Introduction: The Purpose of Yom ha-Kippurim
The majority of this article is taken from the Introduction to the Prayerbook for the Day of Expiations. For a shorter, condensed version of the content in this article, see this blogpost.
The whole purpose of the Day of Expiations is to help bring your soul to a state of full repentance, so that it can then survive coming into the holy Presence of God without harm, in order that the fire of God’s Glory can then cleanse and purify your soul, heal you of the injury and blemish of sin, and restore your soul to a state of wholeness and wellness. This is, essentially, what expiation is:
“because on this day expiation will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before YHVH, you will be clean from all your sins.” (Lev 16:30)
Before I go into a detailed explanation of some very basic concepts, I feel that I need to help you unlearn a few things first. Many of you who are new to Talmidaism might still have some lingering hangovers from Paullist Christian theology; also, because of our contrasting theological positions to mainstream Christian beliefs, what follows below may also be useful to those of you who were born Jewish and have come over to Talmidaism, and may not be aware that we don’t agree with certain mainstream Christian beliefs. So to help you to understand our stance on expiation, let me go through a few of those ‘unlearning points’ first.
PART ONE: COUNTERING PAULLIST THEOLOGY ON SIN AND ATONEMENT
Why don’t we use the word ‘atonement’?
Most people don’t know this, but the very word ‘atonement’ is derived from specifically Paullist beliefs, and is therefore heavily loaded with theology that originates in the writings of Paul of Tarsus. The English word comes from the belief in ‘at-one-ment’ – that is, that the entire process is all about making you ‘at one’ with God, and reconciling you to God. This in turn is based on the belief that sin separates and cuts you off from God, and that humanity could not be permanently forgiven of sin by God until the death of ‘Jesus Christ’.
The Yahwist Israelite understanding of what has happened is different. God is never separated from us; instead, the state of unrepentance prevents us from approaching the purifying holiness of God without being harmed; we are never cut off or separated from God. Repentance allows us to approach God safely, so that God’s Glory can then cleanse us.
Answering Paullist Beliefs about ‘atonement’
This is how Paullist theology generally understands the process of ‘atonement’:
— a person commits a sin
— they are thereby separated from God (this is how Paullist theology interprets the withdrawal of God’s blessing, in verses such as Dt 31:17-18, 32:20, 2Chr 6:42, 30:9, Ezek 7:22, Ps 10:11, 27:9 etc)
— the person repents, but the stain of sin remains, and so the punishment remains (implying God is unable to revoke punishment or forgive sin after repentance, and that God punishes the stain of sin, and therefore the ability to sin)
— a newborn inherits this ability to sin from Adam and Eve (the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’); this sin cannot be cleansed by mere repentance or by animal sacrifice (again, implying that God punishes the ability to sin, not just sin itself)
— ‘Christ’ sheds his blood on the cross
— God is only now able to forgive humanity because of the bloodshed and death, thereby removing the eternal punishment in hell due to us, and we are made ‘at one’ with God – we are ‘saved’ from punishment in hell
The reason I have listed all this out for you, is so that you might realise how odd a process it all sounds from a non-Christian perspective.
The Paullist concept of Original Sin
The underlying concept in Paullist atonement is that of Original Sin. Adam and Eve sinned against God, and the disobedience of Adam and Eve thereby made us all sinful – in the Paulist view, it gave us all the ability to sin. Our ability to sin therefore means that we are inherently evil, corrupted and depraved. God therefore cannot destroy evil without destroying humanity (because we are all inherently sinful), so animals are destroyed in our place through blood sacrifice. Paullists therefore understand atonement as the process of taking someone’s place in punishment for sin. We can repent, but the remaining stain of sin inside us means that punishment is still due to us, and someone has to pay for that sin (but doesn’t one have to seriously question the psyche of the god who made all this up, if it were true)?
Needless to say, this is not how Judaism understands the story of Adam and Eve. The disobedience of Adam and Eve made human beings aware of the pain of wrongdoing, and gave us an awareness of the difference between right and wrong; it gave us an awareness of the consequences of our wrongful actions – it did not make us sinful (otherwise, who made Adam sinful, such that he gained the ability to choose to sin? With this logic, you have to ask, who gave Adam his sin, before he sinned, thereby making him choose to disobey God)?
When God created us, God gave us free will – a freely given, heavenly gift. This is the ability to make choices, which would naturally include the ability to choose either to follow an instruction, or not to follow an instruction. Before the disobedience, our actions were morally neutral, in the same way that the actions of animals are morally neutral, and therefore are not punishable. The disobedience gave us an awareness that made us morally accountable for our actions; it did not give us the ability to do sin.
Yahwism does not believe in inherited sin – i.e. that sin is passed from one generation to the next. Paullist theology interprets verses like Ex 34:7 as meaning that sin is passed on (“yet God will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” – NASB translation).
The Yahwist Israelite understanding of this passage is instead something called, ‘Guilt by Justification of the Wicked’. This is where if you agree with, or make excuses for, the sins of your ancestors, you become blemished with the same stain of sin as if you had committed the act yourself (see Prov 17:15); therefore, defending a sin, and making excuses for it, is in itself a sin. If you defend the sins of your ancestors, God will pursue such a sin from generation to generation, and will not leave it unpunished.
So for example, if you defend the genocidal murders of the Holocaust, then you incur the same sin-guilt as if you had committed those murders yourself; if you defend and make excuses for the actions of depraved and corrupt leaders, then you incur the same sin-guilt as if you had committed the same acts of depravity yourself.
To defend the concept of original sin, Paullists also quote Ps 51:7 (Xtian bibles Ps 51:5) – “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Paullists interpret this is as meaning that David is saying he was birthed in a state of sin, and conceived in a state of sin. However, that is not what he is saying at all. He is saying that he is the child of two individuals who have the ability to sin (as a consequence of free will), and because human beings have the two inclinations within them – the good and the evil inclination – he also has the same nature; he is the product of two beings who have both inclinations. He therefore inherits their natures, not their sin.
How Paullism conflates the ability to sin, the act of sin, and the blemish of sin
To understand the huge flaw in Paullist theology, you have to realise that Paullism conflates together (a) the ability to sin, (b) the act of sinning itself and (c) the blemish of sin, so that these three things become one and the same. As a result, in the Paullist way of thinking, God must punish all of them. However, it is vital to make a distinction between the ability to sin (free will), the sinful act (the wrongdoing itself) and the result (the blemish/injury of sin).
The Paullist teaching on Original Sin assumes that the stain of sin itself is what God punishes, and this penalty is what the death of ‘Christ’ saves you from (because merely even having the blemish of sin – even though you have repented – will otherwise leave you with a penalty to be paid, and send you to hell). Paullism also interprets our ability to sin as a sign that sin itself exists in us from the time of conception, and that we are born sinning – that therefore a baby is morally imperfect and depraved, and sins from the time of its birth.
In contrast, in Yahwism, a baby is born morally perfect (its néfesh or life-force is whole and complete), and until it reaches an age where it can learn the difference between right and wrong (psychologists say about 20 months), it is in the same moral state as other creatures, who don’t know the difference between right and wrong, and are therefore not morally responsible or punishable for what they do.
Paullism claims that because there is nothing we can do to combat our ability to sin, we are therefore eternally condemned to be punished, but this truly is some crazy, twisted logic. It is assuming that God will punish you for merely being able to sin – that God is punishing you for your free will! Yahveh our God calls us to account for what we have actually done, not for what we might do, or have the potential to do. If God punished us for what we might do, that would mean that God is unjust. The Paullist god might be unjust, but Yahveh is not.
Blood and Forgiveness
Paullist theology also teaches that the shedding of blood is vital for forgiveness. This is mostly from a misunderstanding of verses such as Lev 4:35b and similar passages: “In this way, the priest shall perform the expiation ritual (ve-khipper) for the sin that he has sinned, and the forgiveness-process will be completed (ve-nislach) for him’.
In Christian bibles, this is generally translated as, ‘Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven’. The Paullist would understand the words ‘will make atonement’ as meaning ‘will put things right with God’, but this is not what it means. The Piel (active-intensive) form of the verb kappar (to cover) means, ‘to perform the expiation ritual’ when it is used in the context of animal sacrifice. In other contexts (eg Dt 32.43) it means, ‘to purify and cleanse’.
Furthermore, the niphal (simple-passive) form of the verb salach (forgive) is translated in Christian bibles as ‘to be forgiven’. However, this form of the verb (nislach) in the bible is only used in the context of sacrifices, and has the technical force of ‘to have the forgiveness-process be completed’. It is not that the person is forgiven at this point, but rather that a whole process is brought to its conclusion at this point.
Paullist dogma teaches that only the blood and death of ‘Christ’ can cleanse us of the stain and blemish of sin (and if you don‘t believe in the saving power of the death and resurrection of Christ, then it can‘t cleanse you); in contrast, Yahwism maintains that it is the Glory of Yahveh (the purifying fire of God‘s Divine Radiance) that cleanses us of sin; it is the very holiness of God that purifies us, and expels the stain of sin from us.
So, if a Paullist says that the fire of God’s Glory cannot cleanse us of sin, they are basically saying that their God is not holy, and that their God is not strong enough to forgive or expiate sin; the Paullist God is therefore an emasculated and diminished God. The essential nature of our God’s holiness, is in God’s ability to burn away and destroy what is evil and whatever is not from God; Paullist teaching inherently implies that their God doesn’t have this power.
The fundamental Flaws in Paullist Logic
There are several flaws therefore in how Paullist theology understands sin and the forgiveness-process:
1. That forgiveness doesn’t come until atonement has been made (they are actually 2 separate parts of the process)
2. This gives the impression that the blemish of sin is itself something punishable (only the sinful act of willful disobedience itself is punishable)
3. That free will and the potential to sin are equated with sinning itself, along with the blemish of sin (hence the doctrine of Original Sin – which is effectively saying that God punishes you for your free will and your potential to sin)!
4. That only blood will purify us of sin (it doesn’t; blood symbolises the life-force of the soul coming into the presence of God’s Glory, and it is the radiant Glory of God that cleanses and purifies us).
PART TWO: HOW YAHWIST THEOLOGY UNDERSTANDS THE WHOLE ‘FORGIVENESS PROCESS’
The Yahwist Israelite Concept of ‘Wholeness’ (shleimut)
Mainstream Christianity generally understands ‘perfection’ to be about being free of sin. Since, in Paullist belief, no one is free of sin, perfection is therefore an unattainable goal. Yeshua’s teaching, ‘Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect’ (Mt 5:48), is therefore something of a mystery to most people; at best, it is understood as exhorting us to be like God (but how can you ever be like God if you are born with sin)?
In ancient Israelite theology, both illness and sin diminished the life-force of the soul – they both made it unwell. Disease diminished the health of the body, and sin diminished the health of the soul.
The daily goal was therefore to maintain a state of spiritual wholeness or wellness of the soul. In modern language, it was about keeping your soul healthy, because that is when the human being functions best, and is best able to serve God. Just as a person can become physically sick, so also sin makes a person’s soul spiritually sick, and their ability to function on a spiritual level diminishes.
Then, what is Sin?
In mainstream Christian theology, sin is ‘any act, word, deed or thought that goes against God’s will.’ Sin is, in other words, disobedience against God.
In Israelite theology, sin has a much broader definition. Sin is ‘anything that diminishes or injures the health and wholeness of your soul’. This is the reason why certain things which we moderns would not consider to be sin, still caused blemish and injury to the soul. This is the reason why sin-offerings were made, to symbolise the restoration of the wholeness of one’s soul.
Examples of these are:
— when sin offerings are made at the ordination of a priest (Ex 29:33)
— when an altar is consecrated (Ex 29:37)
— when expiation is performed on a house after the cleansing of a person from skin-disease – to restore the collective nefesh of those living in the house (Lev 14:34-57)
— after birth – to restore the nefesh of the mother (Lev 12:6)
— cleansing from skin-disease (Lev 14:10-32)
— after illness or discharges (Lev 15:15, 15:30)
— for inadvertent infractions committed without knowledge (Lev 4:1-35)
— when a dead body is found, and no one knows how the death occurred – the expiation ritual is made to restore the collective nefesh of the people living nearby affected by the death, who haven’t actually done anything (Dt 21:1-9).
But isn’t blood required for the forgiveness of sin?
Short answer, no. If a person was so poor that they could not even afford something as small as a pigeon for a sin-offering, then they could just offer a tenth of an eifah of flour, and that was sufficient as a sin-offering – i.e. no blood was required (Lev 5:11-12). The bloodless offering of a poor person was no less worthy a sin-offering than that of someone who brought a whole sheep, or even a bull.
Consider also the words of David, where he describes his understanding that contrition is better than animal sacrifices:
‘Have mercy on me, O God,
according to Your faithful love;
according to Your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin.
You do not take delight in blood-sacrifices,
or else I would bring one;
nor do You take pleasure in burnt-offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God,
You will not despise.’ (Ps 51:1-2, 16-17)
Can God really wipe our souls clean of sin?
The general impression one gets from Paullist theology, is that until the death of ‘Christ’, God was just not powerful enough to wipe our souls clean of the stain and blemish of sin. Or else, God did have the power, but was just unwilling to use it.
This belief persists, despite God stating quite clearly and unequivocally, that only YHVH can wipe our souls clean of sin:
“I, and I alone, am the One who blots out your transgressions, for My own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” (Isaiah 43:25)
Our Dependence on God’s Mercy
In Israelite thought, there is the belief that God forgives us, not because forgiveness is rightfully ours to have, but because YHVH is a loving, merciful, compassionate and forgiving God:
“for it is not because of any righteous merits of our own, do we present our supplications before You, but because of Your great compassion.” (Dan 9:18b)
If God were to judge us according to what we deserved, none of us would survive:
“And do not enter into strict judgment with Your servant, For no living being would be vindicated before You.” (Ps 143:2)
The forgiveness we get from God is not something that we are owed, because forgiveness is God’s possession to give:
“And merciful forgiveness is Yours to give, O YHVH, For You are the One who recompenses each person according to their works.” (Ps 62:12)
As Yahwists, we recognise the enormous power and depth of God’s forgiveness:
“God has not dealt with us according to our sins,
Nor paid us back according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
So God’s merciful forgiveness is great
toward those who revere God in awe.
As far as the east is from the west,
So too has God removed
our transgressions far from us.
Just as a parent has compassion on their children,
So YHVH has compassion on those who revere God.
For God knows our true inner nature;
God is mindful that we are but dust. (Ps 103:10-14)
Avid supporters of Paul‘s theology tend to think that the image of a loving, merciful and forgiving God only began with ‘Christ’, and that before that, the Jewish God was nothing but a wrathful, angry God who had no concept of lovingkindness; and that as Jews, we were completely unaware of the God of Mercy. Well, reading the above, you can see that this is simply not true!
God does not forgive us because we have impressed God, or because we have worked hard for God’s forgiveness. No. God is the kind of God who recognises our frailty, and knows our imperfections; God knows that we need God’s merciful compassion, for without it, we would not survive, or be able to come before God to be renewed and cleansed.
So how does God cleanse us without blood?
Put quite simply, it is the fire of the Glory of God which cleanses our souls of sin. Our repentance, prayer and good works prepare our souls to come into the Presence of God, and in such a state, God’s Glory is able to cleanse and purify us without doing us harm.
Where is the evidence of this power of God’s Glory?
You know, when we read the Hebrew Bible, we might be reading it in our native language, but I can guarantee you, most people will not realise the profound significance of what they are reading. Much of it goes over most people’s heads, not really realising what they have just read.
Take for example, the phrase, ‘the Glory of God’. Most English-speaking people will think that this is simply referring to God’s splendour, magnificence and grandeur, but I can assure you, with the majority of occasions it appears in Torah, ‘Glory’ does NOT mean ‘splendour’. By not knowing what it really means, we are missing something truly awesome, amazing and life-changing.
When Moses was on top of Mt Sinai, and asked to see God’s Glory (Ex 33:18), Moses was not asking to see God’s majesty and splendour. Moses was asking to see the purifying and cleansing fire of God’s Divine Radiance – that is what passed by him (Ex 34:6-9). The ‘Glory’ is not a quality of YHVH; the ‘Glory’ is an amazing power of God (Ex 24:17 describes God’s Glory as ’a consuming fire’).
So, what was the result of YHVH showing the Glory to Moses? When Moses was once again at the foot of Mt Sinai, the Israelites were afraid to look at Moses, because his face was shining (Ex 34:29-30). Rays of light were coming from his face, because his soul was glowing inside him. And why was his soul glowing? Having come so close to the purifying Glory of God – that is, to the cleansing fire of YHVH’s Divine Radiance – his soul had been purified completely of all blemish of sin. Consequently, his soul glowed within him. His soul had been expiated – that is, made perfectly clean – by the Glory of God.
There is also a line in the Psalms (Ps 51:7), in which David also describes this phenomenon: ‘Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; but wash me [that is, in the fire of Your Glory], and I shall become whiter than snow.’
David well understood this power of God’s Glory to cleanse the soul of sin:
‘I acknowledged my sin to You, and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to YHVH”, And You forgave the guilt-blemish of my sin.’ (Psalm 32:5)
God forgives us, so that we do not die, but rather live:
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against YHVH.” Nathan replied, “YHVH has taken away your sin; you are not going to die. (2 Samuel 12:13)
Now I shall go through some of these concepts, and explain them in greater detail. The following sections have been reproduced from my second book, “Explaining Talmidi ethics through the words of the ‘Our Father’”.
The different types of sin in Hebrew thought
The English word ‘sin’ is wholly inadequate to describe what the Hebrew concept means. There are in fact, several Hebrew words to cover what we call sin, and not all of them have the meanings that English ascribes to each word.
There are 3 basic types:
1. Chaṭṭā’āh (‘sin’): The minor infraction committed without knowledge of it – the misstep, the stumbling off the right path, the error. Even though these were not what we moderns would call ‘evil’, they still needed to be expiated, because they caused injury to the soul. These were such things as ritual infractions against God’s holiness, or hurting someone with one’s deeds or words, without knowing that such deeds or words were hurtful.
2. `Avon (‘iniquity’): The type of wrong committed with full knowledge that it was wrong, but which one genuinely regrets doing.
3. Pésha (‘transgression’): The willful and grievous rebellion against God – doing something wrong, and not even caring that it is wrong or against God, or that it hurts others.
Most of us can understand why the second two types of ‘sin’ needed to be expiated, but it is difficult to understand why the minor ‘sin’ committed inadvertently without knowledge of it still needed to be expiated. Basically, it is because it caused the health of the soul to become diminished, and expiation through God’s Glory restored the health of the soul.
The Paullist concept of atonement relies on a pagan view of our relationship with God. It causes us to think that the purpose of ‘atonement is to restore God’s relationship with us – to reconcile ‘God with Man’. But the Yahwist view is that you cannot possibly harm God’s relationship with you, so great is God‘s love for you.
This is why the English word ‘sin’ is so inadequate to describe the Hebrew understanding of the concept. We need to have another way of looking at this – the Yahwist Israelite way. I have previously explained the Yahwist concept of ‘wholeness of being.’ Well, what all these 3 things have in common, is that they diminish the wholeness of one’s being. They are ‘diminishments’ or ‘injuries’ to one’s being or life-force (néfesh in Hebrew).
So instead of looking at ‘sin’ as harming God’s relationship with us, and atonement as reconciling God’s relationship with us, we need to see these things as us harming ourselves, and expiation as YHVH restoring our wholeness; we cannot harm God, we can only harm ourselves and others. ‘Sin’ is an injury to our wholeness, and expiation is a restoration or healing of our wholeness.
The first kind of ‘sin’ is therefore like a minor injury – caused by an ethical trip-up, a spiritual misstep, missing the mark of the ideal. The second type is like running headlong into an accident with full knowledge that such actions will hurt us; and the third is like grievous bodily self-harm.
Many people still think that it was the blood of the animal sacrifice that was supposed to bring about expiation, but if one had done wrong, one had to make reparation before one made the sacrificial offering. If one simply offered the sacrifice without repentance or reparation to the injured party, then there was no forgiveness or restoration of wholeness.
If the Temple were restored, Talmidis would be deeply opposed to the restoration of animal sacrifices. It would be a regression, a step backwards. I suspect that God will not allow us to have a Temple, until we as a people understand that animal sacrifices are unnecessary for the forgiveness of sin, or for the restoration of the wholeness of our souls.
The purpose of worship in the Temple
Many Reform Jewish synagogues are called ‘Temples’, especially in the US. However, by the definition of what the Temple was for in Israelite worship, these are not strictly ‘Temples’, but rather ‘houses of prayer’. To understand this difference – and the relevance of the Temple in the matter of sin and expiation – one has to understand precisely how worship in the Temple differs from worship everywhere else.
It is very true that we can pray anywhere, and that God’s living Presence is everywhere. However, worship in the Temple is different, because it is meant to be the place where a doorway is kept open between heaven and earth – a doorway through which Yahveh’s protective blessing and purifying radiance can come through permanently, just like with the Tabernacle in the Sinai desert. And there can only ever be one of these; it would be dangerous to have more than one.
This stipulation can be well illustrated by the Qorachite rebellion (Num chs 16-17), when some Levite clans decided to have an alternative Tabernacle (Mishkan). The Mishkan, and its successor the Temple, was not merely a place of worship. It was not simply a place of prayer. Prayer can be conducted anywhere, because Yahveh is everywhere. The one single Sanctuary was the only place where the Divine Radiance (the ‘Glory’ or kavodh) could come through safely from heaven; it was the only place from where the priests could diffuse its power and filter it through to the people and the world, to become a blessing and a benefit.
This is the ancient Yahwist understanding that modern Judaism has lost entirely, but was central to understanding ritual worship in Temple times: priests could open up a safe doorway between heaven and earth, if they conducted worship with a right mind, and in the right way. Before Jerusalem was chosen, that single place was Shiloh. The ark had also rested in other places too, and wherever that Ark was, that was the single place of worship. Being a place where God’s Name was established, meant this was precisely the place where God’s Divine Radiance was to come through, where God’s authority and divine reputation was to be established – the ‘House of Yahveh’.
That is the huge difference between a Temple and a synagogue: the Temple and its specific forms of worship, bring God’s Divine Radiance permanently through to this world from heaven, at near full force. Sanctuary worship is different from synagogue and home worship; its purpose is completely different, and failure to grasp this leaves us without an understanding of why there can only be one place of Sanctuary-worship. Simply calling a synagogue ‘a Temple’ doesn’t make it a Temple; what makes a Temple is the unique form of worship within it, and the fact that a doorway between heaven and earth is kept open there.
The forms of Sanctuary-worship are also different to worship everywhere else. It‘s unique recipe of sacred Incense cannot be burned elsewhere; altars cannot be set up elsewhere; sacrificial offerings could not be made elsewhere, and designated tithes cannot be eaten elsewhere. Another difference was that although Levitical singing and music could be performed in the outer courts of the Temple, there was total silence within the Sanctuary itself (i.e. the court of the priests); the priests went about their business without any verbal communication whatsoever. This was to combat the pagan notion that one could magically manipulate God or nature through sacred words in Temple worship.
Temple worship was designed to enable a doorway to be kept open between heaven and earth, so that the positive, cleansing and protective benefits of close contact with the Divine Radiance could be maintained – so that the full force of God‘s Presence could ‘dwell’ with Israel, to protect her and bless her. Abandoning God’s ways would close off this pipeline of sorts to heaven; God’s Presence would as a result be closed off. If God did not close off that doorway, the natural and automatic ability of God’s Glory to seek out and purify wrongdoing would kick in, and prove disastrous. God would rather do no harm; God would rather close off God’s Glory to us, than let it harm or destroy us.
Understanding the awesome power of God’s Radiance helps you to understand the ‘hierarchy of holiness’ – the concentric walls of holiness leading up to the approach of the Temple. It helps you to understand why only the High Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies, why the priests had a greater holiness than the Levites, who in turn had greater holiness than Israelites, and so on. It also helps you to understand that restricted access to the Temple is not about restricting access to God, but rather about protecting human lives from the overwhelming and incredible power of God’s kavodh (Glory). Not being able to understand this, the early Catholic church kept its priestly worship away from the people, creating the false impression that God was distant from the people. Protestant Christians rightly rebelled against this notion, but unfortunately also failed to understand this hierarchy of holiness – what Temple ritual was for.
The ritual worship of the Israelite priests created a psychological state of holiness within them, which in turn enabled them to withstand the powerful effect of God’s kavodh. Priestly service and Israelite worship is designed to enable a small group of people – the priests – to be in a state of permanent holiness, so that they can absorb and slow down the rushing torrent of God’s Glory out into the world. They surround the doorway to heaven, so that God’s kavodh comes through to us safely.
However, when a sudden breach in these concentric walls is made, like when people rebel against God’s ways and cause suffering and injustice, then it is in the nature of the Divine Radiance to rush forth to blot out the evil – that’s what it inherently and automatically does. A prophet or a tsaddiq (a ’pious one’ like James the Just) – because of their closeness to God – their lives are filled with the Glory of God, and so they are in a state of permanent holiness. They can step in, in a sense, to absorb the shock of the Divine Radiance so that it does not cause destruction.
In ancient times, a priest had to know how to prepare himself to approach the Glory of God. By living a certain way, by observing certain disciplines and principles, a priest could withstand small doses of exposures to the searing Glory of Yahveh. The way of life of the High Priest enabled him to endure the greatest amount of exposure to Yahveh’s raw Glory; then the priests, then the Levites, then ordinary Israelites, and lastly the Gentile nations. This hierarchy does not mean that God views Gentiles with the least regard, but rather that, by the time Yahveh’s purifying Glory reaches Gentiles, it no longer has its destructive power; its power can be directed for blessing and guidance.
By the time God’s Glory reaches those nations who do not live a Yahwist way of holiness, it is a gentle stream that blesses us and gives us life – a ‘river of life’ flowing from the Temple. That is what the increasing levels of holiness are for; as you get further away from the Sanctuary, there are lesser and lesser levels of ritual holiness required, so each level is protected from the strength of God’s kavodh by the level above it. The High Priest takes the most, the priests next, then the Levites, then the ordinary Israelites, and by the time it reaches the Gentile nations, it has slowed down enough to become a gentle river of life.
Creating a sacred Space for God’s Presence within us
I have said that the priests live a way of life that enables them to approach God’s Glory. In a sense, we too can create this state of mind by seeking God’s will always, and by being ever willing to carry out God’s sacred designs and plans in the wider world. Creating within ourselves a psychological state of holiness, enables us to withstand more of God’s purifying radiance in our daily lives, so that it acts as a life-giving and protective blessing to us.
Dt 10:12-13 asks and responds, “Now, O Israel, what does Yahveh your God require from you, but to revere Yahveh your God in awe, to walk in all God’s ways and love God, and to serve Yahveh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep Yahveh’s commandments and God’s statutes which I am commanding you today for your good.”
By doing this, Israelites and Godfearers create within themselves a state which absorbs and houses God’s Divine Radiance. As a nation of priests, we then carry that radiance to the world for its blessing and benefit.
The Yahwist process of ‘atonement’ or Expiation
Knowing the purpose of the Temple, we can now get into the mind-set of how it helps us in the process of ‘atonement’ or expiation – and how expiation can be achieved even without a Temple.
Yahveh is a holy God. That means that our God is able to purify and cleanse us of our sin simply by the awesome power of God’s Glory, once we have repented. Insisting on the principle that ‘God cannot forgive without blood being spilt’, implies that God is either a heartless being who is unwilling to forgive without blood being shed, or a puny, weak being who is incapable of forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Let me illustrate this by telling you a parable:
There were two moneylenders, a Roman moneylender, and a Jewish moneylender. Now, the Roman moneylender was the most notorious throughout all the Mediterranean. One day, one of his debtors came to him and said, ‘The debt that I owe you can never be paid off in my lifetime; I beg of you, please have pity on me.’
So the Roman moneylender said to him, ‘I will forgive your debt, even though you are unworthy and don’t deserve it, but only if the debt is paid in blood, and the price exacted in someone’s death.’
The debtor was incredulous, but the Roman moneylender said further, ‘Yes, and I am sending my henchman to make sure that you wash yourself in that person’s blood. That’s the only way I am able to forgive your debt – my rules; I am after all the son of an Empire built on blood and death.’
Now that same day, a debtor came to see the Jewish moneylender. In great distress he said, ‘The debt that I owe you can never be paid off in my lifetime. Please, I beg of you, help me – I don’t know what to do.’
Seeing the depth of his anguish, and the gravity of his need, the Jewish moneylender had great pity on him, so he took the bill of debt, and tore it up.
Surprised, the debtor said, ‘But what about my debt?’
The moneylender replied, ‘I will remember your debt no more. Now go; your debts are forgiven.’
There is no God like Yahveh.
Blood-sacrifices were not meant to be forever
Yahveh did not intend blood-sacrifice to be part of the faith God gave at Sinai. However, the episode of the Golden Calf showed God that the Israelites were not yet ready to give up sacrifices; if animal sacrifice had been forbidden from the outset, they would only have gone over to a pagan god that did allow sacrifices. So Yahveh reluctantly allowed sacrifice, but only to Yahveh, and only in the way Yahveh prescribed.
Yahveh only tolerated sacrifices. This is the view put forward in the ancient Jewish-Christian Clementine Literature. In the section which has now become known as the ‘Ascents of James’, ch. 36, referring to the Golden Calf episode, it says, ‘because of this, [Moses] did permit them to sacrifice; but he told them that they could only do this in the Name of God, so that he could cut off and bring to an end if only one half of this sickness [of blood-sacrifice).’ I include this quote, not necessarily as proof against animal sacrifice, but as proof that rejection of blood sacrifice is not a modern view, rather a belief also held by ancient Followers of the Way.
God only permitted sacrifice to be made to Yahveh, and they had to be done in a holy way (which is what the Book of Leviticus is all about). The whole sacrificial system was to impress upon Israel the awesome holiness of Yahveh – by avoiding the pagan uses and meanings of sacrifice and blood, and by strictly controlling sacrifice in a way that was holy and distinctively different from pagan ways.
You see, the gods of pagan Mystery Religions could not forgive people unless individuals actually believed in these gods, and blood was shed; apparently they were not strong enough to forgive otherwise. Yahveh is infinitely more powerful than any pagan God, because our God can forgive without animal sacrifice or blood.
King Solomon – the wisest king of Israel – realised this implicitly. He foresaw a time when the people of Israel might be exiled from their Temple, and sacrifices could no longer be made. This is what he prayed at the dedication of the First Temple:
“When they sin against you …. and their captors carry them off to a country be it far away or near …. if they come to their senses in that country … saying, ‘We have sinned ….’ and turn back to you with all their heart and soul … then listen to their prayer from heaven …. and forgive Your people.” (extracts from 2Chr 6:36-39)
King Solomon understood that our God is so powerful, that God is able to forgive without the need for blood sacrifices. This shows that Yahveh, unlike the pagan gods, forgives sin once genuine repentance is made – just like that. If a person repents and is truly sorry for what they have done, then Yahveh forgives without condition, and no blood is necessary. Remember that according to Torah, the scapegoat, upon whose head were placed the sins of Israel, was supposed to be sent away alive into the desert (Lev 16:21-22).
The long Process of weaning us away from blood-sacrifices
In the ancient world, animal sacrifice was part and parcel of religious ritual. From their time in Egypt, the Israelites had grown used to the Egyptian way of accepting animal offerings as part of the process of expiation and forgiveness. In an ideal world, Yahveh could have taught the Israelites a completely new way of looking at expiation – the way I have been describing to you above in this article. However, the old pagan Egyptian way of looking at animal sacrifice was so ingrained, that this connection between death and expiation could not so easily be broken. If the ancient Israelites could not let go of the idea of atoning sacrifices, then Yahveh would give them a new way of performing them, so that they might eventually, someday, understand that they were not necessary.
God therefore instituted ritual worship based around the Tabernacle, whose form and structure was to be a symbolic representation of Heaven and Earth. The symbolism of the constituent parts of the Tabernacle would one day give Israelites an understanding of the power of God, and how God forgives and heals.
For example, the fire of the altar, on which sacrifices were consumed, represented God’s Glory on earth, just as the Ark of the Covenant represented God’s Glory (and throne) in heaven. Those sacrifices which were wholly consumed in the flames of the altar, were intended to show us that if our physical selves were to approach God’s Glory, they would not survive (Ex 33:20).
Paullist theology mistakenly thought that we could not approach God at all without blood-sacrifice (this is the Sadducean view, but not the Pharisaic view). Rather, the sacrifice itself ‘covers’ (not ‘atones’) for the person making the offering i.e. it symbolically takes the place of the offerer before God’s Glory. It was meant to show us that our physical bodies cannot approach God’s brilliant, fiery Glory.
You also have to separate in your mind the actual offering from the blood of the offering. When an animal offering was consumed on the altar, the emphasis was on the animal’s body being consumed, not on its blood. The blood was instead dashed against the altar, since it was sacred and belonged solely to God. The life of the animal was therefore symbolically returned to God in the form of blood. Blood is life, and all life belongs to God; the blood is returned to God, just as all life ultimately returns to God. The blood was supposed to symbolise how our souls can approach God spiritually without harm and be cleansed.
Repentance had to come before the sacrificial offering
Before a sin offering was made, you had to repent and make restitution to the one you had sinned against. Yeshua` understood this concept implicitly:
‘If you’re making a sin offering in the Temple, and there you remember that your brother has some disagreement with you, leave your offering there with the priest. First make peace with your brother, and only then can you return and make your sin offering.’ (Mt 5:23-24)
This shows us that all we have to do is bring our souls into God’s presence, and the power of Yahveh’s Glory alone is enough to cleanse our souls. Even if our bodies cannot approach God’s Glory, our souls can. Our souls are not destroyed, but rather restored.
In modern everyday parlance, atonement means ‘paying for one’s sins’, but in the Israelite way of looking at things, that is simply what penance is. Atonement – or rather, expiation, in its original Israelite context, is being cleansed and purified of the stain, blemish and injury caused by sin. Expiation also restores the healthy wholeness of one’s being or life-force, as if one had never sinned. These are the two aspects of expiation it is vital to understand – purification from the stain of sin, and restoration of the health of one’s life-force.
Wholeness or ‘perfection’ (shleimut) – the health of the soul
Armed with all this wealth of information, that there is no connection between animal sacrifice and God’s forgiveness, one will then ask, so what was the purpose of the sacrifice? To understand the answer to that question, you first have to understand the ancient Israelite attitude to both sin and sickness. Both resulted in a diminishment of the wholeness of one’s being or life-force, and injury to one’s soul.
This can be seen in see Tobit 12:10 – “the sinners and wrong-doers are enemies to their own souls” (a passage from a non-biblical text that was nevertheless written with this understanding of what sin does to the soul).
One’s wholeness therefore had to be restored, in order for you to function healthily on a spiritual level.
Repentance brought immediate forgiveness from God (see 2Chron 6:38-39, Num 14:20, Isa 55:7, Ps 32:5). Once someone had repented, they could begin to work on the restoration of their spiritual, psychological and physical wholeness (all these things were one and the same in Israelite theology). If you can grasp this, you will understand why sacrifices were made even for offences committed unintentionally, or which didn’t actually ‘offend’ God.
You then have to understand the symbolism underlying animal sacrifices – which I believe is the ultimate lesson to be gleaned in all this, the understanding which gives us an insight into the very nature of Yahveh. The fire of the altar represents the fire of Yahveh’s cleansing and healing Glory. The sin-offering represents the soul of the offerer. The process of kippur – expiation – represents the process of the penitent soul coming into the presence of Yahveh’s Glory to be cleansed.
The Hebrew verb le-khapper is usually translated as ‘to atone for’ or ‘to make expiation for’. The simple form of the verb literally means, ‘to cover’ for someone, in the sense of it being done on someone’s behalf. The sacrifice was therefore offered on behalf of the offerer – that is the intrinsic meaning of le‑khapper. However, in the active form of the verb (i.e. the Piel form of the verb + the preposition upon) it means, ‘to cleanse or free someone (that is, from the guilt/stain of their sin).’ The ritual is therefore performed to impress upon the one who has repented, that the Glory of God has cleansed their soul, healed it and restored it to wholeness.
In Lev 4:35b (and other places), in Xtian bibles the wording is usually something like, ‘Thus the priest will make atonement for the sin which he had committed, and he will be forgiven’. However instead, the niphal form (reflexive/passive) of the Hebrew root-verb kappar seems to have been a technical phrasing among priests for the entire forgiveness-process; it only occurs in the context of the expiation ritual – the ritual that impresses upon us that the Glory (‘Divine radiance’) of God has cleansed our soul of the stain of sin, and restored its wholeness.
The occurrence of this phrase should therefore be translated as, “Thus the priest shall perform the expiation ritual for the sin which he had committed, and the forgiveness-process will be completed for him”. In other words, they have been taken through an entire, symbolic, spiritual healing process. They repented, were forgiven by God, and now they have finally been freed of their guilt; they have now been cleansed and made whole by spiritually bringing their souls into the presence and Glory of Yahveh.
The concept of healing – Marpei
The ancient Israelite art of healing (marpei, pronounced maar-PAY) is worth mentoning here, because it worked with this concept of the wholeness of one’s life-force (shleimut néfesh). When you became physically ill, in ancient times it was thought that the wholeness of the blood diminished. Just as the blood is the life of the body (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11-14, Dt 12:23), so also the néfesh (‘life-force’) is the life of the soul. For the physical body to remain healthy, the blood had to remain ‘whole’ (that is, be free of disease and remain well-nourished); and for the soul to remain healthy, the néfesh had to remain whole (or ‘perfect’); it too needs to be well-nourished spiritually, and remain free of spiritual sickness in order to remain whole.
Priests were ministers of both soul and body. Whereas Far Eastern religions teach that one’s energy has to be kept in balance, Israelite religion taught that the soul had to be maintained in a state of wholeness or ‘perfection’ – a state of spiritual health. When you sinned, or became ill, your wholeness was diminished. Priests were the representatives of God, and through them, God dispensed God’s healing of the body.
Operating side by side with priests were healers – merappim in Hebrew (singular merappei, pronounced mair-rap-PAY (feminine: merappah, pronounced mair-rap-PAA).
Both Naziriteship and healership allowed someone who was not a descendant of Aaron – any lay person – to do what a priest did outside of the Temple. While Naziriteship allows a lay-person to practise the ritual and pastoral duties of a priest, merappim took on the healing duties of a priest – they practised the Israelite art of healing, marpei. This used herbs and other plants to effect healing of the body (Ecclesiasticus 38:4), as well as the laying on of hands and counselling to heal the mind and soul; a person was dealt with as a whole being.
In marpei, as well as healing the body, the soul and mind had to be healed as well. The art of healing seems to have been one of the old Israelite practices which the early community of Followers sought to restore – see Ep. James 5:14.
The Yahwist attitude to healing, was that the healer was a messenger of Yahveh (Ecclesiasticus 38:1-2),and the process of healing was a blessing from Yahveh – Yahveh alone was the Great Healer, not the merappei him- or herself. Unfortunately, by the time of the rise of the Pharisees, healers had come to claim that the healing process was as a result of their own skill, and even that their art was a magical art. At this point, rather than reforming marpei, the Israelite art of healing was effectively banned by the Pharisees. It was therefore one of the ancient Israelite skills that Yeshua` sought to restore in his ministry of healing.
The result of the ban was that the spiritual awareness and knowledge of shleimut néfesh – the ‘wholeness of being’ that had to be maintained for spiritual and physical health – was lost. The concept of shleimut – wholeness – is now completely absent from modern Judaism. However, it was an intrinsic part of the Israelite understanding of one of the purposes of repentance and good works – that they restored the wholeness of one’s being.
Now, ‘to be in a state of wholeness’ is ‘to be perfect’. If you followed God’s ethical and moral laws, you could maintain this state of wholeness or perfection. The Aramaic for ‘whole’, ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ is gemir. When Yeshua` told us to be perfect like our Heavenly Father (Mt 5:48, Lk 6:36),this is what he meant; he was teaching us to be whole and complete like our Heavenly Father.
Yeshua` was not telling us to be sinless like God; such a thing is not possible. The Yahwist outlook acknowledges that none of us are sinless (Prov 20:9). It is not possible to be permanently sinless, but it is possible to try and maintain this wholeness of being. Your being won’t always stay whole, but the goal of a righteous and ethical way of life, is to maintain this wholeness – this state of ‘perfection’.
A Summary of the Forgiveness-Process
In Yahwist theology, these are the stages from sin to ‘atonement’ / expiation:
1. A person commits a sin
2. The result is that the health of their life-force (néfesh) is ‘injured’ and diminished, and their soul (nėshamah) is ‘stained’ or blemished
3. The real-world effect of this blemish is that a good person will feel guilt, distress and pain for what they have done, and their relationships with others are damaged
4. The holy Glory of God withdraws to avoid doing harm to the person, and consequently the automatic blessing of God is no longer there (the biblical phrase ‘I will hide My face from them’ means ‘I will withdraw my blessing from them’)
5. The person repents of what they have done
6. God immediately forgives that person, and the punishment/penalty due for a sin is revoked
7. Forgiveness allows the healing process to begin, since a person’s soul still needs to be cleansed and made whole
8. Reparation, prayer or good works are made (the ‘expiation process’); also in the real world, apologies and repairing of relationships are made; these things enable the soul to approach the Glory of God (the Divine Radiance) once more, without being harmed
9. The soul comes into the presence of God’s Glory; the life-force and soul are thereby cleansed, purified and restored to wholeness (full health) by the Glory of God (i.e. not by blood)
In detail:
1. Committing the sin: In Paullist theology, sin is solely ‘an act of disobedience against God’, and ‘an act of moral evil’. In Yahwism, it is more than that. A sin is any action or inaction that harms the health of your soul – in technical terms, ‘anything that diminishes the wholeness/perfection of one’s néfesh’. Whereas Paullist theology sees sin as something that harms our relationship with God, Yahwism sees sin as something that harms us (this is expressed in Tobit 12:10 – ‘the sinners and wrong-doers are enemies to their own souls’, a passage from a non-biblical text that was written with this understanding of what sin does to the soul).
This understanding explains instances where no actual disobedience or moral evil has taken place, but nevertheless an expiation ritual, along with a sin offering, is required to restore the health of the soul to a perfect state (the ritual symbolises bringing the soul into the presence of God’s Glory to restore the health of one’s nefesh).
2. Injury to the life-force: The ancient Israelites understood illness and sin in the same way – that they both harmed the life-force of the soul. Just as the blood is the life of the body (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11-14, Dt 12:23), so the nefesh is the life of the soul. This is why blood symbolises the life-force in blood-sacrifices. Illness and disease diminish the health of the blood (and so of the body), and sin diminishes the health of the nefesh (and so of the mind and soul). Willful disobedience against God is seen as a form of self-harm, rather than harming God.
Just as blood is brought to the altar (the altar symbolises the Glory of God), so too the soul comes into the presence of God’s Glory for purification – this is the essence of what blood-sacrifice symbolises.
3. Effects of sin: In biblical terminology, the injury to the soul caused by sin is called a stain (mūm) or blemish (mė’um). In Paullist theology, sinning and the stain of sin are the same thing, since they believe God punishes both (see the section on ‘Original Sin’ below).
The primary effect of sin is on oneself; willful sin in particular is a form of deliberate self-harm – you are harming yourself. The secondary effect of sin is harm to others. The third effect is to harm your ability to relate to God, and your ability to be an effective worker in God’s kingdom.
4. The withdrawal of God’s blessing: When we deliberately rebel against God’s will, it is we who turn our backs on God; it is we who distance ourselves from God – God does not separate Himself from us, or distance Himself from us. However, God withdraws God’s Glory to avoid doing us harm, and the practical result of this is that God’s life-giving blessing is withdrawn; this is not God separating Himself from us – you cannot separate God from you.
5 & 6. Repentance & Forgiveness: Repentance is a return to God, and to God’s ways; it is sorrow and remorse for what one has done. In Yahwist theology, it is at this point that God forgives us – it is immediate (in Paullist theology, forgiveness doesn’t come until ‘atonement’).
7. Sometimes God will forgive a soul before repentance (and demonstrate that forgiveness in the real world), if it is the only way to lead a soul back to repentance, and therefore set them on the path to healing; God does this if God considers that forgiveness will begin healing that person and start them on their path back to God.
8. Reparation: An act of penitence or reparation is required to enable the soul to come before the Glory of God. This usually takes the form of prayer or good works, or both. It is not the prayer / good works themselves that cleanse us of sin; rather, they bring us to a state where we are able to come before the radiant and cleansing Glory of God without being harmed.
9. God’s Glory cleanses us of sin and the blemish of sin: Blood is not required for atonement or the forgiveness of sin: Torah allows for grain to be offered by a poor person in place of animals as a sin-offering (Lev 5:11); a half-shekel of silver is paid as expiation for sin (Ex 30:12-16), and King Solomon prayed that whenever the Israelites are exiled (and therefore no longer able to offer sacrifices), then when they pray towards the direction of the Temple, that God will forgive their sins through prayer (2Chr 6:36-39).
God’s Glory blots out our transgressions (Ps 51:1-2), and cleanses our souls whiter than snow (Ps 51:7); also, when Moses came away from encountering the Glory of God, his soul was cleansed to the point where his human soul glowed within him (Ex 34:29-35).
Sacrifices were only intended to be a temporary practice
The ancient Jewish followers of Yeshua` believed that animal sacrifices were a temporary thing – that God reluctantly tolerated them until such time as they would be done away with completely (see Clementine Recognitions, ‘Ascents of James’, ch. 36-37), when people would finally come to understand that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11b, 1:17).
God permitted sacrifices, because if God had banned them, the Israelites would simply have gone over to a religion that did allow sacrifices. So God allowed sacrifices, but under strict conditions, with a very strict symbolism, to teach us the true meaning of sin, forgiveness and right action.