2.2: Pre-Christian Understandings of Redemption
2.2.3: The Old Testament and Judaic Customary Redemption Practices
If we are to consider any interpretation of the concept of redemption, as offered by the founders of Christianity, such as Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, some account must be presented of the sacrificial practices of the Jews, as recorded in the Biblical Old Testament45, from which, much of the Christian belief system on redemption would appear to have developed. However, this analysis will need to be conducted within an understanding of context of the Jewish concept of God. In this regard, one such perspective is offered by British theologian, L.B. Cross (1929)46, who stated that the Jewish conception of God was primarily that of a ‘war God’ (1929, p.34)47 and a God at the centre of the liberation of the Jewish people. This point is made, citing texts such as Exodus 14: 25 and Exodus 15: 1; which embodies the liberation narrative of the Jews from the rule of the Pharaohs in Egypt.
“²⁵And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the
Egyptians.” (Exodus 14: 25), and,
“³⁰Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.”( Exodus 14: 30).
The theme of the ‘war God’ and the God of Liberation, continues strongly through the Song of Moses in Exodus Chapter 15.
“¹Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”
(Exodus 15: 1).
45 The Dakes Annotated Reference Bible (1992), containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorised or King James Version Text, is used as the reference for Scriptural texts throughout this study.
46 Cross, L.B. (1929, pp. 33-64). ‘Sacrifice in the Old Testament’, in, Grensted, L.W. (1929). ‘The Atonement in History and in Life’. SPCK, London. Reverend Leslie Basil Cross (1895-1974) was an Anglican priest and lecturer of Theology at Oxford (1941-1947).
47 Cross (1929, p. 34).
48
Cross (1929, p.34), further, roots this conception of God48 in the everyday life of the Jewish people, with the following comments.
“As a landed proprietor, he was also the God of productivity, giving to the earth her increase, making the folds full of sheep and oxen strong to labour, and giving the former and latter rains.”
The synthesis of the Jewish God as a liberating ‘war God’ and a provider and sustainer of the Jewish people, is well captured by Alister McGrath (2006, p.26), in his book, Redemption.
“For Israel, the greatest act of God’s many acts of redemption was the deliverance of Israel from her bondage in Egypt. Moses was raised by God to set his people free. Seeing that his people were oppressed and enslaved, God prepared the way for their deliverance and their eventual entry into the promised land of Canaan. The exodus brought the people of Israel into existence as the people of God. It was their story about their God. In retelling this story, Israel shaped her identity in the present and nourished her future hopes. It was a story that should never be forgotten.”
Whilst the aim, at this point, is to establish the Jewish concept of God, as the context from which their sacrificial practices are understood, the exploration of the themes expounded from the Book of Exodus and, particularly, the summary just noted by Alister McGrath, are pivotal to understanding, firstly, the construction of the concept of redemption or salvation and the resultant doctrinal formations of the early church, and secondly, the critique presented by Christopher Hitchens of these doctrines and the Judeo-Christian religious complex as a whole49.
The summary of Hebrew sacrifice, as offered by Finlan (2005, p.19), in his book, ‘The Problem with Atonement’, is noteworthy and directly relevant to the development of this study.
48 A further critical element of the relationship which the Jews corporately developed with their God, was that, within their formation of this concept of God and indeed their very national identity, “Patriotism and religion were synonymous”, as summarized by Cross (1929, p.35)
49 Christopher Hitchens (2007, p.102), in his book, ‘God is Not Great’, refers to the work of respected Israeli archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, which challenges the biblical and traditionally accepted accounts of the Exodus of the Israelites. The significance of this point for present day Israel and Palestine, an aspect which Hitchens develops strongly through his debates and presentations, is self-evident.
49
“Hebrew sacrificial offerings sometimes constitute a gift, sometimes a payment, and sometimes a means for rectifying one’s relationship with Yahweh. Sacrifice is
fundamentally pragmatic in motivation, relating to issues of survival and well-being.”
This statement gains more meaning and application for this study, when considering two key categories under which sacrifice is often understood; that of propitiation and expiation. In relation to sacrifice, Finlan (2005, p.15), notes the following pointer and poses the defining question;
“….propitiation and expiation, which correspond to persuasion and wiping-away, and again to appeasement and cleansing. Was the sacrifice a payoff, a gift meant to soothe God’s anger (propitiation), or was it a means for obtaining a sin-cleansing substance (expiation)?”
Whilst both ideas, propitiation and expiation, will occupy significant roles within this study, it is towards the latter understanding of sacrifice, that of expiation, which this study gravitates. In this regard, the place of ‘blood’ becomes a central aspect within the sacrificial practices of the Hebrews.
“¹⁴For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: who-soever eateth it shall be cut off.”
(Leviticus 17: 14).
Finlan (2005, p.13) uses this key text, as well as the fuller context of Leviticus chapters 16 and 17 to highlight the central place of ‘blood’, as a ‘life-force’, in the sacrificial language of the Hebrews. Finlan’s approach in attempting to understand the relationship between sacrifice and atonement, he is on the same theological page with Weaver (2011, p.70), in his work, ‘The Nonviolent Atonement’; who uses Leviticus 17: 11 to illustrate the following point;
“The ritual did not involve destruction of an animal in place of killing a person.
Rather, the life of the animal, namely, its blood, and with it the life of the worshiper, the animal’s blood goes to God.”
50
This perspective therefore sets in place a restored relationship between the person or community and their God, and Leviticus 17: 11 is cited to illustrate the point,
“¹¹For 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.”
Weaver (2011, p.71) points to Leviticus 16: 20-22 and the ritual of the scapegoat to highlight the treatment applied to the more serious and comprehensive sins. This extract from Leviticus 16, as quoted below, is central to this study and ties in directly with Christopher Hitchens’
understanding of the construct of vicarious redemption and his critique thereof.
“²¹And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. ²²And the goat Shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”
Leviticus 16: 21-22.
Whilst remaining within the ambit of the Old Testament, one cannot escape the critique, and often condemnation, of strictly sacrificial practices of the Hebrews; which forms a significant aspect of the ‘prophetic tradition’, of the likes of the Prophets Hosea, Micah and Jeremiah. This critique goes beyond the call for love and justice over sacrificial rituals; notwithstanding the clarity of the call to love and justice in texts such as Micah 6:7-8.
“⁷Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?⁸ He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”
51
But, as Weaver (2011, p.72) points out, Jeremiah (Chapter 7:22-23), becomes more questioning of the tradition of sacrifice and takes the point right back to the basis of the Exodus, in the first place;
“²²For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: ²³But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.”
In summary, the engagement with the authors above, through interaction with the relevant biblical Old Testament texts, presents, albeit in brief, the theological understandings of sacrifice and redemption, upon which to further develop the post-Christ progression of these constructs.