I’m feeling a little uncomfortable today because I know darn well that I’m going to be touching on a topic that is very, very sensitive to adherents of Judaism: the idea of BLOOD ATONEMENT.
When believers of the Messianic faith affirm that blood atonement is the central and most important form of atonement in the Bible, the common pushback often received from those coming from a traditional Jewish faith is…
“The Hebrew Bible-including the Torah itself-offers other means of atonement, not just the shedding of blood.”
And you know, in one sense, I wouldn’t disagree with that statement BUT…
…in another sense, I also can’t ignore the key role blood sacrifices play in God’s justice system.
I have to admit this is an area that I’m still exploring and can’t be dogmatic about.
Moving forward, as I attempt to put the pieces together here, I remain open to correction and alternative ideas (especially if there be any of you out there who come from a traditional Jewish background).
Let’s get started.
The first part of the Torah concerning blood that we are introduced to is in the 3rd chapter of Genesis.
In this chapter, we have the first recorded death in history when God killed an animal and used its skin to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness.
Now the first question that comes to mind is…
…why did the Lord kill an innocent animal in order to provide clothing when there were other possibilities He could have used such as leaves or wool?
Think hard about that for a second.
If there were other possibilities, why did the Lord go out of His way to take the most displeasing and frankly disgusting option in order to clothe Adam and Eve?
Some folks will say, well, God used animal skins because they were more durable.
Really?
Why didn’t He just use wool then?
That way He could have clothed Adam and Eve with something durable minus having to take the life of an animal.
Seriously, let’s just think about this situation a little bit.
Adam and Eve had just committed an offense against the Creator of the universe.
And because of their offense, instantly a deep feeling of shame came over them along with the first-time realization that they were naked.
Before they had sinned, they were prancing around naked in the garden without a care in the world.
Well, I’m going to offer up an interpretation.
And yes it is the traditional Christian interpretation, so most of you probably know what I’m about to say.
However, let me stress again, I’m NOT being dogmatic about this.
I’m just presenting this to you for your serious consideration with the following question:
On some level, does this seem to make sense or not?
So here goes.
By killing the animal in response to Adam and Eve’s trespass against Him, was not God demonstrating that their sin could only be paid for with “blood” as opposed to plant life?
In other words, was not the Lord showing us that the blood of the animal in some sense spiritually satisfied His demand for justice?
After Adam and Eve violated the Lord’s command to not eat the fruit from the tree, they knew their sin had to be covered, so they tried to do it with plant life.
Yet, instead God responded by killing a living creature and covering them up with garments that came from an animal which had in a sense just been “sacrificed”.
Before I close, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of this post.
In no way am I being dogmatic about this interpretation.
I could be wrong.
In fact, the truth is I have just engaged in a form of “eisegesis” which means to read things into the text that are not plainly stated.
Admittedly, that is exactly what I have just done.
It does NOT plainly say that God had to kill the animal because His justice demanded that blood be shed in response to Adam and Eve’s transgression.
Yet, when we look at all the variables surrounding the situation and use our noggins, I really want to ask you…
…on some level doesn’t what I just said make sense?
Exegesis…..
Im enjoying your train of thought. This is what we are supposed to do. Read scripture pray for understanding discuss. Share with others. Cant wait to share. Blessings FRIENDS.
Thanks for your kind words Caroline. I totally agree. It is through the process of studying on our own and then sharing with others that we sharpen ourselves up. Especially on tough topics like this one. Stay tuned for today’s post. Blessings! Rich
This is truly rare teaching but ESSENTIAL.Keep going, brother.
Thank you Mary! Surprised to see your comment here, instead of on the Facebook Page. Be blessed!
I used to believe this as well coming from a Christian standpoint because everything is about the blood to them. But, when I started to see that blood is not necessary for atonement my mind started to look at things differently. Here’s an interesting point about that verse, “21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” Genesis 3:21. Just prior is when death entered and not only would man die, but so would all of creation. It doesn’t say that God killed an animal but rather that He just made the clothes from the skins. Since it doesn’t say God killed the animal, could it be that the animal died ‘naturally’ as a result of Adam’s sin since the land and creation became cursed as well.? Maybe it was the first animal that died because of Adam. Thus God clothed them in the skins of this dead animal to remind them that death would come to them as well. In this case, it has nothing to do with atonement. Just trying not to read into the Scripture what isn’t there… the sacrifice and atonement portion. Food for thought. Definitely not saying I’m right.
Hi Terriann, Thanks for sharing. Can you please explain what you mean when you say ” But, when I started to see that blood is not necessary for atonement my mind started to look at things differently.”. I’ve heard this before and I’m still confused about it because of all the statements in Scripture that seem to speak otherwise. I’m really struggling to get clarity on this point. For example, what do you make of the verse “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”-Leviticus 17:11? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Who said it was an “animal” skin? It was human skin as in the picture you’re being shown is a soul before it is ‘born’. Without skin we are not flesh.
Hi Richoka, concerning Atonement without blood, I am only a self seeking student of the Hebrew culture and viewpoint of the Torah. I learn from you and other sources so my responses is more a question than an answer. When Yeshua teed off the religious leaders by telling the man his sins were forgiven, to my understanding there was no blood shed either at the temple and obviously He had not yet shed His blood but yet the man was forgiven. Wouldn’t this be an example of Atonement without the shedding of blood. Yeshua just declared the man was forgiven. I’m not sure if this example fits the mystery or not.
God bless you and your work.