Welcome to Nakdimon's Page
Sin and atonement
Rabbi
Singer's distortions and misapplications of texts
Methods of atonement (12:50)
Rabbi
Tovia Singer asks his audience which method of atonement is most important. The
rabbi then tells his listeners that repentance is the greatest and sacrifices is
the least important method of atonement. Is this correct? Let�s see what rabbi
Tovia Singer brings up from the Tenach in order to try to back his claims up.
According
to rabbi Tovia Singer, the prophets declared that the people shouldn�t get
caught up with blood, because the pagan religions emphasized the importance of
blood sacrifices. Truth is that the prophets never said this! Rightly understood
the prophets declared that sacrifices were so important that when not brought
with the proper devotion and state of heart, they would not function. You might
as well not bring them at all! According to rabbi Singer God prefers other
things than a sacrifice when it comes to making atonement. In addition, rabbi
Singer�s position would lead us to believe that we are better off in exile
without a Temple. That Jews in exile without the Temple had a
better method of atonement (prayer) than Jews living in the land of Israel with
the Temple (sacrifices). That would be like having to drive a Bentley as
punishment and when the punishment is over you�re being �blessed� with a
lil� old Hyundai. What logic is this based on?
The
rabbi then points us to Psalm 40:5-6. Rabbi Singer claims that this chapter
�without question� shows us that God is pretty much done with sacrifices.
But what is David really saying? David says that God rather has us hearing His
word and obey it than us bringing sacrifices without obeying His word. He would
rather have us living according to His word than have us sinning and bring
�chatot� (sin offerings) or turning a deaf ear to His word and bring
�olot� (burnt offerings). Ironically this also goes for prayers and charity.
God would rather have us hearing and obeying His word than turning a deaf ear to
His Torah and give charity or pray all day. In that case He doesn�t want your
prayers nor does He see your charity. Of course at the heart of all this lies
repentance. Fact is repentance doesn�t atone! Repentance is the foundation of
every atonement process. Without repentance there is no atonement! Not with sacrifices,
not with prayer, not with charity. So to say that God �doesn�t
even want it� based on these verses is nothing else than misleading. It�s
not as if David had the entire sacrificial system in mind when he wrote these
words. Yet rabbi Singer quotes David as saying just that. This is the very man
that had the intense desire to build the Temple of God. The very Temple that
automatically would mean more sacrifices being brought than were ever brought in
David�s days or any pre-Temple period! So we�re supposed to believe that
David practically repudiated the entire sacrificial system and yet was eager to
build the Temple where sacrifices would be brought continually before God? That
would be like a fire fighter trying to put out a fire with gasoline!
Then
he goes on to claim that the author of Hebrews saw �the need to molest the
verse�. First of all, the author of Hebrews didn�t change a thing and rabbi
Singer knows this! Rabbi Singer is aware of the fact that the quote from Hebrews
is not from the Masoretic Text (MT) but from the Septuagint (LXX), which was not
a �Christian� translation, but the leading Jewish translation of that day
from the Hebrew to the Greek. There was no such thing as a �Christian�
translation. The LXX was pre-Christianity and therefore didn�t have any
�christological� agenda. It basically had the authority of the modern day
Soncino, Judaica Press Complete Tanach and the New Jewish Version combined.
Rabbi Singer of course downplays the authority of the LXX in many lectures,
although he is aware that the LXX sometimes gives us the correct reading, which
is subsequently supported by the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), where the MT gives us a
different reading. Who would think of accusing the rabbi of changing words to
deceive people when he would quote from the NJV-translation? Second, notice that
the part that was supposedly �molested� was never used by the author of
Hebrews. He completely ignores the �molested� part and makes his case based
on the part that is according to the MT-reading. So rabbi Tovia Singer gives his
audience a completely distorted reading of what the writer of Hebrews really was
trying to say.
David, Uriah and the Talmud (26:20)
Rabbi
Tovia Singer then comes with the account of Uriah and David and wants to
demonstrate that David like no other experienced atonement without blood. He
then tells his audience the story in summary and then comes to the part that
supposedly supports his lecture. David gets rebuked by Nathan the prophet and
confesses his sin. According to rabbi Singer he is then atoned for, this is what
the text actually says:
13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have
sinned against the LORD.' And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also
hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
David
was already forgiven before he confessed. God had already decided that David was
not to die for the murder he had committed. But was he atoned for? No way! There
is a difference between forgiveness and atonement. Forgiveness doesn�t
necessarily take away the immediate consequences of sin where as atonement does
take away the immediate penalty for sin. As we read on David gets the punishment
for his crime and the child dies. More support on this is found in Psalm 51
where David goes all out and pleas for Gods mercy. Why do that if you have been
atoned for without blood? He should be thanking God instead for his atonement
without blood instead. But rabbi Singer again quotes David in Psalm 51 to be
saying that God wants nothing to do with sacrifices. Again, what is David, who
himself longed to build the Temple for God, trying to say? If we read on this is
what David says:
18.
For You do not wish
a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. 19. The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and
crushed heart. 20. With
Your will, do good to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. 21.
Then You will
desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt offering and a whole offering; then
they will offer up bulls on Your altar. (Judaica
Press Complete Tanach)
This
is a pretty strange conclusion coming from a man who supposedly tells us here,
beyond a doubt, that God doesn�t think our sacrifices are at all relevant or
important. He is talking about bringing offerings in righteousness and not in a
sinful state. So after repentance from a contrite heart God desires the
sacrifice of the just! That He will not reject. So according to rabbi Singer
David first says that God rejects sacrifices (v.18), but he will offer them
anyway (v.21). Who would believe that?
For the Talmudic element that rabbi Singer is talking about, please see the section �Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture�.
Hoshea 3 + 14 (37:00)
Rabbi
Tovia Singer claims that Hoshea 14:3 tells us that we have prayers as a
replacement for sacrifice, claiming that this is a teaching that tells us what
to do in the time when Israel has no Temple with it�s sacrifices. The analogy
of the rabbi is nowhere to be found in the text, talking about ��don�t
worry! Take with you words��, etc, giving the audience a whole other picture
of what is being said by the prophet. However a thorough look at Hoshea 14 will
reveal that it has nothing to do with Israel in exile, from the time of
separation from the land and Temple with sacrifices. And therefore has nothing
to do with �what to do in the meantime� or �how to replace
sacrifices�. This is evident from Hoshea 3 speaking of Israel being without
sacrifice, etc. and afterwards returning to God and David their king (Messiah)
in the latter days. This is what Hoshea is expanding on. After those �many
days without sacrifices� Israel is to return:
This
is exactly what Hoshea is talking about in chapter 14:2, which leads us to the
verse that rabbi Singer misuses to try to back his claim up:
Now honestly tell me that this is a declaration of the prophet about what to do when in exile to procure atonement for sins. This is what Israel is to do when it returns to God! When does this happen? In the latter days! When Israel returns to God using upright words from a pure heart in the latter days. These are the �fruit of our lips� the NIV refers to, also using the LXX reading, which reads �we will offer up the fruit of our lips�, instead of the MT reading. And of course, rabbi Singer claims that the Christian translators didn�t like the verse and changed it. The NIV didn�t change a thing, it just didn�t follow the reading of the Hebrew Text, but of the LXX, just as the writer of Hebrews alluded to that verse, when he says �By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.� As Dr Michael L. Brown in his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Vol. 2 writes:
Second,
and more importantly, there are difficulties in the translation of Hosea
14:2[3], since the Hebrew literally reads, �Forgive all iniquity, and take
good, and we will pay [Hebrew, shillem] bulls our lips.� For that
reason, there are Jewish scholars (such as Robert Gordis) who suggest that the
oldest Jewish translation of this verse, namely, the Septuagint, should be
followed here, reading the word �fruit� (peri) instead of �bulls�
(parim)-thereby undercutting the entire anti-missionary argument. Not
only so, but a careful reading of the Hebrew text-even leaving the word bulls
intact-indicates that the verse has nothing to do with offering
sacrifices, since the Hebrew verb shillem is never used in the entire
Bible with reference to making an animal sacrifice. Rather, it is most
frequently used in the context of paying a vow, and its actual meaning-which is
not disputed in any Hebrew dictionary I have found- is �to fulfil, complete,
pay, repay, compensate, � as in Ecclesiastes 5:4[3]:�When you make a vow to
God, do not delay in fulfilling it [shillem]. He has no pleasure in fools;
fulfil [shillem] your vow.� Therefore the meaning of the phrase is,
�We will pay the vows of our lips to God� as opposed to, �We will replace
animal sacrifices with the offerings of our lips.�
All this should give us a pause for thought, since it would be highly
unlikely-to put It mildly- that the Lord would hang a major, life-critical,
Torah-revising revelation on just one verse, especially when that verse in the
original Hebrew is somewhat obscure grammatically and clearly does not mean what
the anti-missionaries claim it means.
(page 94, emphasis his)
Dr
Brown surely has a point. It is surely possible that due to a scribal error (no
�rabbinic conspiracy�!!!), the words
(un�shalma
parim s�fateinu) originally were
(�un�shalma
p�ri mis�fateinu), literally meaning �and we will pay the fruit of our
lips�, which is a complete and grammatically correct sentence. And the meaning
of this phrase is obvious, although rabbi Singer acts as if it means nothing.
But the �fruit� of something means the product of something. Just as the fruit
of the land stands for what the land produces, so does the fruit of the
lips stands the product of the mouth, namely spoken words. (e.g. Isaiah
3:10; 10:12, Amos 6:12; Prov. 12:14) What I finally want to address is that the
translation of the verse as rabbi Tovia Singer reads it is a totally distorted
translation of that verse! It doesn�t say �and let us render for bulls the
offerings of our lips� at all. The words
(un�shalma
parim s�fateinu) literally mean �and we will pay bulls our lips�.
What does that mean? Could you imagine what rabbi Singer would
have accused the NIV or the King James translators of if this verse was
translated as such by them? But NOW rabbi Singer doesn�t mind the Hebrew text
and goes with the faulty translation instead. Why? For obvious reasons, since he
needs this verse to support the notion that prayer replaced sacrifices. A
position that is faulty, as we have
seen so far and will continue to see below.
1 Kings 8:46-50 (40:00)
Then
rabbi Singer takes us to 1 Kings 8 where he claims that king Solomon �makes a
speech for the nation� and prophesises about the time when Israel is in exile
without the Temple and what to do in the meantime for atonement. However anyone
familiar with the text knows that this is not a �speech� at all and
certainly not a prophecy! This is a prayer from king Solomon and a
request to God if he will accept the people�s prayers when they are in exile.
This is not a prophecy about �this is how it�s going to be and that is what
you are going to do�. Therefore it�s not Solomon�s prayer that is decisive,
but Gods answer that is the measuring rod and the starting point of any doctrine
that flows from the text. So let�s see what God answers Solomon. First,
let�s look at Solomon�s �prophecy�:
Now this
is hardly a prophecy. This is a request to God and not a speech to the people!
Well, let�s see what God does with Solomon�s request in 2 Chronicals 7
(parallel to God�s answer in 1 Kings 9):
,
not TOWARDS that Temple!),
forgive them and restore the land. Meaning that this
can ONLY be the case when Israel is IN the land
and the Temple is standing. (How does it make any sense for God to say that
He will restore their land if they are exiled and outside of the land? Or to
command locusts to devour the land if the people are exiles from the land.
What good will that do to the people? ) But when they would fail to repent,
He would reject the Temple - which would evidently mean that he would reject
their prayers as well - and throw them out. Why then does rabbi Singer claim
that Solomon�s prayer, and not God�s answer, is
decisive evidence that teaches us that when the Jewish people are without
the Temple, we can use prayers as replacement for sacrifice? That is not at
all what Solomon - and certainly not what God - is saying. God doesn�t
even touch the subject of sacrifice and atonement! His answer is solely
based on the request of the prayer of Solomon. Nothing about replacing
sacrifices. And since rabbi Singer claims that it�s not so much about what
was said but about what wasn�t said, then how does he come to the
conclusion that prayer replaces sacrifices, when no such thing is being said?
And this is the man that calls others deceitful! It�s clear that rabbi
Tovia Singer�s claim, again, has no merit whatsoever!
Vicarious atonement. (44:37)
According
to rabbi Tovia Singer vicarious atonement has no place in Judaism. It�s
amazing how rabbi Singer seems to suffer from amnesia all of a sudden. The very
system he claims that is repudiated by the prophets and replaced by prayer is
founded on this principle of vicarious atonement. The innocent animal dies for
the sins of the guilty sinner. As rabbi Singer himself explains at the beginning
of the lecture in his analogy of �Moishe�, saying �you should have been
me, but your not me, because I didn�t do it intentionally�. Of course he
goes on to claim that this is merely a �teaching tool�, but the bible
explicitly tells us that this works out atonement for our sins. It doesn�t say
�you are to offer bulls so you can learn a lesson�, it says that by offering
up the prescribed animals you work out atonement for your sins. But since rabbi
Singer claims that vicarious atonement has no place in Judaism, it must be a
pagan myth and we should find no such teachings in either the Tenach or rabbinic
sources. I have already given you the biblical source for this teaching. Now
let�s see what some rabbinic sources have to say about the righteous dying or
suffering for the wicked. There are so many I don�t even know where to start:
Rashi�s commentary on Isaiah 53:4, 5 and 12
an
expression of �but� in all places. But now we see that this came to him
not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that
all the nations be atoned for with Israel�s suffering. The illness that
should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
Rashi�s commentary on Numbers 20:1
Miriam
died there Why is the passage relating
Miriam�s death juxtaposed with the passage of the Red Cow? To teach you that
just as sacrifices bring atonement, so the death of the righteous secure
atonement. � [M.K. 28a].
Yeven Metzulah, end of chapter 15:
�Would
the Holy One, Blessed is He, dispense judgment without justice? But we may say
that he whom God loves will be chastised. For since the day the Holy Temple was
destroyed, the righteous are seized by death for the iniquities of the
generation�
The Zohar:
As long
as Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, the rituals and the sacrifices they performed
[in the Temple] removed all those diseases from the world; now the Messiah
removes them from the children of the world (2:212a)
Leviticus Rabbah 20:12:
�Rabbi
Hiyya Bar Abba said: The sons of Aharon died the first day of Nisan. Why then
does the Torah mention their death in conjunction with the Day of Atonement? It
is to teach that just as the Day of Atonement atones, so also the death of the
righteous atones.�
Piacular
Human Sacrifice.
Piacular
sacrifice seems historically to have begun with human immolations. This is the
view taken by the writer of Gen. xxii. (E), where the burnt offering of Isaac by
Abraham is commuted by the sacrifice of a ram. The sacrifice by Mesha, king of
Moab, of his eldest son (II Kings iii. 27) was expiatory; for, in the view of
the narrator, the "wrath" of the offended deity was diverted upon
Israel. Such were also the horrible sacrifices made to Moloch in the later days
of the kingdom. These practises are amply illustrated from other ancient nations.
But not all Old Testament human sacrifices were burnt offerings. Agag was not
burned (I Sam. xv. 33); nor were the seven sons and grandsons of King Saul (II
Sam. xxi. 8, 9). Both of these executions were made "before Yhwh," and
were therefore real sacrifices, the latter being expressly stated to be
expiatory.
An
influential author on the Sho�a (Holocaust), rabbi Ignaz Maybaum, speaking
about the Sho�a once wrote that �In Auschwitz Jews suffered vicarious
atonement for the sins of mankind�, even going as far to say
that �the Golgotha [i.e. Calvary, where Yeshua was crucified] of modern
mankind is Auschwitz� (Maybaum, The
face of God after Auschwitz, 36)
Ezekiel 18+33
But what
about the words of Ezekiel? He says nothing about atonement. He just gives us
the traits of a righteous person that his righteousness counts for himself and
so it is the case for ones wickedness. But does this mean that this speaks about
the atonement process? No! and it certainly has nothing to do with the atonement
process of the people outside of the land, i.e. in exile. As dr Brown notes in
AJOJ Vol.2:
You
see, he was not making a statement about atonement and forgiveness without
sacrifices. Rather, he was responding to a widespread misunderstanding that
existed among his contemporaries, a misunderstanding that completely undercut
individual moral responsibility. According to this view, the parents could sin
and escape scot-free, while their children would suffer for the parents� sins�
if we wanted to press your argument, we could say that according to Ezekiel 18,
Sabbath observance is not important, since the prophet doesn�t mention it in
chapter 18, nor are any of the holy days-including Passover, Rosh Hashanah, and
Yom Kippur-of any importance, since he doesn�t mention it in the chapter, not
is prayer of any importance, since he doesn�t mention it in the chapter. Would
you accept this line of reasoning? Obviously not. Then why do you argue that the
chapter teaches Jews in exile how to get right with God without sacrifices and
offerings? And why, for that matter, didn�t the Lord remind Ezekiel that
prayer replaced sacrifices while the Temple was not standing? It was because
Ezekiel 18 had nothing to do with the subject of how to receive atonement while
in exile. In fact, some of the language used by Ezekiel-referring to the wicked
who eat at the mountain shrines�(Ezek. 18:6, 11, 15; cf. also 6:13) might best
be applied to Jews living in the land of Israel.
Further, the anti-missionary interpretation of Ezekiel 18 is unknown to
the Talmudic rabbis and medieval Jewish Bible commentators. In other words, it
is a recent invention devised with the sole purpose of refuting Messianic Jewish
beliefs. There is no record of any prominent rabbi in the past utilizing this
text to prove that God provided an alternative method of atonement for his
exiled people living without a Temple. This says a great deal�.(p.
146, 148-149, emphasis his)
Ezekiel
doesn�t even touch the subject of atonement! Using the same line of reasoning
to the teachings of rabbinic Judaism, this works just as devastating to their
views.
Ezekiel�s Temple: Checkmate?
According
to rabbi Tovia Singer the Temple of Yechezeq�el [Ezekiel] is checkmate for the
Messianic Jewish view, since it teaches that due to the sacrifice of Yeshua
there is no longer need for sacrifices of sin. Whereas rabbinic Judaism teaches
that when Moshiach comes, there will again be sacrifices. So he points us to
Ezekiel 40-48, where Ezekiel the priest tells us about the sacrifices of what
seems to be the Third Temple. So, �game over�, right? Not exactly, since
Messianic Judaism teaches that there is no need for sin sacrifices,
not that they will not be brought at all. Furthermore, a literal reading of the
text of Ezekiel would raise serious problems for the rabbinic Jewish position as
well. Namely:
�
If God will
remember their sins no more as far as the New Covenant is concerned (Jer.
31:33), then what are sin sacrifices brought for?
�
If the World to
come will be a utopia, then how come we are still sinning, since we are to bring
sacrifices for our sins? As dr. Brown asks: If this �was to be the age of
once-and-for-all forgiveness and complete undefiled righteousness. What need is
there for sacrifices of atonement?�
�
The sacrifices
in the Temple vision of Ezekiel differ from the sacrifices prescribed in the
Torah! If we are to read this literally, what does that tell us about Ezekiel
himself, using the same canon of critique the anti-missionaries use against the
New Testament Scriptures? Doesn�t he, as a priest, know how the sacrificial
system works according to the Torah? Or will the Torah be revised? If not then
what gives? If so, then why accuse Yeshua of revising the Torah? You can�t
have it both ways!
What is
also interesting to note, is that sacrifices for sin in the Messianic Age will
be a step backward if we are to take rabbi Singer�s word for it. Remember, he
said that this is the method of atonement that was the least significant
and the least effective of all methods of atonement! Again,
according to this view we are staying at the Hilton�s Presidential Suite when we�re in exile and when we are in
Israel and the Temple is standing we are merely staying at some roadside motel.
See AJOJ
Vol.2 p. 169-186 for an in depth refutation to this objection. Dr Brown
also explains that, as far as the Messianic Jewish point of view goes, these
verses about sacrifices of atonement might as well be of communal nature. Just
as the Torah pointed toward Yeshua�s death and atoning works, so can the
sacrifices in Ezekiel�s visions point backward to commemorate the work of God
through the Messiah. Just as it is done with the Passover Seder in Jewish homes
every Pesach, pointing back to the going out of Egypt and God�s redemptive
works, through Moshe. Just as it is done with �the Lord�s Supper, which is
celebrated over and over again by followers of Yeshua to commemorate what he has
done for us.
So
instead of focussing on Yeshua�s atoning death and talking about
�checkmate� to try to refute Messianic Jewish teachings, the rabbi and his
should focus on how their views face the same difficulties if the same line of
reasoning is being applied.
In
summary: What do we make of rabbi Singer�s allegations and arguments? They
have no truth to them whatsoever. Nowhere does the Tenach ever hint that prayer
replaces sacrifice or that sacrifices are repudiated.
Nakdimon