Even if I accept your premise that blood sacrifices are of great importance in the Torah, the fact is that our Hebrew Bible—including the Torah itself—offers other means of atonement, not just the shedding of blood.

There can be no question that blood atonement is the central and most important form of atonement in the Bible. The blood is essential, foundational, and irreplaceable. Because blood sacrifices form the heart and soul of the biblical system of atonement, both the New Testament and numerous authoritative Rabbinic traditions state that without shedding of blood, there is no atonement. Take away the blood, and the entire biblical system of atonement collapses.

Before we address the question of whether there were several different forms of atonement given by God in the Hebrew Scriptures, let’s first consider the central importance of blood atonement throughout those same Scriptures. Then we can examine the accuracy of the New Testament statement in the letter to the Hebrews that “the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22).

From the very beginning of human history, the Torah records that people offered blood sacrifices to the Lord, either at their own initiative or by divine command. In the Book of Genesis, we read of animal sacrifices being offered to the Lord by Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob. But this, in and of itself, proves nothing, since there is no explicit mention of atonement or forgiveness in conjunction with these offerings, and it would be difficult to prove from these passages that the shedding of blood was central to the religion of the patriarchs. Important, yes; central, no.

When we turn to the Book of Exodus, however, the situation begins to change. The shedding of blood—by divine command—becomes quite central. On the eve of Israel’s departure from Egypt, it was the blood of the Passover (pesach) lamb, put on the two doorposts and lintel of the house, that was a sign to the destroying angel, as the Lord said, “The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt” (Exod. 12:13). The divine commandment was explicit and detailed:

Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.”

Exodus 12:21–23

During this first Passover, only the blood of the sacrificial lamb separated between life and death.

Exodus 24 records another milestone event for the people of Israel, namely, their formal entering into a covenant with God, and that event too was sealed by blood. The Torah records that Moses explained to the people God’s commands and requirements and they responded by saying, “Everything the Lord has said we will do” (Exod. 24:3).

Then [Moses] sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the Lord. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half hesprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Exodus 24:5–8

Moses actually sprinkled the blood on the people, demonstrating in no uncertain terms that this divine covenant had been formalized and finalized by the shedding of blood.¹⁶² Obviously, this ceremony was of great importance, and it would be an error to downplay the key role played by the shedding of blood in the faith of our forefathers. In fact, the Targum of Onkelos, the most important Aramaic translation of the Torah read in the synagogues in the early centuries of this era, added a surprising phrase to Exodus 24:8, which I have emphasized here: “And Moses took the blood and poured it on the altar as atonement for the people.” How interesting! The Rabbinic traditions reflected in the Targum actually went beyond the text of Scripture by stating that this blood provided atonement for the people. This indicates that the concepts of the shedding of blood and atonement were intimately connected in the minds of the Talmudic rabbis and their predecessors.¹⁶³ It’s almost as if there was an immediate mental association made between the words blood and atonement, just as there would be an immediate association between the words husband and wife or Michael Jordan and basketball. Blood sacrifices and atonement fit together like a hand in a glove.

So already in Exodus we have two major events connected with the shedding of blood: first, the Passover; second, the ratifying of God’s covenant with his people. Therefore, it comes as no surprise when we see that blood was applied to the priests and to the altar when they were consecrated to the Lord. This was the process: Sacrifices were offered to the Lord to make atonement (see Exod. 29:33), and the blood of those sacrifices was used in the ritual in which the priests and the altar were set apart for divine service. As it is written in Exodus 29:20, “Slaughter [the ram], take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. Then sprinkle blood against the altar on all sides.”

Why was the application of blood necessary? There are at least two reasons: First, the priests and the altar were directly involved in providing atonement for Israel, and therefore, both were consecrated with blood; second, the blood provided purification and purgation for both the priests and the altar.¹⁶⁴ This underscores yet again how central the blood was in the atonement system.¹⁶⁵

Continuing in Exodus, the next important text we come to is 30:10, the first reference in the Pentateuch to annual atonement: “Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on [the altar’s] horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the Lord.” How striking! The first reference to annual atonement (to take place on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement) says nothing about prayer, nothing about good deeds, nothing about fasting, nothing even about repentance, as important and necessary as those things are.¹⁶⁶ Instead, the Torah speaks only of blood. Why? Because atonement rites are intimately connected to the blood. Take it away, and you have no atonement.

In fact, at this point it would be useful for us to turn to Leviticus 16, where the laws for the Day of Atonement are set forth in great detail. There we see again that the blood is absolutely central. Speaking of the ceremonies to be performed by the high priest that day, Scripture states:

He is to take some of the bull’s blood and with his finger sprinkle it on the front of the atonement cover; then he shall sprinkle some of it with his finger seven times before the atonement cover. He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.… Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

Leviticus 16:14–16, Leviticus 16:18–19

So the Holy of Holies, the most sacred place on earth, the specific location where God promised to reveal himself to his people (see Lev. 16:2), was cleansed from Israel’s uncleanness by blood, just as the altar and the Tent of Meeting as a whole were cleansed by blood. Everything related to atonement and cleansing had to do with blood.¹⁶⁷ To reiterate: There was one day ordained by God for the atonement of the people, and central to the rituals and ceremonies of that day was blood. And there was one place where God promised to appear to his people (the Tabernacle/Temple) and one ordained place where they were to bring their sacrifices and offerings (the altar) and both the Tabernacle and altar were cleansed by blood. We dare not downplay the importance of the blood.

Throughout the Book of Leviticus, which is the book in the Scriptures dealing with sacrifice and atonement, whenever atonement is mentioned (forty-nine times in all), it is always in conjunction with blood sacrifices (for Lev. 5:11–13, see below). And the key text that explains the reason for this is Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”¹⁶⁸

Of course, I am aware that anti-missionaries seek to downplay the importance of Leviticus 17:11, arguing that the context of this verse is the prohibition against consuming blood (see 5:10), and that Leviticus 17:11 is merely explaining why eating of blood is prohibited, namely, because it is used to atone. But the anti-missionaries would stress that Leviticus 17:11 in no way states that blood is the main or only way of atonement.¹⁶⁹

Unfortunately, while Messianic Jews are accused of failing to pay attention to Leviticus 17:11 in context, in reality, some anti-missionaries have actually failed to pay attention to the verse itself. As Rashi explained, “For every creature is dependent on blood, therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for the life of man; let life come and atone for the life.” In other words, the reason that blood sacrifices played such a central role in the Torah is because they operated on the principle of substitution, i.e., on the principle of life for life. Thus, an ancient midrash on Leviticus 1:2 states: “When you voluntarily offer a korban olah [i.e., a burnt offering] and it is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled upon the altar, I consider it as if you have offered your very selves.”¹⁷⁰ Similarly, Rabbi J. H. Hertz, commenting on Leviticus 17:11, observed, “The use of blood, representing life, in the rites of atonement symbolized the complete yielding up of the worshipper’s life to God, and conveyed the thought that the surrender of a man to the will of God carried with it the assurance of Divine pardon.”¹⁷¹ Similarly, with respect to Leviticus 17:11, Christian Old Testament scholar John E. Hartley noted that

the pouring out of the animal’s blood is also important. The blood represents the animal’s npš, “life.” The offerer has already identified himself with the animal by laying his hands on the animal’s head; with this gesture the offerer recognizes that the death of the animal will commute the penalty for his sin. It needs to be underscored that the sacrificial system loudly proclaims that the penalty of sin is death. Thus the giving of a life (npš) on the altar for the life (npš) of the offerer upholds justice.¹⁷²

It is therefore no surprise that Leviticus 17:11 was the proof text commonly used by the Talmudic rabbis to indicate that the atoning power of the sacrifices was in the blood. Several different times in the Talmudic literature—in quite authoritative sources, I should note—it is observed that “there is no atonement without the blood,” exactly as stated in Hebrews 9:22. In fact, there are leading Jewish scholars (see below) who point out that the author of Hebrews was simply repeating the universally accepted Jewish view of his day when he wrote that, according to the Torah, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”¹⁷³ As expressed concisely by New Testament scholar Harold Attridge, these words “constitute a cultic maxim well known in Jewish tradition.”¹⁷⁴

It is in the context of animal sacrifices—specifically, the wording of Leviticus 1:4 (“He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him”)—that the Talmudic rabbis asked,

Does the laying on of the hand [on the sacrifice] make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life! [Lev. 17:11] … Does the waving [of the offering] make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is written, “For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” [again, Lev. 17:11]? (b. Yoma 5a, as translated in the Soncino Talmud; cf. also the virtually identical wording in b. Zevahim 6a; b. Menahot 93b; Sifra 4:9).¹⁷⁵

“But,” you ask, “isn’t the Talmud simply teaching that, as far as sacrifices are concerned, their atoning power lies only in the blood? In other words, the Talmud isn’t making a statement about atonement in general, nor is it teaching that atonement comes only through the blood. It’s simply saying that the atoning power of sacrifices is found in the blood. That’s the explanation I heard from my rabbi.”

Well, your rabbi was not entirely wrong, since he has explained the immediate context in part. But he has failed to note exactly why the rabbis concluded that atonement was found only in the shedding of a sacrificial animal’s blood and not in the process of laying one’s hand on the sacrifice or in waving it before the Lord. It was because the rabbis knew that “there is no atonement without the blood.” In other words, since it was an accepted fact that there was no atonement without the blood (this stock phrase, “there is no atonement without the blood,” found repeatedly in the Talmud, is almost proverbial in nature), the rabbis had no trouble concluding that it was the blood—and not any other aspect of the sacrifices—that effected atonement. Thus, Oxford professor Geza Vermes, one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stated that “according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation without the shedding of blood: kapparah ʾellaʾbedam”¹⁷⁶ Similarly, Professor Baruch Levine, in his commentary on Leviticus for the Jewish Publication Society wrote, “Expiation by means of sacrificial blood rites is a prerequisite for securing God’s forgiveness. As the rabbis expressed it, ʾein kapparah ʾellaʾbe-dam, ‘There is no ritual expiation except by means of blood.’ ”¹⁷⁷

Again, this is because blood sacrifices operated on the principle of life for life, an innocent sacrificial animal being offered up in place of the guilty sinner. That’s why the blood had to be shed.¹⁷⁸ This concept was so ingrained in the Jewish psyche that to this day many Orthodox Jews around the world still offer a blood sacrifice on the eve of Yom Kippur (or in some circles, the eve of Rosh Hashanah), taking a live rooster (for men) or hen (for women) and waving it around their heads three times as they say, “This is my substitute, this is my vicarious offering, this is my atonement [kapparah]. This rooster (or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasant life of peace.”¹⁷⁹ They recognize that they still need the blood, and they recognize the principle of substitution, or life for life. Thus, when they take the fowl to slaughter immediately after performing this ceremony, its death is viewed as the replacement and atonement for their own lives.

To further emphasize the vital connection between blood and atonement, let me cite the observations made by the two most important Talmud commentaries (Rashi and Tosafot) to this Rabbinic dictum that “there is no atonement without blood.” Rashi states that “the fundamental principle (ʿiqqar) of atonement is in the blood” (b. Yoma 5a). Tosafot, also discussing the Talmudic statement that there is no atonement without the blood, makes reference to a passage found elsewhere in the Talmud (b. Pesahim 59b) that indicated that the priests had to eat certain specified sacrifices if those offerings were to have their atoning effect.¹⁸⁰ Tosafot then concludes, “But in any case, the fundamental principle [again, ʿiqqar] of atonement doesn’t exist without blood” (b. Zevahim 6a).

Of course, I fully recognize that these same rabbis claimed that once the Temple was destroyed, prayer, repentance, and charitable deeds replaced sacrifices (see my discussion, below). However, I am simply responding to your objection that the Torah itself provided alternate forms of atonement, and in the process, I am demonstrating just how irreplaceable the blood actually was. All this is summarized in an important passage in 1 Chronicles, one of the last books of the Old Testament to be written. We read in 1 Chronicles 6:48–49[33–34]:

[The] Levites were assigned to all the other duties of the tabernacle, the house of God. But Aaron and his descendants were the ones who presented offerings on the altar of burnt offering and on the altar of incense in connection with all that was done in the Most Holy Place, making atonement for Israel, in accordance with all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

Notice once again: When atonement is mentioned, it is not connected with prayer, repentance, or good deeds, as fundamentally important as all these are, and as essential as they are to our right standing before God. Rather, when atonement and ritual expiation are mentioned, they are connected with sacrifices and offerings. Even the traditional Rabbinic viewpoint recognized that while the Temple was standing, atonement came through blood sacrifices. (My difference with the rabbis would not be over this issue but over the issue of whether prayer and repentance replaced sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed; see above, 3.9, and below, 3.13.) Thus, Maimonides wrote in his authoritative Law Code, “At this time, when the Temple is not standing and we do not have the altar of atonement [my emphasis], there is nothing but repentance; repentance atones for all transgressions.” In teaching this, Maimonides was simply restating the teaching of the Talmud found in b. Berakhoth 55a (among other passages; cf. b. Sukkah 55b; b. Hagigah 27a): “As long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel. Now a man’s table atones for him.”¹⁸¹

Among biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian, there is little dispute about this matter: While the Temple was standing, blood sacrifices were the principle and irreplaceable means of atonement for Israel. Discussing the concept of death as an atonement (in other words, a person’s own death would serve as final payment for his sins), Professor Ephraim E. Urbach, one of the leading scholars of Rabbinic literature, observed:

The doctrine of R. Ishmael, R. Judah, and Rabbi that death—even death without repentance—has the power to atone originated only after the Destruction, for with regard to the Temple period it is stated, “And for all other prohibitions ordained in the Torah, be they light or grave … premature death and execution by the court, the scapegoat makes atonement” (M. Shevʿuot i, 6).… At the time when the Temple still stood, it was certainly unnecessary and inappropriate to regard death as an atonement.¹⁸²

So Urbach is stating that there was no need to speculate on other forms of atonement while the Temple was still standing, since the sacrifices (including the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement; see below, 3.12) atoned for Israel. This is the consistent position of the Scriptures as well as the consistent position of the Talmud. To quote Urbach again:

The fasts that multiplied after the Destruction also assumed the character of a surrogate and replacement for the atonement effected by the sacrifices. This fact found concrete expression in the prayer attributed to Rav Sheshet: “Sovereign of the universe, it is known to Thee that when the Temple was in existence, if a man sinned he would bring a sacrifice, of which only the fat and the blood were offered up, and he would be granted atonement. Now I have observed a fast and my own fat and blood have been diminished. May it be Thy will that my diminished fat and blood be accounted as though I had offered them up before Thee on the altar, and do Thou show me favour” [b. Berakhoth 17a].¹⁸³

It was only after the Temple was destroyed that the Talmudic rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided other forms of atonement aside from blood. Once more, we will let Urbach explain:

The sacrifices only expiated iniquities between man and God, for which it was not in the power of an earthly court to impose punishment. Transgressions that were liable to punishment by a court were not atoned for by sacrifices, and only the penalty brought with it atonement for sin.… When the court’s right to impose the death-penalty was abrogated and the Temple was destroyed, involving the abolition of the sacrifices, a sense of despair and the feeling that Israel had been deprived of the possibility of atonement prevailed. “It once happened that Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem and R. Joshua was walking behind him, when the latter saw the Temple in ruins. Said R. Joshua: ‘Woe to us that this is in ruins—the place where the sins of Israel were expiated!’ Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai replied: ‘My son, be not grieved, we have a means of atonement that is commensurate with it. Which is this? It is the performance of lovingkindness, as it is said, “For I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice” ’ ” (Hosea 6:6; Urbach is citing Avot d. R. Nathan, Version I, 4, 11a).¹⁸⁴

As we saw in the previous answer (above, 3:9), this was a tragic—even though well-intended—innovation of the rabbis. Nonetheless, the passage underscores one thing: While the Temple was standing, it was fully understood that blood sacrifices brought atonement, and no one who loved the Torah thought of bypassing those sacrifices or downplaying their vital importance.

1. H. Kurtz, a leading, nineteenth-century Christian scholar of the Old Testament, made similar observations on the sacrificial system:

When the sacrifice of animals is mentioned in the law, making atonement (lekapper ʿalayw) is nearly always expressly mentioned, and for the most part this alone, as being the purpose, end, and fruit of the sacrifice. It is perfectly obvious, indeed, that there were other ends to be attained—such, for example, as the self-surrender of the sacrifice to Jehovah in the burning of the sacrificial gift, and the enjoyment of fellowship with Jehovah in the sacrificial meal; but the fact that these ends could not possibly be attained in any other way than by means of expiation, and on the basis of expiation, gave to the latter its incomparable, all-surpassing importance, and its central place in the plan of salvation, the progressive stages of which were symbolically represented in the sacrificial worship.¹⁸⁵

How then do we explain Leviticus 5:11–13, a Torah law that stated that a poor Israelite who was unable to bring the required sin offering of a lamb, goat, turtledoves, or pigeons could bring instead an offering of fine flour—yet the flour still brought them atonement and was itself considered a sin offering? The answer is really quite simple, as the verses themselves indicate:

If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.

According to verse 12, the priest will “take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire.” Then “the priest will make atonement for him” (5:13). In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already on the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

Nowhere is it written that “the flour will make atonement” or that “the life of a creature is in the flour.” Rather, the whole basis for atonement was in the sacrificial blood on the altar, and through a flour offering, even poor Israelites could participate in the atoning power of the altar. But there is not a single verse in the Bible that would even hint that flour, in and of itself, had any atoning power, and the rabbis never suggested that, in the absence of the Temple, flour could be substituted for sacrifices. Without the atoning altar and its sacrifices, the flour had no power at all.¹⁸⁶

What then do we make of the references to atonement money in Exodus 30? Let’s take a look at the passages in question:

When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives. Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord, making atonement for your lives.

Exodus 30:12–16

Then the officers who were over the units of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—went to Moses and said to him, “Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. So we have brought as an offering to the Lord the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the Lord.”

Numbers 31:48–50

Do these texts prove that the Torah ordained other forms of atonement in addition to blood sacrifices, specifically, atonement money? Not in the least. In fact, modern Jewish scholars have made an excellent case for the fact that these texts had nothing at all to do with atonement and forgiveness but rather with protection from the wrath of God.

“How so?” you ask.

I can best explain my point by taking a careful look at both passages, raising only one, basic question: What does the Bible say?

First, we should make note of the fact that these are the only two places in the entire Tanakh where either the words or the general concept of “atonement money” (keseph kippurim) are found. In both of these passages, something unusual is being discussed, namely, taking a census (i.e., counting the people), something that could be a dangerous undertakin.¹⁸⁷ As stated in Exodus 30:12, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.” Tragically, when David on his own initiative counted the people of Israel, a plague did break out among them (see 2 Samuel 24). This should get our attention, reminding us that the context here is protection from a plague not atonement for sin.

Second, in Exodus 30:11–16, God commands every male Israelite who was to be counted in the census to pay a kopher (ransom) for his life. Similarly, in Numbers 31:50, having just counted the soldiers who had gone into battle with Midian (again, they had taken a census), the officers decided to offer some of the spoils to God and thus to pay a kopher for their lives.

What exactly was a kopher? According to Exodus 21:29–30, the owner of a habitually goring ox that killed a man would have to pay a kopher (i.e., a fixed amount of ransom money), rather than be killed himself. As the text says, “He may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded” (Exod. 21:30).¹⁸⁸ For a murderer, however, there could be no kopher (ransom payment; the murderer himself would have to be put to death; see Num. 35:31–32; see also Ps. 49:8). Overall, kopher is used fourteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures, meaning ransom (the verses just cited, along with verses such as Isa. 43:3) or bribe, payoff (cf. 1 Sam. 12:3; Prov. 6:35; Amos 5:12). Never once, however, does it have anything to do with atonement of sin.

“But what’s so important about that? After all, the sections we just read from Exodus and Numbers both speak of ‘making atonement.’ So what if kopher itself only means ‘ransom’? Really, I don’t see your point.”

I understand why. You see, kopher, “ransom,” and kipper, “atone,” come from the exact same Hebrew root, and in the texts you just referred to, the Hebrew should not be translated to make atonement for your lives but to pay a ransom for your lives. To reiterate: The texts here have to do with protection from a plague not forgiveness of sins or personal atonement. It is therefore with good reason that religious Jewish leaders and the most respected Jewish authorities on atonement and the root kipper have written that the proper interpretation of the phrase in question here is, as stated, “to pay a ransom for your lives” or “to make appeasement.” Commenting on Exodus 30:15, the late Chief Rabbi Hertz explains that the phrase rendered “to make atonement for your lives” is “an amplification” of kopher, which Hertz defines as “the money paid by one who is guilty of taking human life in circumstances that do not constitute murder.”¹⁸⁹ Commenting on Numbers 31:50, Jacob Milgrom states that “the ransom to God was a necessary prophylactic against the onslaught of a plague that could be expected for conducting a census.”¹⁹⁰

Now, what is striking is that Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (known as Rashbam), the highly respected grandson of Rashi, argued for this very same position more than eight hundred years ago, stating in his widely used Torah commentary that the words often translated here as “atonement (kippurim) money” derive their meaning from the fact that the money served as a ransom (kopher) for their lives (see his succinct comment to Exod. 30:16). So even leading Rabbinic commentators recognized that the Hebrew root kipper in Exodus 30:11–16 and Numbers 31:50 meant “to pay a ransom,” while in Leviticus 17:11 it meant “to make atonement.” These were two different contexts, and the meaning of the words in each context was different—as recognized by the rabbis.¹⁹¹

In fact, we can take this one step further and look at what Rashi, the number one traditional Torah commentator of all time, has to say. Discussing this very Hebrew phrase in Exodus 30:15, Rashi explains it to mean “so that you will not be smitten with a plague because of the census.” In other words, lekapper here has nothing to do with atonement for sin. This interpretation is confirmed by the main commentaries on Rashi’s Torah commentary. With reference to Exodus 30:15, the Siftey Hachamim commentary explains Rashi to mean, “this is not to atone [lekapper] for your sins as is the case with the other [biblical usages] of kapparah, but the concept is of ‘kapparah’ in connection with the census.”¹⁹² The Gur Aryeh commentary on Rashi states concisely, “but not atonement [kapparah] for sin, since it is already written (Exod. 30:12), ‘so that there will be no plague against you.’ ”

Here, one classical Jewish commentator after another is making it clear that Exodus 30:15 does not teach that a monetary offering brought atonement. (Could you imagine the Scriptures stating, “For it is the money that makes expiation for your sins”? That sounds more like a bribe than it sounds like the Bible. Or how about, “There is no atonement without the giving of jewelry”?)

Interestingly enough, Rashi offered an alternative explanation to the verse in question. It is possible, he says, that Exodus 30:15 actually refers to three different monetary offerings, one of which helped pay for the animal sacrifices, specifically stating that it was the sacrifices which serve to make atonement. This is not a “Christian” invention. Rashi is only stating what the Bible makes clear: If the concept of atonement (as opposed to only ransom) was actually in view in Exodus 30:11–15, then it must be explained by the fact that the monetary offering went to the Tabernacle to support the priestly ministry there, in particular, the offering up of atoning sacrifices on behalf of the people.¹⁹³

Because there is no reference to blood sacrifices or sin in the context here, Rashi suggests that the root kipper must mean “pay a ransom to avert a plague,” or else the usage of kipper in the sense of atonement must be explained with reference to the blood sacrifices. The monetary offering of the Israelites who were counted in the census would help finance the Tabernacle service, which centered around blood sacrifices.

So unless Rashi’s second interpretation is correct—in which case the atoning power of the monetary ransom was in the blood sacrifices of the altar—we can safely conclude that there is no connection between either of these narratives and the concept of personal atonement or forgiveness of sins, nor would anyone say, “The money [or jewelry] in and of itself makes atonement.” These texts simply demonstrate that the Hebrew root kipper can at times refer to paying a ransom or turning away wrath.

This is also the key to understanding Numbers 16:46–48[17:11–13], where, according to some translations, it appears that incense made atonement for the people. Actually, stopping a plague—not atoning for sins—was the main issue in the text in Numbers, since a plague had just broken out in the Israelite camp because of the transgression of the leaders, whose incense God refused, consuming them all with fire. As the plague erupted in the camp, Moses gave urgent instructions to Aaron the high priest:

Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the Lord; the plague has started.” So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped.

Jacob Milgrom states that the verb kipper, usually translated to make atonement or expiation, “in this context carries the connotation of ‘make appeasement.’ ” He further explains, “In the cults [i.e., temple-related rituals] of the ancient Near East, incense served to appease and sooth divine wrath,” citing examples from ancient Egypt to support his claims.¹⁹⁴ The bottom line is that atonement for sins is not the subject here. The unusual connection between incense and the root kipper also struck Rashi, who cited some extremely imaginative midrashim to explain why “the incense prevented the plague”:

and atone for them. This secret was given over to him by the angel of death when he went up to heaven that incense holds back the plague … as is related in Tractate Shabbath (89a).

He stood between the dead … He took hold of the angel and held him against his will. The angel said to him, “Allow me to accomplish my mission.” He [Aaron] said to him, “Moses commanded me to stop you.” He said to him, “I am the messenger of the Omnipresent, and you are the messenger of Moses.” He said to him, “Moses does not say anything on his own volition, but only at the bidding of the Almighty. If you do not believe [me], the Holy One, blessed is He, and Moses are at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; come with me and ask.” This is the meaning of the statement, “Aaron returned to Moses” (Mid. Tanchuma Tetzaveh 15). Another interpretation: Why with incense? Because the Israelites were slandering and vilifying the incense, saying that it was a deadly poison; through it Nadab and Abihu died; through it two hundred and fifty people were burnt. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “You shall see that it will stop the plague, and it is sin that caused their death” [Mid. Aggadah. See Mechilta Beshallac (Vayassa 6:5, Ber. 33a)].¹⁹⁵

Rashbam also explains the use of incense in light of the immediate context, where God rejected the incense offered by Korah and his followers. The point, according to Rashbam, was “to demonstrate to the people that the incense which brings death, if offered by unauthorized persons, brings life if it is offered by lawful priests.”¹⁹⁶

The Talmud also found it necessary to explain how incense could “make atonement,” discussing this very text and concluding that it only atoned for gossip, since “if someone brings a word in secret, he will make atonement by a deed in secret” (see b. Zevahim 88a).¹⁹⁷ This, of course, underscores just how difficult it was to connect incense with atonement from a biblical—or even logical—viewpoint.¹⁹⁸ Who for a moment would make a general statement that “incense makes atonement” or would think that once the Temple was destroyed the Jewish people could burn incense for their sins? Is there any reference to this in Jewish tradition, not to mention in the rest of the Scriptures? The very thought of it is as unbelieveable as the notion that either flour, money, or jewelry could make atonement for sin. In all honesty, it seems almost disingenuous when some anti-missionaries claim that the Torah offered alternate forms of atonement other than blood sacrifices, as if blood sacrifices did not form the heart, soul, and very fiber of the entire atonement system, and as if any of the other alleged means, such as flour, could be effective for a moment without blood sacrifices. The Torah is very clear on this.

Was incense closely involved with the sacrificial system? It certainly was, as can easily be seen by reading through Leviticus 16, which outlines the duties of the high priest on the Day of Atonement, as well as by simply noting how often the burning of incense appeared in the context of sacrifices and offerings.¹⁹⁹ But did incense—or flour offerings—have any atoning power when isolated from the blood sacrifices? Certainly not.

“Well,” you say, “it seems that you’ve made a good case so far, especially in light of the Jewish commentaries you’ve supplied. But what about all the other verses in the Torah that speak of valid atonement without the shedding of blood? How do you respond to them?”

I can’t respond to them, because they don’t exist! We have exhausted every Torah reference that could possibly be taken to speak of atonement without blood (flour, money, incense), and we have found there is no support for the anti-missionary position.²⁰⁰

“But what about the references in other parts of the Hebrew Bible? I know that none of them would contradict the Torah, but they might add something to what the Torah says about atonement.”

Actually, the apparent references to atonement without blood in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures are even less compelling than those in the Torah. Let’s look at every text that could be understood as proving that the Tanakh recognized atonement without blood.

Of course, we know that there are many texts in the Hebrew Scriptures that speak of God as a forgiving and merciful God, and most of them do not make mention of blood sacrifices. This is self-evident and is to be expected, since the psalmists and prophets were simply proclaiming truths about the nature of God, not explaining the means and nature of atonement. The Torah had already done that in great detail, and for the most part, in those ritual texts there was no mention of the nature of God. Instead, in these priestly Torah texts the means of expiation are clearly laid out; in the psalms and prophetic books the nature of God is proclaimed, coupled with a call to repent of sin. The two concepts go hand in hand. A holy and compassionate God establishes a national system of atonement and calls his people to repent and be forgiven.²⁰¹

The psalms often praised God for his mercy, sometimes using the root kipper. (Note that the following translations are from the NJPSV, so no one can accuse the translators of Christian bias.) “When all manner of sins overwhelm me, it is You who forgive [kipper] our iniquities” (Ps. 65:4[3]). “But He, being merciful, forgave [kipper] iniquity and would not destroy; He restrained His wrath time and again and did not give full vent to His fury” (Ps. 78:38). “Help us, O God our deliverer, for the sake of the glory of Your name. Save us and forgive [kipper] our sin, for the sake of Your name” (Ps. 79:9).

But verses such as these in no way support the view that the Lord ordained means of atonement other than the blood. First, as is recognized by most translators, it is best to render kipper here with “forgive,” since this is something God is doing, not man.²⁰² Second, even if someone wanted to argue that kipper here should be translated with “atone,” none of these texts say for a moment that God forgave his people’s sin without the Day of Atonement, or without the sacrificial rites, or without blood. Rather, these verses simply reflect the goodness and mercy of our God, who graciously forgives sin and iniquity and who is implored to do it again.²⁰³ They have nothing to do with God’s requirements for his people relative to atonement and forgiveness. In fact, some of the verses just cited make no reference to repentance either, but that does not prove that the Lord forgave (or forgives) his unrepentant people. Rather, these texts simply describe the gracious acts of God. (For the concept that God has always forgiven sins based on the atoning death of the Messiah, see below, 3.15.)

What about other passages that use the root kipper and speak of people doing something to effect their atonement, with no reference to blood sacrifices? Most of the verses in question are found in the Book of Isaiah, and interestingly, in almost every case, the New Jewish Publication Society Version does not translate these verses with the words atone or *expiate.²⁰⁴ Why? Because the root also carries the meanings of “purge, wipe away,” and the context of the verses calls for a translation with “purge” rather than “atone.” I’ll compare the NJPSV (remember this is a leading Jewish translation) with the NIV (a leading Christian translation), highlighting the words in question: “Assuredly, by this alone shall Jacob’s sin be purged away; this is the only price for removing his guilt: that he make all the altar-stones like shattered blocks of chalk—with no sacred post left standing, nor any incense altar” (Isa. 27:9 NJPSV). “By this, then, will Jacob’s guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces, no Asherah poles or incense altars will be left standing” (Isa. 27:9).

Notice here that “purged away” (yekuppar) is parallel with “removing,” reminding us that Isaiah is not speaking of atonement of sin but rather of the removal and purging of sinful idolatrous practices. Interestingly, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation, dating to more than two hundred years before Jesus, rendered kipper here with “take away, remove,” not with “atone” or “expiate.” And Abraham Ibn Ezra, the penetrating medieval Bible commentator, explained the usage of kipper as follows: “The meaning (of the words) is that the decree (of judgment) will be abolished if they abolish (their) idolatrous worship.”

Isaiah’s own experience in chapter 6 of his book is also of interest, although it certainly does not substantiate the claim that the Hebrew Scriptures recognized various forms of atonement aside from blood. According to Isaiah 6:5–7, the prophet had an overwhelming, awe-inspiring vision of the Lord sitting enthroned in the Temple. The experience completely unnerved him:

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Isaiah 6:5–7

Once again, however, it is the New Jewish Publication Society Version that renders the key verse differently, translating, “Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt shall depart and your sin be purged away” (Isa. 6:7, emphasis mine). So just as in Isaiah 27:9, this important Jewish translation felt that kipper did not mean “atone, expiate” but rather “purge away,” and here too, just as in Isaiah 27:9, kipper is parallel to sar, “take away, remove.”

Of course, it is possible that Isaiah’s experience was related to atonement for sin, but that presents no problem at all for our position for at least two reasons: First, the prophet is cleansed by a burning coal taken from the altar, just as Aaron took fire from the altar when he offered incense in Numbers 16[17], and just as the flour offering had to be mingled with the sacrifices on the altar; second, it would be without precedent to make a major doctrine out of the visionary experience of a prophet, especially when this text would be the one and only example of burning coals “making atonement.”

And who would deduce from this that in the absence of blood sacrifices we should take burning coals to our lips to effect atonement for our sins? Or could it be that we need to enlist the help of the seraphim to apply the coal to our lips, since that is how it happened with Isaiah? Unfortunately, as ludicrous as these suggestions are, Isaiah 6:7 has sometimes been cited by anti-missionaries in their attempt to prove that there are other forms of biblically sanctioned atonement other than the blood.²⁰⁵

The simple fact is that the context makes it clear that Isaiah’s visionary experience had to do with the purging away of his confessed guilt, namely, that of being “a man of unclean lips” who lived “among a people of unclean lips.” So the coal from the altar was applied to his lips, removing his guilt and purging away his sin.²⁰⁶

And now for something that may surprise you. We have now examined all the relevant verses that allegedly support the position that the Hebrew Bible sanctions various means of atonement apart from the shedding of blood. We can safely say, then, that we have demonstrated conclusively that blood sacrifices were the one, God-ordained means of atonement in the Hebrew Bible.

Let me leave you with the witness of the Word, spanning the generations and the millennia. The testimony has always been the same. In the days of Hezekiah, when the First Temple was standing, blood sacrifices made atonement for the nation: “Early the next morning King Hezekiah gathered the city officials together and went up to the temple of the Lord … The priests then slaughtered the goats and presented their blood on the altar for a sin offering to atone for all Israel, because the king had ordered the burnt offering and the sin offering for all Israel” (2 Chron. 29:20, 24).

In the days of Nehemiah, when the Second Temple was built, blood sacrifices continued to make atonement for the nation. The priests and Levites pledged:

“We assume the responsibility for carrying out the commands to give a third of a shekel each year for the service of the house of our God: for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God.”

Nehemiah 10:32–33

Even in what some interpreters believe will be a future Third Temple, as envisioned by Ezekiel (see below, 3.17), blood sacrifices make atonement for the nation:

You are to give a young bull as a sin offering to the priests, who are Levites, of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign Lord. You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.

Ezekiel 43:19–20 (see also v. 26)

Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign Lord. All the people of the land will participate in this special gift for the use of the prince in Israel. It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 45:15–17 (see also v. 20)²⁰⁷

The consistent testimony of the Tanakh is indisputable and clear, as summarized by the author of Hebrews: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Any other system of atonement that does not include the blood is not biblical, and any other system of atonement that fails to offer substitutionary atonement (i.e., an innocent sacrificial victim dying on behalf of a guilty sinner) is not able to provide real forgiveness of sins. God established life for life—not money for life, not jewelry for life, not flour for life, not incense for life—as the means of expiation for his people. As the Talmudic rabbis recognized—at least while the Temple stood—“There is no atonement without the blood.”

¹⁶² See passages such as Genesis 15 for the important role played by blood sacrifices in covenant making.

¹⁶³ On the dating and origin of Targum Onkelos, see Philip S. Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:320–31 (specifically, 321–22).

¹⁶⁴ You might wonder why the Most Holy Place, altar, and Tent of Meeting needed “atonement” (or purgation, purification) because of Israel’s uncleanness and rebellion. How could inanimate objects need “atonement”? First, you must remember that the root kipper can mean both atone, expiate as well as purge, purify; second, you can think of these holy places and holy items, which were situated right in the middle of the Israelite people, much like a nonsmoker in a room filled with smokers. The non smoker gets polluted by the smoke of the others, even smelling like smoke after leaving the room, to the point that the nonsmoker’s clothes need to be “purged” from the smell of smoke. In the same way, Israel’s sins polluted God’s holy place and holy altar; see Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of the Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974), and contrast with Averbeck,“kpr,” Nidotte,2:699–702. According to Rashi (to Ezek. 43:20, the command to purify the altar and make it fit for atonement), “You shall ‘wipe’ it of its ordinariness to initiate it into sanctity, so that it will be fit for [providing] atonement from then on.” See Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, Ezekiel, vol. 2, The Judaica Books of the Prophets (New York: Judaica Press, 1991), 387.

¹⁶⁵ As explained by Milgrom, “… sin is a miasma which wherever committed is attracted to the sanctuary. There it adheres and accumulates until God will no longer abide in it. Hence, it is forever incumbent upon Israel, through the indispensable medium of its priesthood, to purge the sanctuary regularly of its impurities lest God abandon it and the people to their doom” (Milgrom, “Kipper,” EJ [CD ROM], 10:1039–44)—and this purging could not be accomplished without blood!

¹⁶⁶ For the essential role played by repentance in the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament), as well as in later Rabbinic tradition, see vol. 1, 1.11, and below, 3.21.

¹⁶⁷ I will discuss the important role of the so-called scapegoat, which was not slaughtered on the Day of Atonement but rather was sent away to carry Israel’s sins into the wilderness, below, 3.12. I would note here, however, that ancient Jewish traditions indicate that the goat was in fact killed on Yom Kippur (according to the traditions, by driving it off a cliff), apparently to insure that it would not return to the camp and that it would, in fact, die shortly after having Israe’s sins symbolically transferred to it.

¹⁶⁸ For other possible translations, which do not affect our discussion, see the commentaries of Jacob Milgrom, Baruch Levine, John E. Hartley, Erhard S. Gerstenberger, and Gordon F. Wenham, along with the comments of Richard Averbeck, cited below, n. 171.

¹⁶⁹ As stated by Rabbi Tovia Singer, “In the immediate context of Leviticus 17:11 we find that the Torah is speaking of the prohibition of eating blood, not the subject of sin and atonement. The Torah discusses blood atonement in this verse only as a byproduct of its central theme. This crucial message is lost when missionaries quote Leviticus 17:11 alone, without the surrounding texts as its proper background. … Leviticus 17:10–11 is therefore declaring two principles about blood: 1) you may not eat it 2) amongst all the various rituals associated with the sin sacrifice, such as the laying of the hands on the animal, slaughtering, collecting, earning, sprinkling, placing of the animal on the altar, it is only the sprinkling the blood on the altar that brings about the atonement. [I should point out that Rabbi Singer’s second point here is without scriptural foundation; rather, it reflects Talmudic comments on Leviticus 1:4, which I will discuss below. In other words, Leviticus 17:11 is not explaining that “amongst all the various rituals associated with the sin sacrifice … it is only the sprinkling the blood on the altar that brings about the atonement.”] You therefore may not eat the blood. This verse does not state or imply that one cannot have atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice. Such a message would contradict all of the Jewish scriptures which clearly outline two other methods of atonement more pleasing to God than a sacrifice—heartfelt repentance and charity.” (As posted on his web site [see above, n. 109].) I should note here that almost every paragraph on this particular web page is fraught with errors, some of them quite glaring. All the major points made by Rabbi Singer are refuted in the objections here dealing with atonement (3.9–3.17). As we carefully study every relevant verse in the Hebrew Scriptures, we will see just how exaggerated and misleading his comments are that “all of the Jewish scriptures … clearly outline two other methods of atonement more pleasing to God than a sacrifice” (my emphasis). I would encourage the careful reader to remember Rabbi Singer’s claims and examine them against the evidence presented from the text of the Hebrew Bible itself.

¹⁷⁰ Midrash Ha Chafetz to Leviticus 1:2, cited in Torah Shelemah 25:17 and by Joshua Berman, The Temple: Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1995), 126.

¹⁷¹ Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 487. In his careful study of kipper, Prof. Richard E. Averbeck, an Old Testament scholar who is also an expert in Sumerian literature, explains the significance of Leviticus 17:11 as follows: “Blood atonement is mentioned in Lev 17:11 as the rationale for draining the blood from the domesticated animal before eating the meat. The point is not that the blood atones for killing the animal [contra Milgrom] but, instead, that if one was going to utilize the blood for anything, its only proper use was to make atonement on the altar of the Lord. To eat the blood would be to eat not only the flesh of the animal but to eat the animal’s nepeš [life, soul], which the Creator of all nepeš (Gen 1:20–21, 24, 30; 2:7, 19) had long ago reserved for himself (Gen 9:3–5) and now assigned to the purpose of atonement alone (Lev 17:11–14).” See his article on “kpr,” NIDOTTE, 2:689–709 (here, 695). As noted correctly by Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, Old Testament Library, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), “The assertion ‘the life of the body is in the blood’ (5:11) or ‘the life of the every body is its blood’ (twice in 5:14) would not have been emphasized three times for no reason at all.… But how is atonement through blood to take place?… The background to these blood rites apparently involves legal considerations. Life forfeited through guilt—namely, that of the offerer—is redeemed from the warranted punishment through the presentation of the life of another” (240–42; and see ibid, for important anthropological perspectives on the significance of blood in various cultures).

¹⁷² John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1992), 65. Hartley, following D. J. McCarthy (Journal of Biblical Literature 88 [1969]: 166–76), also points out “that attaching such significance to blood is unique to Israel among the cults [i.e., Temple rituals] of the Middle East, indicating that the handling of the blood was assigned special significance because of Israel’s unique theological outlook” (ibid.).

¹⁷³ Quite oddly. Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that Hebrews 9:22 could be a “stunning mistranslation” of Leviticus 17:11, basing his claim on the fact that Christian study Bibles generally cross reference Hebrews 9:22 with Leviticus 17:11. But as anyone using a study Bible knows, a cross reference between the Old Testament and New Testament does not mean that the New Testament author was necessarily quoting the Old Testament author. It simply means that one verse provides support or background for the other verse. In the case in point here, there is no translation involved at all (this is really self evident), anymore than there is a quotation (or “stunning misquotation”) of Leviticus 17:11 in the Talmudic texts just cited. Rather, Leviticus 17:11 provides the biblical support for the statement penned in Hebrews 9:22, which simply reflects the common Jewish view of the day that “there is no atonement without the blood.” Note also that the root kipper (in the Rabbinic phrase just quoted, the noun kapparah) sometimes overlaps with verbs meaning “forgive, pardon” explaining why Hebrews states that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness [literally, remission]”; cf. Jeremiah 18:23 (where kipper is rendered by the NJPSV as “pardon”), along with the verses from Psalms, cited below.

¹⁷⁴ Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 258.

¹⁷⁵ Jacob Neusner, in his American translation, renders the key words as “atonement is only through the blood.”

¹⁷⁶ Geza Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus,” in his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Studia Post-Biblica 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 193–227 (here, 205), with reference to b. Yoma 5a. Interestingly, Vermes adds, “The antiquity of this talmudic rule is attested by the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:22: xoris haimatekxusias ou ginetai aphesis, ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ ” (ibid., 205, n. 4).

¹⁷⁷ Hartley, Leviticus, 23, with reference also to b. Yoma 5a. Although I have assembled these references on my own, I was interested to see that the Talmudic quotes, together with the citation from Baruch Levine, were also cited in a Jews for Jesus web site refuting the erroneous position of Rabbi Tovia Singer. See www.jews-for-jesus.org/CASE BIBLICAL/Sin.html.

¹⁷⁸ According to the EJ article “Sacrifices,” “The surrender of a living thing was a major factor in nearly every kind of sacrificial ritual; that life was being forfeited was signified by the extraction of animal’s blood: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life [that is in it]’ (Lev. 17:11). The people were therefore forbidden to eat the blood (Lev. 17:10; also Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), since life belonged only to God.”

¹⁷⁹ We will make reference to this ceremony again below, 3.13.

¹⁸⁰ See Exodus 29:33, cited above; this verse, however, which we just cited above, refers only to the sacrifices offered in the ceremony of the consecration of the priests.

¹⁸¹ According to Rashi (see b. Hagigah 27a), “a man’s table atones for him” means, “in the entertaining of guests.” With due respect to Rashi and the Talmud, it is only fair to point out that there is absolutely no biblical support for this concept. The Torah doesn’t even hint at such a thing.

¹⁸² Urbach, The Sages, 432, 434. For a discussion of this very important passage cited here from the Mishnah, see below, 3.12.

¹⁸³ Urbach, The Sages, 433–34.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., 433–34, my emphasis.

¹⁸⁵ J. H. Kurtz, Offerings, Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 66, his emphasis.

¹⁸⁶ In this vein, 1 Samuel 3:14 states that the guilt of the high priest Eli’s house will “never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering” (the Hebrew term for offering here referred primarily to flour). How unthinkable it would be to read, “The guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by flour”! Rather, the only atoning efficacy of the flour offerings was in their being joined with the blood sacrifices on the altar.

¹⁸⁷ Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 196, notes simply, “the idea seems to be that a census places the lives of those counted in jeopardy.”

¹⁸⁸ Sarna, ibid., notes concisely, “Hebrew kofer is a monetary payment made in lieu of a physical penalty incurred.”

¹⁸⁹ Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 352. Hertz explains the ransom payment both here and in Numbers 31 with reference to warfare, suggesting that the Israelite men were being numbered for war, at which time they would potentially be involved in the taking of life, but not murder (for which, as noted above, no kopher was acceptable). Thus, Hertz, following the German biblical scholar Benno Jacob, states that, “The soldier who is ready to march into battle is in the eyes of Heaven a potential taker of life, though not a deliberate murderer. Hence he requires a ‘ransom for life.’ ”

¹⁹⁰ Milgrom, Numbers, 264, with further reference to Excursus 19, “Levitical ‘Kippur” ’ and Excursus 2, “The Census and Its Totals.”

¹⁹¹ The only thing in common between the two contexts is the concept of substitution: In Exodus 30 and Numbers 31, monetary payment is made to avert wrath; in Leviticus 17:11, the blood of sacrifices is put on the altar to procure atonement. For another view that links these two contexts more closely, see Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 67. See further the discussion in Averbeck, “kpr,” 695.

¹⁹² This is repeated verbatim in the commentary of Mizrachi; see also Beʾer BaSadeh.

¹⁹³ For an attempt to harmonize both of Rashi’s interpretations, see Maskil LeDavid, yet another commentary on Rashi.

¹⁹⁴ Milgrom, Numbers, 142.

¹⁹⁵ As rendered by Rabbi Rosenberg.

¹⁹⁶ As rendered by Arthur Cohen, Soncino Chumash (London: Soncino, 1956), 885.

¹⁹⁷ For the Rabbinic logic behind this, see the Steinsaltz Talmud (in Hebrew) to b. Yoma 44a (186), sub ʿiyyunim; cf. also the comments in Torah Temimah to Numbers 17:11.

¹⁹⁸ For those who still feel that kipper in this context must be connected with atonement—despite the interpretation of leading Jewish biblical scholars, both ancient and modern—I would point out that Moses instructed Aaron to “take fire from the altar” (the very altar called by Maimonides “the altar of atonement”), hinting that even in this context, the usage of kipper was tied to the sacrificial altar. Baruch Levine, Numbers 1–20, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 420–21, translates kipper here with “perform a rite of expiation,” explaining that “the sense is functional: the verb kipper does not mean ‘to cleanse,’ but rather to perform a rite whose result is a kind of purification.… What Aaron did on this occasion represents an adaptation of procedures involved in expiation rites, and conveyed by the verb kipper. There rites normally required the utilization of sacrificial blood, placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings and occasionally on other interior appurtenances of the Tabernacle [with reference to his earlier study, In the Presence of the Lord, 63–77].” His comments in the latter work, 73, n. 51, are noteworthy: “In Nu 17:11–12, the verb kipper conveys the apotropaic use of incense in stemming a plague. This usage is borrowed, since the incense was sprinkled or spread over the people in the manner of blood, hence the verb natan (5:12), elsewhere used in connection with placing sacrificial blood on the altar (Lev 4:25, 30, 34, etc.). In Nu 25:13 the verb kipper characterizes the result of Aaron’s action in stabbing the sinful nasiʾ [leader], thus again resembling the use of blood. We observe, therefore, that even in several cases where kipper does not refer directly to the use of blood from the ḥaṭṭaʾt [sin offering] and ʿašam [guilt offering], it relates to apotropaic activity similar to it.”

¹⁹⁹ Cf. Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 643, to Numbers 17:11 (English trans., 16:46); Hertz there observes that when Moses instructed Aaron to bring his censer (or fire-pan), the Hebrew literally says the censer, “i.e., the censer which belongs to the High Priest and which he used on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12) when ministering in the Sanctuary.” See also immediately above, n. 198.

²⁰⁰ For discussion of Numbers 25 (Phineas), see below, 3.15. Interestingly, although Solomon Schechter made reference to many different forms of atonement according to the Talmudic rabbis, it is clear from his discussion that none competed with or took the place of the blood sacrifices or the Yom Kippur rituals. For references see Solomon Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 300–306, where he also notes that some of the statements of the relevant comments of the Talmudic rabbis are to be taken “cum grano salis” (Latin for “with a grain of salt”) (300).

²⁰¹ See already in the Torah Exodus 34:6–7, where the Lord described himself as “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.”

²⁰² There are two explanations for rendering kipper as “forgive”: (1) It could be meaning derived from “atone, expiate,” since the result of atonement is forgiveness; (2) it could reflect a more literal, older aspect of the verb, meaning, “wipe away, purge.” Hence, God would forgive sin by wiping it away or removing it from his sight. See further above, n. 173 (on Jer. 18:23 and the meanings of kipper).

²⁰³ In 2 Chronicles 30:18–19, during a major, nationwide celebration of Passover at the Temple in Jerusalem, it is written that “although most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘May the Lord, who is good, pardon [kipper, rendered this time in the NJPSV as “make atonement for”] everyone who sets his heart on seeking God—the Lord, the God of his fathers—even if he is not clean according to the rules of the sanctuary.’ ” Averbeck, “kpr,” 697, with attention to the Hebrew grammar (kipper followed by bəʿad) explains Hezekiah’s prayer as follows: “The basic idea here is that the Lord should act as the priest ‘on behalf of (bəʿad) certain people in the congregation by wiping them clean even though they were eating the Passover in violation of the Passover purity laws (on bəʿad, see also Lev. 9:7 [2x]; 16:6, 11, 17, 24; Ezek. 45:17; also Exod. 32:30, where Moses intended to act as a priest on behalf of the congregation).”

²⁰⁴ For an extensive study, see my article, “Kippēr and Atonement in the Book of Isaiah,” in Ki Barukh Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies for Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 189–202; for a discussion of Isaiah 28:18 and 47:11, which also contain forms of kipper, along with Isaiah 43:3, with kopher, see the same article.

²⁰⁵ For a typical, midrashic application of this verse by the Talmudic rabbis, see b. Berakhot 57a.

²⁰⁶ For a discussion of Isaiah 22:14b, often cited in Rabbinic literature as a proof text for the view that there is atoning power in one’s own death, see my article on “Kipper and Atonement in the Book of Isaiah,” 200–202, where I conclude that the text in Isaiah is saying, “This sin will not be purged away (kipper) till your dying day,” rather than, “With death this sin will be atoned for.” If, however, one feels that a case can be made for the Rabbinic position, then it would actually tie in well with our extensive treatment of the atoning power of the death of the righteous (below, 3.15).

²⁰⁷ For the question of why blood sacrifices will be necessary in a future Temple if Jesus already paid for all our sins, see below, 3.17.

Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 2: Theological objections (103). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Even if I accept your premise that blood sacrifices are of great importance in the Torah, the fact is that our Hebrew Bible—including the Torah itself—offers other means of atonement, not just the shedding of blood.