Judaism moving beyond animal sacrifices

[keck553]

The passover sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice. Just saying.

Blessings.

It's freedom from bondage. Some say bondage to the adversary is far greater than the bondage of Mitzrayim.

I read a commentary in JP on passover that expressed this very sentiment. How close we sometimes get to the truth, yet our distinctions continue to alienate us.

[Fenris]

It's freedom from bondage.

Bondage is not sin. They are two different things.

AH, here we go. Exodus 8:26 But Moses said, "That would not be right. The sacrifices we offer the LORD our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us?

The freedom from bondage of the Passover sacrifice was that they could do it in Egypt- in plain sight of the Egyptians- even though it angered them.

[keck553]

Bondage is not sin. They are two different things.

AH, here we go. Exodus 8:26 But Moses said, "That would not be right. The sacrifices we offer the LORD our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us?

The freedom from bondage of the Passover sacrifice was that they could do it in Egypt- in plain sight of the Egyptians- even though it angered them.

I haven't looked at it in quite that context. God is so intricate in plain sight....

I agree that bondage is not sin. But God had to strike down the 10 gods of Egypt to demonstrate His soverignty, indeed the preamble (if you will) of the Decalogue at Mt. Horeb reiterates that point and is a call to rememberence for both of our faiths.

The reason I brought up the question about "bondage to sin" was because of something I read from a Rabbi named Shmuley Boteach - oddly (or perhaps not so oddly) much of how I walk out my own faith and much of my own personal dependence on God is expressed in this writing (and I quote)

"....Conveying the contemporary relevance of Judaism's most famous holiday to a western audience, most of whom have grown up in thriving liberal democracies, is challenging. I remember how when I first arrived in Oxford, the students organized Passover meals, not just on Passover but throughout the year, to support imprisoned refuseniks of the Soviet Union. But that was long ago.

We can look at Passover as nothing more than the retelling of an ancient saga of bondage and liberation. The Jews were enslaved to Egyptian taskmasters, and God, through spectacular acts of intervention -- 10 plagues, splitting of the Red Sea -- redeemed them from servitude. Yet, the Passover Seder, which is the highlight of the Jewish calendar and is sacred not just to Jews but to Christians as the last supper of Christ, something I explore in my new book "Kosher Jesus," is not merely about retelling but reliving the exodus from Egypt. Jews are enjoined to taste of saltwater and bitter herbs and thus to re-experience the tears and suffering of our forebears; to eat matzah, the poor man's bread, thereby re-experiencing a taste of servitude; and finally to drink four cups of wine with which to the elation of redemption.

But is any of this relevant to modern Americans who have thankfully never known political servitude?

I would offer that the answer is an unqualified yes. For though we are free we are still enslaved. Or, as Rousseau put it, man is free although everywhere he is in chains.

What nearly collapsed the American economy in 2008 was a nation that could not stop spending money. Subjected to unending pressures to prosper materially, we indulged in homes we could not afford and addicted ourselves to impulse purchases that surrounded us with the accoutrements of success. To pay for all this we worked all hours of the day and typed away at our Blackberries at night, thereby compromising our greatest treasure of all, our children. Is this the mark of freedom? Indeed, with phones that are on us always and with a 24-hour news cycle and economy, and with the need to update our Facebook status at all hours of the day and night, we are certainly the most electronically enslaved generation ever.

Think of the women who spend their lives trying to ape whatever is on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine that week. Are they free to be themselves, or are they imprisoned with artificially low self-esteem in a culture that values a woman more for cheekbones and thinness than knowledge and character?

We tend to think of imprisonment only in political terms. If an outside party imposes their will on us, we feel restrained and oppressed. But the most serious form of duress is the restriction imposed upon us by our own human nature. Passover's message is that men and women can transcend instinct, impulse and social pressures and be whatever they wish to become. Each of us is endowed with a yearning to leave Egypt and be free.

America is the same. Our country is mired in a rut of material consumption, cultural shallowness, political partisanship and economic instability. But none of this has become ingrained into our national DNA. We are capable of liberating ourselves from a spending addiction, degrading decadence, incessant political warfare and the inevitability of historical decline.

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik explained that there are essentially two forms of slavery. The first is juridical, a political state of enslavement in which man becomes the prisoner of another man. This state reduces humans to chattel, an object to be bought and sold, a thing serving as the private property of an owner. The slave's productivity -- even his very being -- belongs to his master. He is exploited and humiliated by a political system that so degrades his status. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He can one day be freed and restored to full human stature.

But the second type of slavery, while far less overtly discomfiting, is actually much more severe. This is typological slavery, a mental state of servitude rather than politically imposed enslavement. There are people whose will has been broken and whose ego has been effaced. They think, feel and act in a distinctively docile manner. They have lost hope. Their ability to conduct themselves as free men has been constricted and manipulated. Dreams and ambitions which they once cherished have dissipated and their hopes for the future have been crushed. They are disinclined to take responsibility for their actions and they submerge their individuality beneath that of another, be it a person, a company or the state. This slave mentality can be found even among politically liberated peoples. Witness the fact that after Moses had redeemed the Jewish people from Egypt, he sent a group of slaves to spy out the land and determine the most efficient way to conquer it. Yet they returned with a dispiriting report: "The Land is filled with giants ... and we were in their sight as grasshoppers, and so we appeared to ourselves as well." Such feelings of inferiority would not have allowed for the conquering of the land, and thus God decided to wait 40 more years -- until that entire generation had been replaced -- before allowing Jews to enter the land and acquire it. Pervasive feelings of low self-esteem and a lack of self-confidence, so common in our culture, is an iteration of this typological enslavement. It is far easier to take the man out of prison than it is to take the prison out of man. While the former is enslavement of the body, the latter is the enslavement of the mind.

When I was a boy I promised myself that I would never get upset except over things that really mattered. Now that I am a man I am stunned at how often I have broken that pledge and allowed trifling nuisances to irritate me. And in so I acknowledge just how imprisoned I remain.

I spoke with two brothers who were inseparable but have fallen out over a financial dispute. I beseeched the older to apologize to his sibling so as to reawaken their filial love. "I simply cannot. He was wrong and he should apologize." "But that's not the point," I told him. "What is more important? To be right, or to have a brother? Here you have the opportunity to have your brother back. All it takes is a phone call. But you seem more interested in justice than family." He tried to lift the receive to call his brother. He could not. He was imprisoned by his own stubbornness. I related to him that Passover is the time to liberate oneself of the incarceration of anger and disappointment.

A by-product of the constructive green wave which has swept our culture and made us more sensitive to the needs of our environment is the preposterous notion that whatever you feel naturally is good. If you're angry, don't bottle it in. It's unhealthy to repress emotion. If you feel stifled in marriage, get out. Be liberated. People should scratch every itch, indulge every urge. But on Passover we go out of Mitzrayim, Egypt, which translates literally as natural limitations. Man is not a prisoner of his nature which can always be subordinated to human will. We are not to indulge destructive emotion but transcend it, not accommodate bitterness and cynicism but transform them.

It was Hitler who proclaimed in Mein Kampf that "Going against nature brings ruin to man ... and is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. It is only Jewish impudence which demands that we go against nature." But the word kadosh, "holy" in Hebrew, means distinct and set apart. We only elevate our lives when we transcend a natural selfishness and congenital self-centeredness and become other-people oriented. It is not natural for us to put others before ourselves. Less so is it natural for us to give freely of our possessions for the edification of another.

Our personal potential remains imprisoned in Egypt, our national promise fettered to Pharaoh. It is time for us to be free."

[Fenris]

That's a very nice essay by him, thanks for quoting it.

But (you knew this was coming, didn't you?) Judaism don't see man as needing to be "freed from sin" by blood or the spirit of God or anything else. The law is the antidote for sin, and that's why God gave it.

[keck553]

That's a very nice essay by him, thanks for quoting it.

But (you knew this was coming, didn't you?) Judaism don't see man as needing to be "freed from sin" by blood or the spirit of God or anything else. The law is the antidote for sin, and that's why God gave it.

I know the Law is holy.

[Lily]

The author says that it served definite, rational purposes by leading one to repentance.

Hmmm… Was there more to this article that wasn‘t quoted? I didn’t see anything about repentance anywhere in the article. Maybe that’s why what I think he’s saying is so much different from what you think he’s saying.

I have a better idea. Why don't you tell me some of these plans that ended poorly.

I can think of 3 or 4 off the top of my head. I’m sure you can, too. You would probably call it disobedience rather than planning ahead or moving forward without/aside from Gods direction. I'm willing to drop it.

Does it say "one can only atone through blood"? No, it does not.

No, it doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the only way. I know others have already argued the issue with you before, though. So, again, I'm willing to drop it.

Ok, have it your way.

Wes till need sacrifice. Christians believe it was met by Jesus. Jews believe it can be met via other human activity.


Better?

All you really need to say is something like, “I understand the point you’re trying to make,” whether you disagree with it or not. When you don't address the point, then I'm not sure if you understand what I'm getting at.

That's what causes nations to collapse? Not sociological or historical processes?

Relationship with God (or not) is a social process, isn’t it? Sin is also social process, and the consequences of it become a part of history that lead to complex issues and, sometimes, collapse. Scripture says as much. I’ve found it to be true in my own family, it’s true in our communities and across the world. America is a prime example, don’t you think? The more Godless we’ve become as a nation, and the more sin is left unchecked, the more complex our problems have become. Drug abuse, babies having babies out of wedlock, corruption in the local and federal governments, and many other sins, have all created complex issues.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t plan ahead. We all have a responsibility to ensure a future for our children and their children, and so on. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t plan hastily and without God’s clear direction. And if the Exodus is any indication, we’re only going to get clear direction when we’re in right relationship with God. And, so, I believe that should be our first priority (right relationship with God), just as Israel, as a group, sanctified themselves. It doesn’t do much good to plan ahead, anyway, when people cant be expected to live within certain moral boundaries. We can plan and build schools and synagogues/churches, for example, but if students can’t be expected to behave while in school so they can learn and be taught, or people won‘t go to synagogue/church, what’s the point?

Again this word "irrational". I never used it.

You didn’t, but the article uses the word no less than three times. The point of the article (as I understand it) is that acting rationally and planning ahead will help the Jewish people continue to thrive (or at least avoid the fate of the Mayans and 13th century Khmers). The word “irrational“ seems to be used in relation to the sacrifices (blood) that he goes on to suggest the substitutions for.

I’m quite comfortable with being labeled (or having my actions labeled) “irrational” and foolish and whatever else unbelievers think we are. To those who don’t have a relationship with God, who aren’t aware of prophesy and fulfillment of it, and who haven’t studied the scriptures, our relationship with God and what we believe would seem irrational. But framed by what Christians and Jews believe to be true, I don’t think either of us should be calling animal sacrifice irrational.

But, as I said at the beginning of the post, perhaps there was more to what the author was saying than what you have quoted, and that may be why what I think he’s saying is different from what you think he’s saying.

If that’s the case, then we’re arguing for nothing.

I’m not on here to “win” arguments anyway. Whether anybody agrees with me or not, is never as important to me as just getting them to see it from my PoV. If they still disagree, and I have the time (usually, I don't), I like to continue to discuss it, or at least continue to read the thread, because maybe there’s something they or I have missed up until now. My theology has evolved over the years, and I’m sure it will continue to.

[claybevan]

So rejecting the Son of God is serving God? God has abandoned the Jews because they have abandoned God.

God, abandon the Jews? don't think so. Huge danger in thinking that it is only us christians that are on his agenda!

[John 8:32]

God, abandon the Jews? don't think so. Huge danger in thinking that it is only us christians that are on his agenda!

Isa 49:14 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me.
Isa 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

[Fenris]

Hmmm… Was there more to this article that wasn‘t quoted? I didn’t see anything about repentance anywhere in the article. Maybe that’s why what I think he’s saying is so much different from what you think he’s saying.

From the article, quoted more than once already-

the prophets, the Sages, and the Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages realized that sacrifices were symbolic enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed that could be expressed in other ways as well.

I can think of 3 or 4 off the top of my head. I’m sure you can, too. You would probably call it disobedience rather than planning ahead or moving forward without/aside from Gods direction. I'm willing to drop it.

You brought it up and now you want to drop it?

No, it doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the only way. I know others have already argued the issue with you before, though. So, again, I'm willing to drop it.

You brought it up and now you want to drop it?

The bible plainly states there is atonement via other means. Heck, the poor can bring flour offering for sin instead of an animal. Flour has no blood last I checked.

All you really need to say is something like, “I understand the point you’re trying to make,” whether you disagree with it or not. When you don't address the point, then I'm not sure if you understand what I'm getting at.

Likewise I don't think you get the point I'm getting at.

Relationship with God (or not) is a social process, isn’t it? Sin is also social process, and the consequences of it become a part of history that lead to complex issues and, sometimes, collapse.

You're forcing together two things that are not analogous. Civilizations crumble because of social processes. Perhaps it's God's will that they collapse as a punishment for sin. Who knows? We have no prophets today. regardless, it is not the sin itself that causes the collapse.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t plan ahead. We all have a responsibility to ensure a future for our children and their children, and so on. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t plan hastily and without God’s clear direction. And if the Exodus is any indication, we’re only going to get clear direction when we’re in right relationship with God.

Um, again, lacking prophets today we're not going to get "clear direction from God", except in the words of the bible. Which, as the article points out, the rabbis have followed.

You didn’t, but the article uses the word no less than three times. The point of the article (as I understand it) is that acting rationally and planning ahead will help the Jewish people continue to thrive (or at least avoid the fate of the Mayans and 13th century Khmers). The word “irrational“ seems to be used in relation to the sacrifices (blood) that he goes on to suggest the substitutions for.

He never says that the sacrifices were irrational, as you imply. And his advice could be applied to any people- plan ahead and act rationally.

I’m quite comfortable with being labeled (or having my actions labeled) “irrational” and foolish and whatever else unbelievers think we are.

No one here has called you that.

To those who don’t have a relationship with God, who aren’t aware of prophesy and fulfillment of it, and who haven’t studied the scriptures, our relationship with God and what we believe would seem irrational. But framed by what Christians and Jews believe to be true, I don’t think either of us should be calling animal sacrifice irrational.

No one here has done anything of the sort. The sacrifice were quite rational, as the article says "that sacrifices were symbolic enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed"

I’m not on here to “win” arguments anyway.

Me neither. I'm just here to express an alternate viewpoints, and discuss it.

[Lily]

You brought it up and now you want to drop it?

Yes. There’s no point in arguing about whether the Israelites of the Exodus needed God's direction or not, unless you don’t think we need to look for God’s direction.

The bible plainly states there is atonement via other means. Heck, the poor can bring flour offering for sin instead of an animal. Flour has no blood last I checked.

If it does, you should probably buy a new bag.

If a poor person couldnt bring an animal sacrifice, He understood. They were all only symbolic. None of the sacrifices, even animal, were “The” sacrifice.

And you believe that they’re symbolic “of enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed that could be expressed in other ways as well.

We disagree.

Likewise I don't think you get the point I'm getting at.

I think I do, unless your point is different from what I stated just above?

And, I’ve expressed several times what I believe the “enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed” are as put forth in the article - They are the types of sacrifices God prefers, rather than the sin sacrifice we need since we aren’t righteous.

Again, we just disagree.

You're forcing together two things that are not analogous. Civilizations crumble because of social processes. Perhaps it's God's will that they collapse as a punishment for sin. Who knows? We have no prophets today. regardless, it is not the sin itself that causes the collapse.

What social processes would you say make civilizations crumble?

Um, again, lacking prophets today we're not going to get "clear direction from God", except in the words of the bible. Which, as the article points out, the rabbis have followed.

And maybe the prophets of old (along with other scripture) have already given us the direction we need. And I’m all for offering the sacrifices of mind, heart and deed. God indeed prefers them, rather than for us to have to offer a sacrifice for sin. But, we do sin. And if He ever says, "Fenris, I appreciate the sacrifices you’ve made and offered. I love you, too, and I’ve demonstrated it by sacrificing for you, as well,” I hope you’ll just say, “Thank you.”

He never says that the sacrifices were irrational, as you imply.

He implies it:

From the article:

Speaking of the Mayans-

The first sign of breakdown is gridlock. Instead of dealing with what everyone can see are major problems, people continue as usual and simply pass their problems on to the next generation. The second sign is a retreat into irrationality. Since people can no longer cope with the facts, they take refuge in religious consolations..... It seems that, unable to solve their problems rationally, the Mayans focused on placating the gods by manically making offerings to them. So apparently did the Khmer.


Now speaking of Jews -

What is remarkable is that they did not focus obsessively on sacrifices, like the Mayans and the Khmer. Instead they focused on finding substitutes for sacrifice..... We still refer constantly to the sacrifices in our prayers. But we do not cling to the past. Nor do we take refuge in irrationality.

See?

No one here has called you that.

I wasn’t saying anybody had. I’m saying that, regardless of whether blood sacrifices seem irrational or not, we can’t just “move beyond” it when God makes it clear (at least from the Christian perspective) that it’s necessary. Whether the author of the article is concerned that others might think animal sacrifices are irrational or not, I don’t know. At any rate, it seems apparent to me that he believes they are.

Maybe I’m wrong and he doesn’t think that at all. You’ve already said you don’t and that’s all that mattered to me, anyway

And his advice could be applied to any people- plan ahead and act rationally

That’s great advice. And maybe that’s all he’s trying to say. I just don’t think he’s stressing the importance of looking for God’s leading when planning for the future. But maybe he’s trying to do that, in some way, by relating the substitutes for sacrifice, only I can’t see it, because I can’t get past the idea that he wants to substitute for them because he thinks they're irrational...

[claybevan]

Maybe you don't understand, I am a lover of Israel because they are God's chosen, but until the day that they accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah they will receive no blessing from God. Every Jew that dies today without Jesus Christ is lost, and will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

You must be an amazing christian! That you can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that every Jew that dies without Jesus will not inherit the kingdom of God. You must know God's every thought. Personally I wouldn't dream of saying it, I've set myself up like that before and let me tell you, when you fall in aint pleasant. Why then is he still planning on coming back to save his people, does that sound like he's written them off?
Fenris, you must excuse us, as nuts as we sound we really do believe that he was the one and that it was you guys he came for, lucky for us in a way!

[Fenris]

Yes. There’s no point in arguing about whether the Israelites of the Exodus needed God's direction or not, unless you don’t think we need to look for God’s direction.

No. You don't get to do this. You brought up a topic, and when I try to examine it closely, you drop it?

If it does, you should probably buy a new bag.

If a poor person couldnt bring an animal sacrifice, He understood. They were all only symbolic. None of the sacrifices, even animal, were “The” sacrifice.

So then...blood isn't really required, is it?

I think I do, unless your point is different from what I stated just above?

And, I’ve expressed several times what I believe the “enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed” are as put forth in the article - They are the types of sacrifices God prefers, rather than the sin sacrifice we need since we aren’t righteous.

Eh, not really sure what you're saying here...

What social processes would you say make civilizations crumble?

Well, the Soviet Union just about cracked up from socialism, didn't it?

And maybe the prophets of old (along with other scripture) have already given us the direction we need.

According to the rabbis, they did.

And I’m all for offering the sacrifices of mind, heart and deed. God indeed prefers them, rather than for us to have to offer a sacrifice for sin. But, we do sin. And if He ever says, "Fenris, I appreciate the sacrifices you’ve made and offered. I love you, too, and I’ve demonstrated it by sacrificing for you, as well,” I hope you’ll just say, “Thank you.”

If God ever manifests Himself and talks to me, and that's what He says, we can have that discussion.

He implies it:

From the article:



See?

He says that "focus[ing] obsessively on sacrifices" is irrational, which is true. Doesn't mean that sacrifice is irrational.

I wasn’t saying anybody had. I’m saying that, regardless of whether blood sacrifices seem irrational or not, we can’t just “move beyond” it when God makes it clear (at least from the Christian perspective) that it’s necessary.

I'm glad you mention that it's the Christian perspective. Yes, I agree. I'm merely providing another perspective, which you are free to accept or reject.

Whether the author of the article is concerned that others might think animal sacrifices are irrational or not, I don’t know. At any rate, it seems apparent to me that he believes they are.

Again, noplace does he say that.

That’s great advice. And maybe that’s all he’s trying to say. I just don’t think he’s stressing the importance of looking for God’s leading when planning for the future. But maybe he’s trying to do that, in some way, by relating the substitutes for sacrifice, only I can’t see it, because I can’t get past the idea that he wants to substitute for them because he thinks they're irrational...

I think it's irrational that you keep focusing on him saying sacrifice is irrational, when he's said nothing of the sort.

[Fenris]

Fenris, you must excuse us, as nuts as we sound we really do believe that he was the one and that it was you guys he came for, lucky for us in a way!

Yeah, I understand. Don't worry, it's all good.

[rejoice44]

You must be an amazing christian! That you can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that every Jew that dies without Jesus will not inherit the kingdom of God. You must know God's every thought. Personally I wouldn't dream of saying it, I've set myself up like that before and let me tell you, when you fall in aint pleasant. Why then is he still planning on coming back to save his people, does that sound like he's written them off?
Fenris, you must excuse us, as nuts as we sound we really do believe that he was the one and that it was you guys he came for, lucky for us in a way!

Does God have some other plan of salvation that God hasn't announced?

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.


John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Where else in the scripture is there any other way to eternal life?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You must be an amazing christian! That you can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that every Jew that dies without Jesus will not inherit the kingdom of God. You must know God's every thought. Personally I wouldn't dream of saying it, I've set myself up like that before and let me tell you, when you fall in aint pleasant. Why then is he still planning on coming back to save his people, does that sound like he's written them off?
Fenris, you must excuse us, as nuts as we sound we really do believe that he was the one and that it was you guys he came for, lucky for us in a way!

One doesn't have to be an "amazing Christian" to "honestly say without a shadow of a doubt"... that every adherent to Judaism, regardless of ethnicity or any other factor, who dies without Jesus will not inherit the kindgom of God.

One only has to read Scripture. There is no other way to salvation than through Jesus Christ and His shed blood. By grace through faith. In Jesus. No other way. No other door.

Every adherent to the Judaistic religion is eligible for salvation just like anyone else. Unless and until that individually happens, they're all lost without hope and without Christ. Petting them and yessing them to death in a baby voice is a futile means of evangelism.

Lucky? Hardly. God's sovereignty is most definitely not equivalent to us being lucky. There was no chance involved whatsoever.