To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
此文參 jewsforjudaism.org "Leviticus 17:11"
很多基督徒都以為希伯來書9：22「若不流血，罪就不得赦免了」是取自舊約聖經利未記17：11。其實整本舊約聖經裡並無此經節。利未記17：10-11如此記載：「凡以色列家中的人，或是寄居在他們中間的外人，若吃什麼血，我必向那吃血的人變臉，把他從民中剪除。因為活物的生命是在血中。我把這血賜給你們，可以在壇上為你們的生命贖罪；因血裡有生命，所以能贖罪。」希伯來書作者把「血裡有生命，所以能贖罪」改成「若不流血，罪就不得赦免了」。乍看之下，好像兩節寫的東西一模一樣；但若仔細比較，這兩句話的意思截然不同。
如果基督徒願意用心對照舊約利未記17：11與新約希伯來書9：22，就會注意到利未記並沒有說如果犯罪一定要用血才能贖罪，因此宣稱希伯來書這一段經文取自利未記是完全不正確的。利未記記載得很清楚，神之所以吩咐以色列人「不能吃血」有一個很重要的原因：血被分別出來有它特定的用途，就是在壇上贖罪。但這不相等於「贖罪唯一的途徑就是血。」重點是，因為血裡有生命，因此它有贖罪的功能，也因為這樣，人不能吃血。如果利未記17章的主旨在討論「贖罪」這個問題的話，他應該會加以闡述如何贖罪。但是很明確，他的主旨在於解釋「為什麼人不能吃血」，而不是在討論「血有沒有贖罪的功能」。
如果我們把舊約跟新約這兩個句子排列在一起，就可以看得更清楚：
舊約寫：1. 不能吃血 2. 因為血有生命 3. 血有贖罪的功能
新約改成：若不流血，罪不能得赦免
如果把日常生活用語。套在這兩個句子裏：
吃=喝
血=漂白水
生命=次氯酸鈉
贖=消毒
罪=細菌
再來，把這些字套在這個公式的句子上，看這樣的成形是否符合邏輯：
舊約寫：1. 不能喝漂白水 2. 因為漂白水含有次氯酸鈉 3. 漂白水有消毒細菌的功能
新約改成：若不用漂白水，細菌就不能被消毒
如此一排列，就清楚地看到這兩句話的主題都圍繞在漂白水上：第一個句子告訴你不能喝的“原因”，也順便告訴你它具有的“功能”，這功能是廣義的功能。第二個句子告訴你，如果你不用漂白水，細菌就無法消毒。這個句子沒有告訴你“原因”，它只告訴你它的“功能”，但它的功能是俠義的功能。換句話説，不光是它的主題與重點不一樣，他最大的不同在於“途徑”。舊約沒有告訴你“血”是唯一贖罪的途徑（或漂白水是唯一殺菌的途徑）；新約卻告訴你“血”是唯一的途徑（或漂白水是唯一殺菌的方法）。
“血”真的是唯一贖罪的途徑嗎？「若不流血，罪就不得赦免」的這句話真的都應驗在聖經裡嗎？約拿書3：10裡面陳述尼尼微城居民如何得到神的赦免。他們全城從老到少，從貴賤到貧窮，甚至連動物都披上麻布，切切求告神，坐在灰中悔改認罪。他們沒有獻上任何血祭就得到神的完全的赦免，罪得救贖。大衛王與赫人烏利亞之妻拔示巴所犯的奸淫罪之後，先知拿單去指責他，大衛同樣也是在沒有用血贖罪的情況之下，神就已除了他的罪（撒母耳記下12：13）。
雖然新約聖經強調血能夠贖我們所犯的任何罪，但在舊約聖經裡，贖罪的方法可歸類成三種：1. 獻贖罪祭 2. 悔改 3. 行善。而其中的贖罪祭，能夠用血用來贖的只有一種罪──誤犯之罪（參Jonathan Sacks拉比:“The Dimensions of Sin"），也就是在自己不知覺時所犯“無心之過” 的罪（利未記第4章），這與 “明知故犯” 之罪相反（民數記 15:30-31）。如上述，獻血並不是唯一的贖罪途徑， 還有許多其他方法可以得到神的赦免。 例如，在民數記 16：46-47 ，摩西叫亞倫拿出香爐，用壇上的火盛，加上香為人們贖罪，還有在出埃及記 30：15-16 和民數記 31：50 中將「施捨的行為」描述為「為你們的靈魂贖罪」，這與利未記17：11中所表達的「贖罪」一詞是相同的。再者，上帝有可能設定一套只准許富有的人贖罪的制度，而完全沒考慮到窮人嗎？在利未記 5：7記載，窮人可以在買不起羊羔的情況下，攜帶兩隻斑鳩或兩隻雛鴿為贖愆祭。 可是，萬一窮到連這些小鳥都養不起呢？利未記 5：11繼續說，沒有能力的人「可以為他所犯的罪獻上細麵伊法十分之一作贖罪祭... ...」 （利未記 5：11）既然連麵粉都可用於贖罪祭了，很明顯，血絕對不是贖罪不可缺的先決條件。再者，避開血不談，不管是燔祭或是贖罪祭，都不是上帝所要的。如詩篇40：6所記「祭物和禮物，你不喜悅；你已經開通我的耳朵。燔祭和贖罪祭非你所要。」他更看重的是我們的心（參部落格：獻祭的意義）。很可惜，在這裡新約希伯來書作者再次改了舊約的原文。希伯來書10：5 寫：「神阿，燔祭和贖罪祭是你不喜悅的； 你曾給我預備身體。」他把舊約的「開通耳朵」改成「預備身體」。原來大衛詩中所強調的「開通耳朵」被刪改、轉移焦距，用「預備身體」做來“預表”耶穌的身體代替了動物的燔祭。
為什麼希伯來書作者要把妥拉（註一）這兩處如此重要的內容刪改呢？這種被刪改過的“引用”舊約手法非常常見。新約作者如此做，不外乎是爲了要指向整本新約的重心，就是舊約“預表”了耶穌釘在十字架上的寶血有救贖罪之功能。如果人真的不需要血就能夠贖罪的話，那整個基督教所傳講的中心信息是不是就完全被瓦解了呢？既然基督徒宣稱新約是舊約應許的實現，豈不應該從舊約先著手？先看在舊約裏，上帝的話語是如何被闡述，仔細對照它的原文，看舊約的內容有沒有正確地被新約引用，再看這些預表與應許是否實現？如何實現？當新約所引用的舊約字眼與原文有差異之時，基督徒是否應該以最符合邏輯的方式，選擇尊重這本早在新約前1200至165年間就完成的希伯來舊約經典之引用來源？
註一：妥拉（Torah），又稱Pentateuch「摩西五經」，就是舊約聖經的頭五本書──創世記、出埃及記、利未記、民數記及申命記
Is There No Forgiveness Without the Shedding of Blood?
Many Christians believe that "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins"(Hebrews 9:22) is taken from the Old Testament in Leviticus. In reality, there is no such verse in the entire Old Testament. Leviticus 17:10-11 states, "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life." The author in the book of Hebrews changed the text from "it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" to "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." At first glance, these two verses may seem similar, but upon closer examination, their meanings are quite different.
If Christians carefully compare these two passages, they will notice that Leviticus does not state that blood is the ONLY way to atone for sins. Therefore, claiming that the book of Hebrews borrowed this passage from Leviticus is entirely incorrect. Leviticus clearly explains the significant rationale behind God's command to the Israelites not to consume blood: Blood serves a distinct purpose, namely, making atonement on the altar. However, this does not equate to "the only way to atonement is through blood." The key point is that because blood contains life, it has atoning qualities, hence, people should not consume it. If Leviticus 17 were primarily focused on discussing "atonement," it would have elaborated on how atonement works. However, it is evident that its main focus is explaining why people should not consume blood rather than discussing whether blood has atoning properties.
When we align the Old Testament and New Testament passages side by side, the connection becomes more apparent.
The Old Testament:
1. You cannot eat blood.
2. Because blood contains life.
3. Blood has the function of atonement.
New Testament:
Without the shedding of blood, sins cannot be forgiven. Let’s substitute household items into the given sentences:
Eat = Drink
Blood = Bleach
Life = Sodium hypochlorite
Atonement = Disinfection
Sins = Bacteria
Then, we can examine whether this altered formation makes logical sense:
The Old Testament:
1. You cannot drink bleach.
2. Because bleach contains sodium hypochlorite.
3. Bleach has the function of disinfecting bacteria.
New Testament:
Without using bleach, bacteria cannot be disinfected.
When these sentences are structured this way, it becomes evident that although both sentences center around bleach, the first sentence clearly explains the "reason" for avoiding bleach consumption and highlights its versatile "function" as a disinfectant, among other possibilities. In contrast, the second sentence emphasizes that without bleach, bacteria cannot be effectively disinfected. The second sentence does not instruct whether bleach should be consumed or not; rather, it solely articulates the capabilities of bleach in a more limited context, suggesting that bleach might have only one purpose. In essence, these two sentences not only differ in their subjects but also significantly in their "means." The Old Testament doesn't tell you that "blood" is the only way for atonement; the New Testament, on the other hand, tells you that "blood" is the only means.
Is "blood" really the only way for atonement? Does the statement "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins" truly hold true throughout the Bible? In Jonah 3:10, it describes how the people of Nineveh obtained God's forgiveness. The entire city, from young to old, from high to low, even the animals, put on sackcloths, earnestly cried out to God, sat in ashes, repented, and acknowledged their sins. They obtained complete forgiveness from God without offering any blood sacrifice; their sins were redeemed. After King David's adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, the prophet Nathan confronted him. In this case, God also forgave David without the need for blood sacrifice (2 Samuel 12:13).
While the New Testament emphasizes that blood can atone for any sins we commit, in the Old Testament, there are three main methods of atonement:
1. Offering a sin offering
2. Repentance
3. Doing good deeds.
Of these, blood was used for atonement in only one specific case, which is for "unintentional sins" (Please refer to Rabbi Jonathan Sacks': The Dimensions of Sin), sins committed unknowingly (Leviticus 4), as opposed to "intentional sins" (Numbers 15:30-31). As mentioned, offering blood is not the only path to atonement; there are many other methods to seek God's forgiveness.
For example, in Numbers 16:46-47,
Moses instructed Aaron to take a censer, fill it with fire from the altar, and add incense to make atonement for the people. Additionally, in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50, the "act of giving" is described as "making atonement for your souls," which is consistent with the concept of atonement expressed in Leviticus 17:11.
This prompts us to question why God established a system that appeared to enable the wealthy to seek atonement for their sins, seemingly overlooking the poor. In Leviticus 5:7, it is noted that a poor person could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sin offering if they couldn't afford a lamb. But what if someone is so impoverished that they can't even afford these birds? Leviticus 5:11 continues to state that someone without means "shall offer the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering..." The fact that even flour can be used for a sin offering makes it evident that blood is not an absolute necessity for atonement.
Furthermore, setting blood aside, both burnt offerings and sin offerings are not what God truly desires. As Psalm 40:6 says, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—but my ears you have opened—burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require." God places a higher value on the state of our hearts rather than the offerings we present to Him (Please refer to my blog post: The Meaning of Sacrifice). Unfortunately, in this context, the author of the New Testament's Book of Hebrews once again alters the Old Testament text. In Hebrews 10:5, it states, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me." An open ear found in David's psalm is altered by the New Testament author and shifted to a body prepared as a foreshadowing of Jesus's body replacing animal sacrifices.
Why did the author of Hebrews make such significant alterations to the content in Torah (Note1)? Actually this kind of modified quotation from the Old Testament is quite common. New Testament authors likely did this to emphasize the central theme of the entire New Testament which is to showcase Old Testament "foreshadowing" of the redemptive power of Jesus' blood on the cross. If one could truly atone for sins without the need for blood, would this not undermine the core message of Christianity? Since Christians claim that the New Testament fulfills the promises of the Old Testament, shouldn't they begin by examining how God's word in the Old Testament is presented? It would make sense to study the original Old Testament texts, carefully compare them, see if the Old Testament content is accurately quoted in the New Testament, and examine whether these types and promises have been fulfilled. When there are differences between the Old Testament wording and the original text referenced in the New Testament, it seems to make more sense that Christians choose to respect the sources of these quotes from the Hebrew Old Testament, which were completed long before the New Testament, between 1200 and 165 years prior.
Note 1: Torah, also known as the Pentateuch, consists of the first five books of the Old Testament in the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Comments