribution and logistics in the Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East?

Then reconsider my original observation.

That was part of their punishment, exile to another country so they couldn’t offer up the atoning sacrifices.

With all respect may I also suggest you read (if you haven’t read it already) the entire thread? You’ll notice I was questioning Meltzerboy about the Jews who could not travel to the temple, what could they do? I don’t think he shares your metaphorical ideas in this context.

Anyway I don’t like debating with Jews; we share a common heritage together and I consider them our closest non-Christian brethren.

 

[Kaninchen]

With all respect may I also suggest you read (if you haven’t read it already) the entire thread? You’ll notice I was questioning Meltzerboy about the Jews who could not travel to the temple, what could they do? I don’t think he shares your metaphorical ideas in this context.

In other words, you presumed I was entering your argument and got cross while I was actually just making a general observation.

Sacrifice threads here on CAF tend to focus on Christian apologetics and the high drama of Jerusalem in that period which is quite OK, obviously, but people do sometimes need reminding that for most Jews then, the Temple was something that happened a long way off.

 

[Kaninchen]

That was part of their punishment, exile to another country so they couldn’t offer up the atoning sacrifices.

By Roman times it had all gone on rather too long to be considered punishment, I’d suggest, it had moved on from that.

 

[meltzerboy]

Salvation is salvation from sin-and the separation from God that ensues as a result. We don’t love God by following His commandments; rather we follow His commandments by first coming to love Him. And this, according to Christianity, is impossible without grace.

Cognition, emotion, and behavior are very much intertwined. Thus, as psychologists have (finally) discovered, it is rather pointless to think of them in terms of a linear progression. Judaism believes that moral behavior is essential, even when one does not think positively or feel lovingly, since action may in fact lead us toward loving G-d and others. However, my comment stating that we love G-d by following His commandments happens to agree with your remark. What I meant is that our love of G-d (which is there already) is REFLECTED by our following His commandments, rather than caused by following His commandments.

 

[fhansen]

Cognition, emotion, and behavior are very much intertwined. Thus, as psychologists have (finally) discovered, it is rather pointless to think of them in terms of a linear progression. Judaism believes that moral behavior is essential, even when one does not think positively or feel lovingly, since action may in fact lead us toward loving G-d and others. However, my comment stating that we love G-d by following His commandments happens to agree with your remark. What I meant is that our love of G-d (which is there already) is REFLECTED by our following His commandments, rather than caused by following His commandments.

Fair enough. In Catholic teaching man’s justice is defined by love. So it would be perfectly possible to obey the commandments while still being in an unjust state, i.e. failing to love.