N. T. “Tom” Wright has just released another paradigm-shifting book suggesting a new, more scriptural way of understanding the atonement, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion. Wright delves deeply into how the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus accomplishes our salvation.
Sacrifice [JFG]
We can’t discuss the crucifixion without discussing the theology of sacrifice. The Jewish system of sacrifice is very different from the pagan system. For example,
A. L. Oppenheim succinctly characterized Mesopotamian religion as “the care and feeding of the god.” We owe Israel’s priesthood for eviscerating every trace of this notion from the sacrificial system. Pagans regularly set food and drink on their god’s table, but the [Jewish] Priestly legists [experts in the law] banned all food rites inside the shrine. … Thus all food gifts brought as sacrifices are conspicuously removed from the tent, YHWH’s purported domicile, thereby erasing any suspicion that Israel’s God consumed the sacrifices (see Psalm 50).
Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 21. (Wright mentions Milgrom as a source in his Pepperdine lectures on The Day the Revolution Began.)
If the point of animal sacrifice wasn’t to feed a hungry god, what was the point? The Christian assumption has long been that the sacrifice is a substitute for the person making the sacrifice. That is, if I offer a sheep for my sin, then I’m asking God to impose on the sheep the penalty that I deserve. This assumption underlies much atonement theology. But its just not how the sacrificial system in Leviticus worked.
According to Leviticus, the purification offering is prescribed as a response to moral impurity—defined as an unintended breach of prohibitions (4:2*)—and to severe cases of physical impurity. Physical impurity in this context applies to either gender and has to do only with ritual, not with one’s character or morality. Two examples of such physical impurity are the genital flow from a new mother and from a gonnorhean (chaps. 12 and 15).
The first question to ask is naturally: Who or what is being purified? Surprisingly, it is not the person with the moral or physical impurity. According to Leviticus, if his or her impurity is physical, only bathing is required to purify the body; if the impurity is moral (the unintended breach of a prohibition), a remorseful conscience clears the impurity. In neither case does the offering purify the person bringing the offering.
If the bringer of the sacrifice is not affected, who then is being purified? The telling clue is the destination of the blood of the sacrifice. It is not smeared on the offerer; it is smeared, rather, on the altar. The act is described by the word kippur, “purge” (as in Yom Kippur: the Day of Purgation). In commanding that the blood be daubed on the horns of the altar, the text is indicating that the altar is contaminated and must be purified. Since the offerer must bring the sacrifice, the offerer must in some way be implicated in the contamination of the altar.
Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 30–31.
So the purpose of the sacrifice is not to cleanse the sinner but the tabernacle? Why?
Thus the third principle: God will not abide in a polluted sanctuary. To be sure, the Merciful One would tolerate a modicum of pollution. But there is a point of no return. If the pollution levels continue to rise, the end is inexorable. God abandons the sanctuary and leaves the people to their doom.
What are Israel’s priests trying to convey through this ritual? I submit it is their answer to the question of questions, as voiced by Jeremiah, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper?” No intellectual circle within ancient Israel evaded the challenge of theodicy (justifying the ways of God), but none found an adequate explanation. The prophets agonized over it but came up with no immediate solutions—they only prophesied that answers would be provided by a future messianic king. …
We know now where to find their answer—not in words but in rituals, not in legal statutes but in cultic procedure—specifically, in the rite with the blood of the purification offering. … the priestly writers would claim that sin may not blotch the face of the sinner, but it is certain to blotch the face of the sanctuary, and, unless quickly expunged, God’s presence will depart.
Thus the fourth and final principle: the priestly doctrine of collective responsibility. Sinners may go about apparently unmarred by their evil, but the sanctuary bears the wounds, and with its destruction, all the sinners will meet their doom.
What of the innocents who will suffer along with the sinners? The priestly doctrine of collective responsibility yields a corollary. The “good” people who perish with the evildoers are not innocent. For allowing brazen sinners to flourish, they share the blame. Indeed, they, the involuntary sinners, have contributed to the pollution of the sanctuary (fig. 2).
Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 32. (Paragraphing modified to ease reading on the Internet throughout this series.)
That is, when an individual Jew sins, the entire nation bears the responsibility and so the continued presence of God in the tabernacle is jeopardized. To cleanse the tabernacle — and hence the nation — of the impurity of sin, the sacrifice must be offered so that the blood will cleanse the nation of its collective guilt.
In fact, Leviticus denies that God can be appeased by sacrifice —
[[Lev] 4:31*] This is the only place in all the expiatory sacrifices where the phrase “a pleasing aroma to YHWH” appears (contrast the other sacrifices, e.g., 1:9*, 13*, 17*; 2:2*, 9, 12*; 3:5*, 16*). The studied absence of this phrase from the expiatory sacrifices indicates a conscious effort to distance Israel from the notion that these expiatory sacrifices possess the inherent power to appease God.
Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 45.
When confronted with “Everybody has always thought this way, but it’s really this way,” I’m naturally skeptical. Milgrom’s arguments sure sound that way to me.
It’s interesting to me that contemporary Jewish writings teach that one purpose of sacrifice was atonement, substitutionary atonement. While their understanding isn’t necessarily that of ancient Jews and could bear the influence of Christian thinking, it still seems like a powerful witness to the traditional understanding of things. I’m inclined to listen to the voice of a community for whom the Torah is central to their identity.
Still willing to be convinced, but this argument needs some shoring up.
In Lev.30 when the Passover was completed we read “Vs.27 “Then the priests, the Levites, arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard; and their prayer came up to His holy dwelling place, to heaven.” God senses with his hearing of praise.
God was pleased by Abel’s sacrifice, but not Cain’s. Now while it largely had to do with their demeanor, it is possible that it didn’t have to do with quantity, but quality, the best offered or not offered. God laments this in the minor prophets where the people offer up the lame and imperfect of the crop and animals.
To me the concept of sacrifice had and has to do with an exchange for life, not the sacrificing to in order to feed, but a sacrificing to in order to offer a life that is at risk and is impure. In Exodus a lamb is sacrificed, so that the blood can be placed on the door post so that the angel of death would pass them over.
Couldn’t they have just hung the hyssop outside the door?
No a sacrifice of blood was needed.
Since human sacrifice was out of the question and a pagan practice, an animal sacrifice was the next best thing. The sacrifice, of the field or of the flock, was supposed to be the best of the best.
Death of the representative thing signified or actualized the death that should have been exacted on the people themselves, but deferred.
When we come to Christ we see this same thought.
Only the perfect sacrifice could atone completely for our sins. He took on the sins of the world.
An interesting thing we don’t talk about much is the scape goat or the goat allowed to escape. The person who let the goat go was considered unclean until he washed. The same as those who offered the sacrifices. Any contamination from those things sacrificed or let go had to be literally washed away.
Now let’s argue that baptism isn’t any more than a sign.
In Exodus 24, Moses sprinkled the blood on / over the people.
In Lev 8:30 Aaron and his garments were sprinkled with blood.
These indicate consecration from being unclean. Ritual uncleanness is NOT sinful (otherwise Jesus was sinful when he became unclean by touching the lepers).
The Azazel has the sins and impurities of the people placed on him, sent into the desert, never to return. Perhaps Milgrom could give more thought to this, but I have not read his book to see how he handles this.
Hebrews 12:22-24
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Being unclean meant you couldn’t come before or approach God, not that you were in sin from what I understand as you weren’t penalized. I think Hebrews 12;22-24 meets that concept “come to Mt. Zion, to city of living God, the heavenly Jerusalem….to God” by way of Jesus and the blood of His sacrifice.
Timothy are you referring to the Atonement of Christ ? If so, penal sub. atonement was not the first atonement theory out there. Of course, growing up I never knew that!
Dustin, you don’t have to get deep into penal sub. atonement. Just plain atonement wasn’t even mentioned.
I’m working through some thoughts on atonement. I wonder in light of this information since the sanctuary is what is affected by our sin if that doesn’t imply that our relationship is what is affected. The place where we meet with God is being polluted by our sin. Maybe the sacrifices are our recognition that we are the problem and we repent so that God forgives us and the relationship goes forward.
Eric, I think it is notable that one sacrifice wasn’t done for Israel, but that the people themselves were required to bring their own sacrifice. They were required to give up something of themselves to God, but then what was sanctified by God was given back to them for sustenance.
John F,
Milgrom’s views on the sacrificial system have attracted a great deal of scholarly support but also criticism. The Anchor Yale Dictionary discusses Milgrom’s theory, agreeing in part and disagreeing in part.
Gary A. Anderson, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 1992, 5, 879.
We American Christians tend to assume that all sacrifice is for atonement, but this is often not the case under anyone’s theory. The text often requires a sacrifice merely to become ritually clean, for example. Therefore, we cannot thoughtlessly take “sacrifice” to mean “atoning sacrifice.” Clearly it’s not always the case.
Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (Old Testament) Volume 5, Pages 879–880
Gary A. Anderson, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 1992, 5, 879–880.
Gary A. Anderson, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 1992, 5, 880.
David P. Wright, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 1992, 6, 733–734.
And so we should not reflexively reject Milgrom’s conclusions just because we aren’t familiar with the Torah’s words. Very often, it is very clear that the point of the sacrifice is to purify the tabernacle or its furnishings. Sometimes the sacrifice clearly is about ritual purity and not sin. But there are times when the sacrifice is closely tied to forgiveness.
Therefore, when the NT refers to Jesus as a “sacrifice” and draws theological conclusions, we have to ask, “What kind of sacrifice?” And then go look at the Torah to see whether this is even arguably a sin-atoning sacrifice. For example, the Passover lamb has nothing to do with forgiving sin. Many sacrifices were thanks offerings for blessings already received. And the sacrificial system was going on daily during the same time most of the NT was being written. We cannot take a simplistic, uninformed view of “sacrifice” and build our understanding of the gospel on it. We have to do our homework.