Talk:Atonement in Judaism

Comparison with Christian views/NPOV?

I completely disagree with the arguments the author presents as validation for the following statements:

The Hebrew Bible states that human sacrifice is an abomination in the sight of God (Lev. 18:21)

Lev 18:21 states the following: "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your G-d. I am the LORD"

It is not human sacrifices that G-d prohibits, it is the humans sacrifices of children to OTHER gods.

Now this opens the doors to ask if G-d can accept a human sacrifice. And the answer is yes.

1.- G-d asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

New International Version (©1984) Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

2.- The death of the firstborns were taken as sacrifices to G-d.

Exodus 13:15 'And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.'

3.- David's son from Bathsheba was the atonement for David's sin.

2 Samuel 13Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.” 15After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill.

The Author also states that only sacrifices made at The Temple's Altar were the only ones accepted but as the previous examples imply they were not made there and yet they were accepted by God.

The author quotes Ezequiel 18:20 to state that a vicarious atonement is not accepted by God. I wonder how the author can reconcile his argument with the verses found in Isaiah 53.

Chapter 53 : Verse 4 "Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted."

Chapter 53 : Verse 5 "But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed." English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (Masoretic Version)

Chapter 53 : Verse 6 "All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and HaShem hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all." English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (Masoretic Version)

Chapter 53 : Verse 8 "By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due." English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (Masoretic Version)

Chapter 53 : Verse 10 "Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand:" English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll

Jeibarraza (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the section on comparison with Christian views of atonement is an argument, rather than a factual discussion. Examples include "not one" in the sentence on human sacrifice (and, for that matter, the actual presence of the word "human sacrifice"), the argument that the blood was not put on the altar, and the assertion that atonement by the sacrifice of Jesus would be impossible.

Any thoughts?

It has also just occurred to me that citing "not one reference exists" with any specific reference is kind of odd.

HorridRedThings (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think it misstates and oversimplifies Christian belief, just for starters Christians do not view the crucifixion as "human sacrifice" since they believe Jesus to be God. If you are going to attempt to compare beliefs I think you need to approach both of them from the inside and then compare the accurate representation of those beliefs as they are actually held, not just criticize one belief from the perspective of another belief system. Flyinggranolabar (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the doctrine of vicarious atonement came later in Christianity, and that the poster is correct to state that this theological theory is not supported by the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament refutes it: Ezekiel 18 states that no other person shall die for another person's sins. So perhaps that should be added as a reference. Not only that, but both John the Baptist and Jesus himself preached the remission of sins through repentence, which is in exact agreement with Judaism. Its only when we get to the writings of Paul, and later interpretations of Paul, that we get this idea of vicarious atonement. I was going to add some information on the Christian article for atonement, to provide another view of atonement more compatible with Judaism (that of Emanuel Swedenborg), but I came across this article as for some reason the Judaic idea of atonement was put into a separate article from Christianity. I would think there would be one article on atonement, not two separate ones for Judaism and Christianity. I am new to Wikipedia, and as these two articles are separate I dont know where to start on edits. DougWebber (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article to make it more objective, reflecting Jewish thought. I used the following blog by someone who is Jewish, which mentioned some of the same arguments as the original article: http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-human-blood-sacrifice-kosher-for-sin.html. I would not use this as an external link however since he mixes in his own opinion with factual statements. DougWebber (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to correct some misconception regarding the Christian view of atonement in this section. I hope this serves to make the section objective as well. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does an article about a Jewish subject have a section of comparison to Christianity? This is off topic. There could be a comparison between various religions on this topic. This would be a comparative religion topic. Here the section is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlgeek z (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comparison to Christianity is off-topic and should go elsewhere.

I think we do need separate articles on Atonement_in_[Judaism, Christianity] as the two religions use the same word to refer to quite different concepts. If there is a reference in another article to "atonement" it is almost always to only one of these. If one looks at What Links Here for each of the two articles (two long lists), there is no overlap that I could see between them. If the two articles were merged into one, it would need to have two separate sections, with each link in these other articles pointing to the appropriate section. The general page atonement, which in effect serves as a disambiguation page, even though not called that, would be a good place to put a link to a comparative-religion-type article (which I hope would cover more than just Judaism and Christianity).

Davidhof (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The doctrine of atonement/redemption is one of the most complex and historically contentious areas of Christian doctrine. Attempting to include this in an article covering Jewish doctrine inevitably leads to misunderstandings and confusion over POV. There is already an article on Atonement in Christianity which includes a long list of references to other articles. I suggest that this article should stick to Jewish doctrine and link to the article on Christian atonement for those who wish to make the comparison.AJHingston (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well some consensus seems to be emerging that this section doesn't belong here, so if there's no further discussion in the next month or so it will be removed.Davidhof (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding was never done, so I will give one more week from now, for comments, then remove it myself. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There being no further objection, it is so ordered. :) Davidhof (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Betrothed virgins

In the list of offences for which execution is the punishment, there were a few errors on the above topic that I have tried to correct. The prior version referred to her committing prostitution or deceiving her husband about her chastity prior to marriage (in the 2nd paragraph ) and to the man who rapes her (in the first). As the Biblical text shows, she and her paramour are both stoned if they have consensual sex, while she is exempt from punishment if she is raped. The offence in xxii. 20 is not that she deceives her husband, but rather for the act of intercourse itself. (The Hebrew verb 'liznot' refers to all illicit sex, not only to prostitution.) Davidhof (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)