Leviticus 17:11 - It is the blood that makes atonement

[Grant]

Leviticus 17:11 - 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.

Being that the book of Leviticus seems to be Historical Narrative, I have often wrestled with this passage and others that seem to literally tie the blood of the animal sacrifices to atonement for sin. Is there something here that should trigger “no this is obviously typology”?

Have you wrestled with this? How do you best understand this passage (or more broadly Leviticus 16 & 17)?

 

[VictorBravo]

Hebrews 8 and 9 is a great place to start.

Hebrews 9:13-14 gets to the point. Blood sacrifices sanctified toward purifying the flesh--symbolic, but you have to do it over and over.

The blood of Christ works once to purge from dead works.

 

[Grant]

Hebrews 8 and 9 is a great place to start.

Hebrews 9:13-14 gets to the point. Blood sacrifices sanctified toward purifying the flesh--symbolic, but you have to do it over and over.

The blood of Christ works once to purge from dead works.

Very helpful and succinct Vic.

Sceanrio: I am an Israelite living in the OT period. I wake up in the morning and I commit a sin of stealing by taking my neighbors sheep. Prior to that evening I am convicted and I return the animal plus more to the owner. That evening the Priest Offers a sacrifice on my behalf. Does that priestly sacrifice atone for the sin I committed that day (open for anyone to answer)?

 

[VictorBravo]

That evening the Priest Offers a sacrifice on my behalf. Does that priestly sacrifice atone for the sin I committed that day (open for anyone to answer)?

I think I would put it as, yes, it atones for that particular sin with regard to the Law of Moses--nothing more is demanded by the law (except a contrite heart--see Psalm 51:16-17). The flesh is sanctified.

But our problem is that we still need to "purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Hebrews 9:14.

And Hebrews 10:3-4 gives the rest of the story:

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The point of the reasoning embedded in the text is the explanation of the connection one participating or observing a sacrifice makes between the offering and the offerer. The blood must be shed because the life is in the blood. Should a person bleed out, that's their end. Determination of death has been made (absent a body) depending on the amount of blood at a crime scene. The animal sacrifice was a graphic presentation of a substitute life, the wage of sin.

As for the atonement and forgiveness forthrightly tied to the sacrifices of Israel, these availed through the virtue of their connection to the ultimate Priest and his sacrifice. Because "the blood of goats and bulls could not take away sins,"(Heb.10:4) when God said upon looking on or smelling the oblation, "his sin will be forgiven him," (Lev.4:20, etc.) we have to look for resolution to that apparent contradiction.

The book of Hebrews has to be referring to the bare offering, an offering unaccompanied by faith. Not faith in the work, but what that work promised should be answered by fulfillment or perfection of sacrifice and priesthood. The obvious imperfection of the elements of an OT altar sacrifice cries out for something better. But by faith, the "better" was obtained even in advance of Christ's incarnation by taking to heart the instruction of the altar and the meaning of the sacrifice.

 

[Von]

Animal sacrifices was about trusting God's word and promises. Believing the gospel is about trusting God's word and promises as they find their fulfillment in Christ.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Bruce @Contra_Mundum – thank you for that. The way I have understood Lev 17:11,

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”​

is in conjunction with Heb 9:22,

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”​

That is, taking the broader view of atonement for sin generally, as when I seek to evangelize a Jew, pointing out that he has no Biblical (in his case Mosaic) atonement for his sins seeing as the Levitical sacrifices are gone and impossible to restore – save in that atonement provided by Messiah Jesus.

Do you think this reasoning sound?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hello Bruce @Contra_Mundum – thank you for that. The way I have understood Lev 17:11,

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”​

is in conjunction with Heb 9:22,

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”​

That is, taking the broader view of atonement for sin generally, as when I seek to evangelize a Jew, pointing out that he has no Biblical (in his case Mosaic) atonement for his sins seeing as the Levitical sacrifices are gone and impossible to restore – save in that atonement provided by Messiah Jesus.

Do you think this reasoning sound?

I think (albeit without any experience in the use to accompany it) it is eminently reasonable. The follower of Judaism (or ethic/cultural Jew) might be particularly amenable to the argument, given the possibility of at least passing acquaintance with the witness of Scripture (OT).

Evidently there is some kind of "work around" for some number of alert and observant Jews, who have had many generations to reckon with and explain the lack of an altar. Rabinnic "adjustments" to the religion have carried it on, in a parallel existence to Christianity for nearly 2K yrs.

To me, this is the clearest evidence for an argument that Judaism, despite the present-day identifier, cannot claim an historic origin or pedigree superior to that of Christianity. Both are parallel historic movements that come from exactly the same moment in time, both of which found various utility in the existing Temple of the first century. That temple-and-altar was swept away in AD70.

Christianity was already proclaiming by then (for an entire generation gone past) the "new and living way" with a perfect Priest and Sacrifice. The end that was coming, prophesied by that same Priest 40yrs prior, was to mark the removal of obsolescence.

For the rabbis who clung to those relics, the same event was interpreted as another exile, but at the cost of having no prophetic warnings or divine reasons given for it (as with the former), and the need to reinterpret the extant prophetic literature to remove the expectation that not-a-few had realized in Christianity.

The question for everyone--Jew and Gentile alike--is basically the same: does Jesus Christ fulfill the need of Jew and Gentile (as witnessed by the sacred writings of Moses and his true successors) for an atonement? Or to follow up, if he is no Savior, how then can anyone be saved?