Post by cgpb on May 9, 2015 12:08:08 GMT -8
Are repentance, prayer and charity valid methods of atonement?
The following thread can also be viewed at the following link:
The next Jewish objection we shall look at is that “repentance, prayer and charity alone are valid methods of atonement for sin when blood sacrifice is unattainable” –namely when Jews are not able to bring an offering such as during exile or when the Temple is not standing.
Before looking at the main scriptures used to support this position, we need to first assess the main problem here.
The Bible clearly shows us that God in His mercy, justice and sovereignty makes a way for people in situations that are unique or an exception to the rule. For example, the 
clearly states that the penalty for both adultery and murder was death. (Gen 9:6, Ex. 21:12, Lev. 24:17, Lev. 20:10, Deut.22:22). King David was guilty of both these sins and according to he should have been executed, yet God in His sovereignty cancelled those commandments to allow David to live without his situation cancelling the law. Another example is found in Leviticus 5:11 where the exception of flour for a sin offering is granted only to the extremely poor who couldn’t afford an animal for sacrifice. Both these examples display exceptions to the rule subject to other plans or unique situations, but not the norm.
Likewise, God’s sovereign character is at work in the NT. Hebrews 9:22 say’s that "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” But Romans 2:14-16 makes provision for those who never hear the gospel message whereby they will be judged by what they knew or their conscience.” Otherwise God wouldn’t be just, fair, merciful or sovereign.
Now could a NT believer in Jesus who has heard the gospel message go around and say that they don’t need to believe in the atoning death of Jesus because according to Romans 2:14-16 they have a conscience and God will ultimately judge them by what they know? No, of course not, because they would be using a situation that doesn’t apply to them in order to try and evade, even nullify the established.
And this is where the main problem with the Jewish position lies on this matter. They take situations (or scriptures) that are unique or exceptions to the rule and that don’t even apply to them to begin with, and try to use them in a foolish attempt to nullify normal standard procedure for the Covenant requirements for blood sacrifices.
The main scriptures used by some Jews to claim that there is atonement outside of blood sacrifice in circumstances where blood sacrifice is unattainable are:
a. Daniel chapter 9
b. Hosea 3:4-5
c. Hosea 14:2-3
d. II Chronicles 33:9-13
e. II Chronicles 30:16-20
We shall look at each scripture and see how no real substance exists to back up such a claim.
a. Daniel:9
The objection here is “since Daniel with no temple and no Jesus blood was able to stand righteous before God during the first exile then so can we!”
* This is another case of trying to create an argument from a then unique situation and trying to use it today for people it doesn’t even apply to. Jews present their claim as if they are in a situation where blood sacrifice is unattainable. And that's the problem - blood sacrifice is attainable. They think that sacrifice is unattainable only because they don't want Jesus to be their atonement. Yet Jesus stands ready for them to accept the redemption he has purchased for them.
They need to ask why they haven’t been able to sacrifice for 2.000 years? - Being the longest time span ever in their history. Could it be that God has already brought the ultimate sacrifice and no need to duplicate it again?
• Daniel’s situation was an exception because during this time Israel came under God’s Judgment due to her wicked ways (See Deut.28). The exiled people couldn’t offer sacrifices even if they wanted to due to the absence of the Temple. Israel today may not have the Temple but she isn’t in exile.
• Absence of the Temple subject to God’s judgment doesn’t therefore replace or take the place of the God initiated sacrificial system because then you have to ask “How were people’s sins atoned for in the Bible before God instructed the building of the Temple?. Clearly we see that even then animals were sacrificed to atone for sin. E.g Genesis 3:21 where the Lord made garments of skin to clothe Adam and Eve after they sinned. We also see that Noah, Abraham and Jacob offered animal sacrifices. Why didn’t JUST prayer and repentance suffice then? Therefore absence of the temple is not an excuse for claiming that blood sacrifice is unattainable.
• Since Israel displeased the Lord, why do we assume the people were atoned for in their judgment? Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the exile? Wouldn’t that be cancelling the Lord’s directives of (namely Deut. 28)?
• Just because Daniel was righteous that doesn’t mean that all Jews in exile were righteous.
• When Daniel is praying in chapter 9, he is acknowledging and repenting for the sins of the nation that led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Nowhere does the chapter say that God offers atonement for Daniel’s prayer.
• Daniel understood that Israel’s punishment was the fulfillment of Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8:33-36. Notice how Daniel doesn't pray for atonement but for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Why? So that they may have atonement. Clearly he understands that without blood sacrifice there is no atonement.
• Daniel understood the requirements of Leviticus. If prayer and repentance alone were enough, he wouldn’t pray for the restoration of the Temple.
• The book of Baruch written by the prophet Jeremiah’s secretary (found in the Septuagint and Vulgate version of the Hebrew Bible), includes a letter written to Jerusalem by the people in exile who understood the reason they came under judgment It says:
“Please use the money we are sending you to buy animals for the burnt offerings and the sin offerings, to buy incense, and to provide the grain offerings. Offer them on the altar of the Lord our God…….Then the Lord will strengthen us and be our guide” (Baruch 1:10-12).
If prayer and repentance alone sufficed in exile, why would these exiles send money to Jerusalem and request the offering of animal sacrifices? Notice they understand that these must first be offered before the Lord strengthens and guides them.
• If prayer and repentance alone did the trick, then why the rush to rebuild the Temple after the exile? Was this a sign that Israel recognized that sacrifices were required for atonement? Clearly Israel knew that there could be no atonement otherwise.
• By claiming inevitable and temporal methods of atonement (brought about by Israel's own disobedience in the first place) as normal and acceptable methods of satisfying the wrath of a God of dignity, only further shows the corruption and wickedness in people’s hearts. That would be like an unfaithful wife who provoked her husband to divorce her and then claims that alimony is the normal and rightful means for her provision over her husband’s provision for her. All Jews have to ask is “How would the situation have worked out if Israel had been obedient and hadn’t been sent into exile? Would blood sacrifices have been required in obedience? Yes of course and that is God’s standard.
We see another scriptural example of this in Matthew chapter 19 where the Pharisees question Jesus as to whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Some Pharisees were trying to use the divorce concessions of Moses subject to their hard hearts to imply that this was the norm but Jesus had to point back to God’s original ideal for marriage.
b) and c) Hosea 3:4-5 and Hosea 14:2-3
Looking at the next 2 scriptures found in the book of Hosea (3:4-5 and 14:2-3).
• Hosea was the last prophet in the final days of the northern kingdom. In 3:4-5 he is prophesying that the Israelites will live many days without sacrifice because God’s imminent judgment is about to come upon them because of their evil lifestyle. This is a prophesy that Israel will be without sacrifice because of the exile. It is not a verse about prayer and repentance replacing God’s blood sacrificial system.
• Hosea 14:2-3 is God’s merciful appeal for sincere repentance so that Israel wouldn’t have to come under judgment and be able to receive the gracious response from the Lord promised in verses 14:4-8. Scriptures pertaining to obedience over sacrifice do not in any way nullify the sacrificial system. Isaiah 58 also repudiates hypocritical fasting. That does not therefore mean we abolish fasting and only follow the true fasting described in the chapter.
• Variances occur in Hosea 14:2. The Septuagint says "fruit" and the Masoretic, Targum and Qumran have "bulls.” Hebrews 13:5 says "fruit." The question then becomes, “Which word did Hosea write? Regardless of which text is true to the original, the mechanism is the same. You cannot build a whole theology over the single Hebrew word “mem” if it then means putting all other scriptures at stake and inevitably collapsing the Law given at Sinai.
d) II Chronicles 33:9-13
The objection here is that King Manasseh used prayer to atone for his sins while he was exiled to Babylon.
• Firstly, this is another case of an exception to the rule. Manasseh was a wicked king who would not obey the Lord. So the Lord brought against him the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. Mannaseh repents in his distress after he is brought to Babylon. Clearly Manasseh cannot offer sacrifices while he is in exile with the absence of the Temple.
• The text does not say that Manasseh's prayer atoned for his sin. It says that God heard his prayer and restored him to Jerusalem. Why? Because once restored to Jerusalem and to his kingdom, he could then take part in the sacrificial system and therefore receive atonement in the way laid out in Leviticus. Which is what he does in verses 16-17.
• If prayer and repentance were sufficient, then why does Manasseh restore the altar and bring sacrifices after God has heard his prayer and restored him to Jerusalem?
16 Then he restored the altar of the LORD and sacrificed fellowship offerings and thank offerings on it, and told Judah to serve the LORD, the God of Israel. 17 The people, however, continued to sacrifice at the high places, but only to the LORD their God.” (2 Chronicles 33:16-17)
e) II Chronicles 30:16-20 is used to claim that Hezekiah’s prayer and not blood atones for the sins of the people.
However, here again we have another unique situation where the people couldn’t celebrate Passover at the regular time (in the first month) because:
• Not enough priests were ritually clean
• Not many people had assembled in Jerusalem
• Many had not consecrated themselves and the Levites had to kill the Passover lambs for all who were not ceremonially clean and could not consecrate their lambs to the Lord.
• Most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, were eating Passover contrary to what was written.
So the people were in a bind as they had run out of time and needed to celebrate Passover and couldn’t wait for the people to come out of their uncleanness.
Righteous Hezekiah knew that the sacrifice of the Passover was supposed to provide atonement for the people, but the people observed the Passover in a way not written in .
He also knew that sacrifices had taken place on behalf of the unclean people, and the unclean people had turned their hearts to God.
So what does he do? He intercedes to God for the forgiveness of this irregularity, for those that ate the Passover otherwise than it was written, so that there might not be wrath upon them from the Lord.
• If prayer and repentance alone atone, then why do the Levites mediate the sacrifice on behalf of those not ritually clean? Surely this wouldn’t have been necessary if prayer and repentance were enough.
• Why does Hezekiah one chapter earlier condemn the practices of his forefathers to the priests and Levites –mentioning amongst other things that they failed to present burnt offerings, resulting in judgment. (2 Chronicles 29: 7-8)
• Why does Hezekiah one chapter earlier in 29:7 reinstitute the temple arrangements – following the pattern of Solomon (2:4; 4:7)?
• Why does Hezekiah order animal sacrifices in 29:20-24 as a sin offering to atone for the kingdom, the sanctuary and for Judah? Surely you cannot have Hezekiah rededicating the Temple and offering blood sacrifices one chapter earlier and then thinking he can just offer prayer to atone? Clearly this has to be a unique situation.
Other problems:
If prayer and repentance suffice to atone for sins then:
• Why the big deal with animal sacrifices during the Tabernacle and Temple periods?
• Can you nullify from these few situations that are an exception to the rule? What do we then do with Leviticus where the means of removing sin is not simply prayer but sacrifice is required. Can we cancel the law given at Sinai in favor of the prophets?
• The fact that God in His sovereignty can override his own laws in certain situations doesn’t therefore nullify the norm.
• Why did God move the heart of king Cyrus to rebuild the temple? Why the rush to rebuild the Temple after the Exile? Clearly a sign that Israel recognized that sacrifices were required for atonement.
• Why do Orthodox Jews pray everyday with the sincere hope that the Temple will be restored? Why go through all that trouble if prayer and repentance are all you need?
God doesn’t forgive sin simply through repentance. Repentance is certainly a requirement but it is not effective in and of itself. We see this in David’s case where after he sin, he sincerely and urgently repents, yet punishment is still demanded, punishment which results in the death of innocents.
God clearly states that blood sacrifice was the means for forgiveness and atonement to be actualized. Repentance was the means of putting away that which was wrong. Without blood atonement, there is no power made available to bring repentance about. A person can only truly repent when the power has been made available. The innocent animal victim takes the place of the guilty sinner and that innocent animal victim (sacrifice) prefigures the Messiah who is a spotless lamb that died for the sins of the world.
