Why Don't Jews Sacrifice Animals Anymore?

[Silverbackman]

This question has puzzled me a long time. I just don't get why Jews do not sacrifice animals such as rams or goats. In the Torah and Old Testament clearly state that animals must be sacrificed in order for God to forgive the sins of man until the Messiah comes. According to Judaism the Messiah has not come and Jews do not consider Jesus the Messiah, so then why don't Jews continue to sacrifice animals?

 

[dauer]

I think you have been misinformed, but I don't have time right now to answer your question. Basically, all of the quotes from Tanach that you use to support there is no need for qorbanot, we use the same ones. And there is nothing to connect coming of mashiach with end of sacrifices, in fact, there are textual quotes that say qorbanot (sacrifices) will be reinstated when the mashiach comes.

In the absence of a Temple, we do not offer qorbanot, which are not only for expiation of sin. In fact, qorbanot means to come near or draw close and it was once the equivalent of formalized prayer.

Dauer

 

[pohaikawahine]

I'm going to add another possible answer here that may or may not answer the question .... most biblical stories, in my view, are metaphors and are filled with symbols that need to be seen in the context of the possible inner meanings .... usually the sacrafice of a ram or a goat is related to the setting of a constellation in association with the time of the year or cycle of life .... when the constellation sets below the horizon, the animal is sacraficed .... the meaning of the sacrafice of animals may be related to a deeper meaning in the text itself through the symbols .... just my thoughts to share .... me ke aloha pumehana, pohaikawahine

 

[Silverbackman]

I think it may have to do with the fact that most Jews alive today or pretty liberal and tend not to practice Judaism. It seems only orthodox jews are the only devout jews yet, although I have never heard orthodox jews sacrificing animals.

But yea you two have a good point.

 

[dauer]

Silverbackman,

an Orthodox Jew would not make an offering for the reasons I have given. For an Orthodox Jew, a qorban can only be made at the Beit HaMikdash, the Temple in Jerusalem, and it is in ruins right now. There's a whole system explained in the Talmud where each of the prayer services during the day is done in place of a particular daily qorban. So when a Jew davvens, prays, shacharit, the morning service, this is the equivalent of giving that qorban in the beit hamikdash. It stands in its place in the absence of a Temple.

On a separate note, I don't think it's entirely accurate to equate liberalness with a lack of observance as there are liberal Jews who are observant, in varying degrees. Secular might be a better word.

Dauer

 

[kiwimac]

It has simply to do with the fact that sacrifices were offered at the Temple & there is no Temple in Jerusalem (& has not been one since 70 CE)

 

[Faustus]

Not to mention that it's hell on the carpeting. Yeesh.

Ahem.

 

[chokmah]

Just wanted to add that sacrifices do not bring about atonement/forgiveness. My understanding is that they are an outward expression of an inward heart condition: repentant. Without repentance, a sacrifice would be made in vain.

Furthermore, atonement/forgivess can come about in more than one way: prayer, repentance, and good works.

 

[InChristAlways]

Just wanted to add that sacrifices do not bring about atonement/forgiveness. My understanding is that they are an outward expression of an inward heart condition: repentant. Without repentance, a sacrifice would be made in vain.

Furthermore, atonement/forgivess can come about in more than one way: prayer, repentance, and good works.

Shalom chokmah. Doesn't it appear Israel's sins are taken away when the Moshiah arrives? At least this is what I get out of this verse which Paul quotes from the Tanach.
Steve

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers.

Isaiah 28:18 Your covenant with death will be annulled/atoned, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it. [size=+2] [/size]

 

[chokmah]

Shalom chokmah. Doesn't it appear Israel's sins are taken away when the Moshiah arrives? At least this is what I get out of this verse which Paul quotes from the Tanach.
Steve

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers.

I need to ask if you believe Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20 with the passage above. The same passage from the Jewish Tanakh translates more like this (in context):

Isaiah 59
18. According to their deeds, accordingly He shall repay, fury to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; to the islands He shall pay recompense.

19. And from the west they shall fear the name of the Lord, and from the rising of the sun, His glory, for distress shall come like a river; the spirit of the Lord is wondrous in it.

20. And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.

21. "As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the Lord. "My spirit, which is upon you and My words that I have placed in your mouth, shall not move from your mouth or from the mouth of your seed and from the mouth of your seed's seed," said the Lord, "from now and to eternity."

According to v. 20, the people repent of their transgression. Nothing is done on their behalf.

Isaiah 28:18

Your covenant with death will be annulled/atoned, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.

Here's the same passage from the Jewish Tanakh.

Isaiah 28
18. And your treaty with death shall be nullified, and your limit with the grave shall not endure; when an overflowing scourge passes, you shall be trampled by it.

I believe it paints a much different picture.

 

[InChristAlways]

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is/will be] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."

I need to ask if you believe Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20 with the passage above. The same passage from the Jewish Tanakh translates more like this (in context):

Sorry about that. He quotes from 3 different OT passages and this is from Young's LT but I will double check on the translations.[this site also carries the JPS 1917].
Steve

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Isaiah 59:20 And come to Zion hath a redeemer, Even to captives of transgression in Jacob, An affirmation of Jehovah. 21 And I--this [is] My covenant with them, said Jehovah, My Spirit that [is] on thee, And My words that I have put in thy mouth, Depart not from thy mouth, And from the mouth of thy seed, And from the mouth of thy seed's seed, said Jehovah, From henceforth unto the age!

Isaiah 27:9 Therefore by this is the iniquity of Jacob covered, And this [is] all the fruit--To take away his sin, in His setting all the stones of an altar, As chalkstones beaten in pieces, They rise not--shrines and images.

Jeremiah 31:33 For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah,

 

[chokmah]

Sorry about that. He quotes from 3 different OT passages and this is from Young's LT but I will double check on the translations.[this site also carries the JPS 1917]

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Thanks for illuminating that for me again. I had forgotten some time ago that Paul would often amalgamate different Scriptures into his picture.

Isaiah 27:9 Therefore by this is the iniquity of Jacob covered, And this [is] all the fruit--To take away his sin, in His setting all the stones of an altar, As chalkstones beaten in pieces, They rise not--shrines and images.

I find no problem here since G-d is the One Who forgives sins. The context shows just to what extent G-d puts effort into this situation.


Jeremiah 31:33 For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah,[/QUOTE]

As Banana shared elsewhere, the tradition behind "the covenant" is that it is the Mosaic covenant. It's actually a reNEWing not a brand new thing.

 

[InChristAlways]

I need to ask if you believe Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20 with the passage above. The same passage from the Jewish Tanakh translates more like this (in context):

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Sorry about that. He quotes from 3 different OT passages and this is from Young's LT but I will double check on the translations.[this site also carries the JPS 1917]

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Thanks for illuminating that for me again. I had forgotten some time ago that Paul would often amalgamate different Scriptures into his picture.
As Banana shared elsewhere, the tradition behind "the covenant" is that it is the Mosaic covenant. It's actually a reNEWing not a brand new thing.

Your welcome.
Translations and interpretations are indeed in the eye of the "reader" and I do try to find the most accurate.
I found this site interesting and maybe you can give your view on it. It is a greek/hebrew/english interlinear and I am using it along with other translation sites to translate Daniel chapter 11 as I mentioned in another post. I have actually only been reading the Bible for a little over 3 years, so I am still a "newbie" in the Lord.
Shalom and peace.

http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm

 

[chokmah]

Your welcome.
Translations and interpretations are indeed in the eye of the "reader" and I do try to find the most accurate.

I applaud you in that desire.

I found this site interesting and maybe you can give your view on it. It is a greek/hebrew/english interlinear and I am using it along with other translation sites to translate Daniel chapter 11 as I mentioned in another post. I have actually only been reading the Bible for a little over 3 years, so I am still a "newbie" in the Lord.
Shalom and peace.

http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm

Unfortunately, I am not entirely savvy on what Tanakh translations are sound. I have been told by learned Jews that the translation in the library at www.chabad.org is good as well as a couple others. For personal reading, I have an Artscroll Stone Edition Tanakh, and while its ornamentally beautiful - I've been told that the translation and commentary is somewhat suspect. (much to my chagrin).

As for the Christian Bible, I've read almost every major protestant version available: NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Amplified, and Living. When having to utilize those texts in discussions, I prefer the NASB.

 

[bananabrain]

the problem with artscroll is mostly that it's one-dimensional. the commentaries are anthologised and the translations are somewhat slanted, basically to give the most right-wing, traditionalist view, while designed to appeal to "entry-level" understanding. the problem is not that their answers are "wrong" - it's that they're "answers". a good commentary is about getting you to think, not spoon-feeding you a lazy, self-satisfied, smug and above-all pre-filtered-and-digested "Torah view" point of view. i can see the results of this in the community and frankly it's all a bit too lubavitch considering they're supposed to be a minority PoV. not that there's anything wrong with chabad as long as you know what you're dealing with and do so on your own terms.

i personally prefer to read the original and then kind of anthologise my own translations based upon the JPS, the "jerusalem bible", kaplan's "living Torah" and "living Nakh" and, on the web, http://unbound.biola.edu, which though a fundie protestant site has at least the advantage of multiple versions and wearing its prejudices on its sleeve.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by ICA
I found this site interesting and maybe you can give your view on it. It is a greek/hebrew/english interlinear and I am using it along with other translation sites to translate Daniel chapter 11 as I mentioned in another post. They use it for their "own" translation and put the KJV side by side with it to compare it.
Shalom and peace.

http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm

Unfortunately, I am not entirely savvy on what Tanakh translations are sound. I have been told by learned Jews that the translation in the library at www.chabad.org is good as well as a couple others. For personal reading, I have an Artscroll Stone Edition Tanakh, and while its ornamentally beautiful - I've been told that the translation and commentary is somewhat suspect. (much to my chagrin).

As for the Christian Bible, I've read almost every major protestant version available: NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Amplified, and Living. When having to utilize those texts in discussions, I prefer the NASB.

i personally prefer to read the original and then kind of anthologise my own translations based upon the JPS, the "jerusalem bible", kaplan's "living Torah" and "living Nakh" and, on the web, http://unbound.biola.edu, which though a fundie protestant site has at least the advantage of multiple versions and wearing its prejudices on its sleeve.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Hi B. Have you ever looked at this Bible site? It has dozens of translations [including the JPS 1917] but what is so nice about it, after you set it up for "multiple", it can bring up a lexicon at the bottom for a single verse, and for the "GNT", it can bring up a greek/english interlinear [but not for the Tanach hebrew verses unfortunately], all on one page. I love it. For example:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(NKJV) Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

(Rotherham) Matthew 1:1 The Lineage Roll of Jesus Christ,--Son of David, Son of Abraham.

(Young) Matthew 1:1 A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Matthew 1:1 | bibloV <976> {BOOK} genesewV <1078> {OF [THE] GENERATION} ihsou <2424> {OF JESUS} cristou <5547> {CHRIST,} uiou <5207> {SON} dauid <1138> {OF DAVID,} uiou <5207> {SON} abraam <11> {OF ABRAHAM.} Matthew 1:1 ( KJV w/ Strongs Definitions )

The book
New Testament Greek Definition:
976 biblos {bib'-los}
primitive root; TDNT - 1:615,106; n n
AV - book 13; 13
1) a written book, a roll, a scroll of the generation
New Testament Greek Definition:
1078 genesis {ghen'-es-is}
from the same as 1074; TDNT - 1:682,117; n f
AV - generation 1, natural 1, nature 1; 3
1) source, origin
1a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or
progeny are enumerated
2) used of birth, nativity
3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life
3a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of
human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e.
its course of life of Jesus
New Testament Greek Definition:
2424 Iesous {ee-ay-sooce'}
of Hebrew origin 03091; TDNT - 3:284,360; n pr m
AV - Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1; 975
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate
to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor
(Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)
5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with
Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11) Christ
New Testament Greek Definition:
5547 Christos {khris-tos'} .........................................................

 

[chokmah]

the problem with artscroll is mostly that it's one-dimensional. the commentaries are anthologised and the translations are somewhat slanted, basically to give the most right-wing, traditionalist view, while designed to appeal to "entry-level" understanding. the problem is not that their answers are "wrong" - it's that they're "answers". a good commentary is about getting you to think, not spoon-feeding you a lazy, self-satisfied, smug and above-all pre-filtered-and-digested "Torah view" point of view. i can see the results of this in the community and frankly it's all a bit too lubavitch considering they're supposed to be a minority PoV. not that there's anything wrong with chabad as long as you know what you're dealing with and do so on your own terms.

I've been told very similar things regarding the Commentary from many other people. One other point that is brought up is the translation of Song of Solomon, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

i personally prefer to read the original and then kind of anthologise my own translations based upon the JPS, the "jerusalem bible", kaplan's "living Torah" and "living Nakh" and, on the web, http://unbound.biola.edu, which though a fundie protestant site has at least the advantage of multiple versions and wearing its prejudices on its sleeve.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Maybe one of these days I'll read Hebrew, and be able to do as you are. Until then, thanks for the link.

 

[bananabrain]

the best example i can show you is to go and look in almost any translation of "shir ha-shirim" (the "song of songs"/"song of solomon"/"canticles") at verse 5, chapter 4. then go and look in your artscroll translation and tell me what the difference is. that's artscroll in a nutshell.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[pohaikawahine]

the best example i can show you is to go and look in almost any translation of "shir ha-shirim" (the "song of songs"/"song of solomon"/"canticles") at verse 5, chapter 4. then go and look in your artscroll translation and tell me what the difference is. that's artscroll in a nutshell.

b'shalom

bananabrain

will someone please print out the translation of this verse from artscroll .... I would like to compare it with the translation from copies that I have .... or I can get it off the web, a reference please would be helpful .... I love "shir ha-shirim", it was my introduction to Judiasm .... me ke aloha pumehana, pohaikawahine

 

[bananabrain]

oh, very well...

"moses & aaron, your two sustainers, are like two fawns, twins of the gazelle, who graze their sheep in roselike bounty."

nothing in there about tits, you'll note. but then again, G!D (or should i say artscroll) forbid anyone should encounter the Text for themselves - gasp - they might actually start to *think*!!!!!

b'shalom

bananabrain