THE RIDDLE OF EXODUS 34: JUDAISM AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

BY Matt Woodmass

Much water has gone under the bridge over the last two thousand years of religious history, yet there persist few subjects more controversial to the modern Jew than that of Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise known as Yeshua.  Yet, with each successive generation of Jews and Christians, there exists the opportunity to view the issue with new sets of eyes and perhaps from a fresh perspective.

This paper cannot hope to conclusively address the full body of evidence and thought that must be accounted for by both Jews and Gentiles when weighing this issue for themselves.  However, it is hoped that a compelling case will be presented that Yeshua stands firmly in the biblical atonement tradition established by Moses, and is the only satisfying answer to the demands of the Tanakh.

To many of the Jewish people today, the historical person of Yeshua has been overshadowed by the many atrocities committed against the Jews by so-called Christianity.  This must be addressed before a meaningful discussion of Yeshua himself can be undertaken.

Next, an important doctrine of the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, and Writings) will be examined from the perspective of the text itself, modern Rabbinic Judaism, and finally the New Testament.  An effort will be made to fairly represent all three traditions, but the Tanakh will be given the role of  moderator, being the authoritative text to which both later religious traditions must answer.

Smoke gets in our eyes

Much has been done in the name of Jesus that would justifiably cause any Jewish person to cringe at the mention of the word Christianity.  Without making light of the realities of history, it is hoped that the difference between Yeshua and the things that have been done by those who claimed to represent Him will be made clear so the reader may be enabled to consider Yeshua on His own merit, apart from the actions of those who have misrepresented Him.  A supposed representative of Yeshua will be examined, then compared to the teachings and actions of Yeshua as well as the man who wrote much of the New Testament, Rabbi Sha'ul (Paul).

The Catholic Church

Bishop John Chrysostom was a fourth century figure in the Catholic Church.  He occupied a place of prominence and labeled the Jewish people as murderers of Yeshua.  This rhetoric placed Jews at high risk in Christian cities, and led to acts of retribution.¹

How did Yeshua himself speak of his life and death?  He said, “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.  I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.  This command I have received from My Father” (John 10:18)².  Yeshua squashed this accusation against the Jews before his death even took place.

Paul, known in his day as Rabbi Sha'ul, wrote in his letter to the Romans that he would gladly lay down his own life if it meant that his Jewish brothers would recognize their Messiah.³ These words from the writer of much of the New Testament sound nothing like a man who blamed his own people for the death of Yeshua.

As Jews, what would have come of Yeshua and Rabbi Sha'ul had they lived under the rule of Bishop John Chrysostom?  It is more than likely they would have faced discrimination and retribution based on their Jewishness right along side their own people.

The Spanish Inquisition

In the fifteenth century, Spanish Jews faced expulsion, death, or forced conversion under Pope Innocent III.  Those who converted and were baptized to avoid punishment were watched carefully by the church to see if they were practicing “heresy” such as resting on Shabbat, keeping the feast days, or failing to eat pork.⁴

Where would Yeshua have found Himself if He had faced Pope Innocent III?  In Luke 4:16 we read that it was His custom to go to the local Synagogue on Shabbat, where he taught.  Luke 2:41 records that Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem each year to celebrate Passover, and in John 5:1 it is said that Jesus continued this tradition.  He was known to attend all the Jewish Feast days including Sukkoth and Hanukkah.⁵

Likewise Paul is described as going to Jerusalem to keep the feast in Acts 18:21.  Concerning the Passover, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:8, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”.

It becomes most clear that both Yeshua and Paul would have faced persecution along with the Jewish people had they lived in the days of Pope Innocent III.

The Holocaust

Though the Holocaust was driven by an atheistic evolutionary paradigm, Hitler did make religious claims.  He declared in Mein Kampf, “Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”.⁶

Would such a claim have been backed up by Yeshua himself?  The first chapter of the book of Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament, makes it abundantly clear that Yeshua was a Jew of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David.  If Yeshua believed that the Jewish people were his enemies, it seems strange that a special effort would be made by his disciple to demonstrate his teacher's thoroughly Jewish lineage.

What about the writer of the bulk of the New Testament?  Did he promote such ideas?  On the contrary, it is recorded in Acts 22:1-3 that Paul declared his Jewishness publicly in the Hebrew language.

It is known that Hitler's program was bent against any person with any trace of Jewish blood.  It is then undeniable that if Yeshua and Paul had lived under Hitler in Nazi Germany, they would have suffered the same terrible fate as that of their fellow Jews.

The riddle of Exodus 34

One point of common ground between the modern Jew and the believer in Yeshua is the Law of Moses as God's revelation of His will for man.  Yet in the book of Exodus, it is said that God revealed His Identity to Moses with the words, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:5-7).  The Scriptures teach that the Lord does not change,⁷ making this statement as relevant to modern man as it was to Moses.  As He reveals his very character to Moses, God is clearly presenting mankind with a paradox – a riddle, even.  The riddle is this: how can God be both merciful, gracious and forgiving if he will not clear the guilty?

The Tanakh will be looked to for the answer it provides, and the teachings of modern-day Rabbinic Judaism will be compared with those of the New Testament so as to understand which worldview provides an answer that upholds the revealed character of God.

Ancient Judaism

In the Tanakh, who had the authority to define morality?  The first concept of sin occurs in Genesis 2:17 : “...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”.  It is clear that God alone defines morality, and determines the penalty for willful transgression – death.  True to His word, God killed animals as substitutes for the immediate death of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed this basic command, making a covering (atonement) of animal skins for their shame.  The process of physical death also began for Adam and Eve themselves.  When the Law of Moses was given, God again is seen as the only moral law-giver.⁸

How is sin dealt with in the Mosaic Covenant?  We read that each time a willful offense was committed, the offender would either forfeit their own life or offer a suitable sacrifice.⁹ Leviticus 17:11 sums up the sacrificial system well when it says, “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”.  What made a sacrifice eligible to function as a substitute?  The phrase “without blemish” is used over thirty times with reference to sacrifice for sin in the Law of Moses alone.¹⁰ Certainly the animal was to be without physical blemish, but it should also be considered that although an animal is capable of harm as well as useful work, willful moral actions are not attributed to animals.  This would make the eligible sacrifice also without moral blemish – that is, free from rebellion towards his Creator.  In the Tanakh, the same word (חטּאה) is used for sin as for sin offering.¹¹ This gives us the concept of transfer of moral guilt to the otherwise morally uncorrupted sacrifice – that is, the justice of God was satisfied when the sin offering was treated as if it carried the offense of the transgressor.    The Mosaic Covenant demonstrates the uncompromising moral goodness of God.

Did the sacrificial system provide and adequate answer for the riddle of Exodus 34?  Yes – God was true to His promise to punish sin without compromise, yet He was free to show mercy to His chosen people Israel because that punishment was satisfied with the blood of a worthy
substitute sacrifice.  God's Name was shown great as he operated among His people in both justice and mercy.

Rabbinic Judaism

In present-day Judaism, who is said to be responsible for defining morality?  Some modern Jews would affirm the teaching of the Tanakh wherein God alone determines morality.  However, there exists an even stronger sentiment within Judaism today that the Law of Sinai is no longer relevant to our modern culture, and must therefore be overwritten to produce the current form of religious law called halacha.^12,13 The need for halacha was felt because, after the events of 70 C.E. and the destruction of the sacrificial system, the approach to God as outlined in the Tanach was no longer possible.¹⁴ Without the Temple, the nation had to innovate in order to find a new way to deal with the problem of sin.  The existence today of Jewish legislative bodies that make halachic rulings directly contradicting the Law of Moses¹⁵ point to the spiritual dilemma faced by modern Jews.  The general attitude is illustrated in the account of the Oven of Akhnai from the Babylonian Talmud.  Rabbi Eliezer had been arguing a specific interpretation of halacha, and since his fellow Rabbis would not listen to his arguments or his miracles, he called on Heaven to prove that he was right.  Then...

"An echo came forth, saying, 'What business have you with R. Eliezer, for the law accords with his position under all circumstances!'  R. Joshua stood up on his feet and said, 'It is  not in heaven’ (Dt. 30:12).  What is the sense of, “‘It is not in heaven’" (Dt. 30:12)?  Said  R. Jeremiah, '[The sense of Joshua’s statement is this:] For the Torah has already been given from Mount Sinai, so we do not pay attention to echoes, since you have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, "‘After the majority you are to incline"’ (Ex 23:2).  R. Nathan came upon Elijah and said to him, 'What did the Holy One, blessed be he, do at that moment?' He said to him, 'He laughed and said, ‘"My children have overcome me, my children have overcome me!’”¹⁶

This position recognizes that God has been the ultimate authority over morality, but then proceeds to place God under man’s moral authority as one who has been overcome.  This usurps God's authority over man,¹⁷ and disregard's Israels promise to the Lord at Sinai.¹⁸

What solution does modern Judaism offer to atone for sin?  Leo Baeck stated, “Only the right deed places man in the presence of God at all times and only it can be demanded of him at all times.  Through it alone can man reach that deep inner unity with God, as well as that other unity with his fellow men...”¹⁹ Thus, good works alone are considered enough to atone for sin.

Another view states that the collective sufferings of the Jewish people provide atonement for each Jew, and still another believes that Jewish people are assured a happy afterlife simply because of their Jewishness.²⁰

Does modern Judaism provide a satisfactory answer to the riddle of Exodus 34?  Firstly, modern Judaism must deal with the apparent contradiction between the idea that the Torah has been given to man to do with as he pleases, and other scriptures in the Tanakh.  For example, built into the Law itself is Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you”.  One must also face the seeming misuse of Exodus 23:2 by R. Jeremiah to support following majority opinion over the decrees of God.  The passage reads, “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil...”.  Additionally, the doctrine that the “right deed” is enough to atone for sin seems to be directly contradicted by the Prophet Isaiah: “You are indeed angry, for we have sinned – In these ways we continue; and we need to be saved.  But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:5-6).  Isaiah tells us that when we offer our good deeds before a God who is angry because of our sin, we merely offer Him a pile of unclean rags.  Let us not forget that blood is required for the forgiveness of sins (Recall Leviticus 17:11).  This also rules out atonement based on ethnicity since the Law of Moses was given to the Jewish people and yet God required sacrifice to atone for their sin.

What about the historic suffering of the Jewish nation as a whole?  Does this provide a satisfying answer to the problem of sin?  Recalling that the Law requires the being offering the blood sacrifice to be unblemished, could the nation of Israel be described as unblemished before God?  The present writer wishes to acknowledge that there is no doubt in the Tanakh or in the New Testament that Israel will always be the chosen people of God, and that He has an eternal interest in their welfare.²¹ The object of this discussion will not be to make light of the horrendous suffering endured by the Jewish people through the ages.  However, it must be recognized that the degree to which God stands by the truthfulness of His decrees is a reflection of His character of truth, and that the degree to which He upholds His written standard of atonement for sin is a testament to His true holiness.  What, then, has God revealed in His written word about the eligibility of a substitutionary sacrifice, and does the corporate suffering of the Jewish people qualify for such a substitution?  It will be remembered that according to the Law of Moses, one morally and physically uncorrupted being, finite in nature, was required to give of it’s blood as a substitute for one morally corrupted and finite being each time an offense was committed.  The predicament one is faced with is this: according to the Law of Moses, in order for the sufferings of the Jewish people to atone for their own sins, it must be believed that for every willful offense committed by each Jewish individual, one Jewish person who was eligible to stand as a substitutionary sacrifice (that is, one who was completely morally unblemished) gave his or her own lifeblood.  This is unfathomable.  However, if God accepts anything less than this He must diminish His own standard of atonement and thereby contradict the Law He gave to Moses.

The present writer respectfully submits that modern Rabbinic Judaism’s solutions to the problem of sin do not honor the atonement tradition of the Jewish nation previous to 70 C.E., directly contradict the words of God in the Law of Moses, and would diminish the holiness and truthfulness of God.
The New Testament

How does the New Testament teach the doctrine of sin?  Who has the authority to define morality?  The New Testament writers and Yeshua himself made no effort to redefine or reinterpret the Law of Moses or any part of the Tanakh.  Yeshua taught, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.  I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot [yod] or one tittle [smallest stroke] will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...” (Matthew 5:17-19a).  The New Testament teaches, “...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 4:4).

Does the New Testament provide a satisfactory answer to the riddle of Exodus 34?  If Yeshua taught that original Law of Moses is still in full effect, and yet the New Testament does not teach that believers should sacrifice for their sins, is this not the same predicament faced by modern Judaism?  The New Testament rules out good deeds as enough to approach God: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:19-20).  If the law’s standard is not lowered and good deeds are insufficient, there remains only a substitutionary sacrifice.  We demonstrated that the suffering of the Jewish people is not enough, according to the Law of Moses, to atone for sin because of their sacrificial ineligibility.  How does the New Testament handle the issue of substitution?  Simon Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, appealed to the prophet Isaiah²² to explain this riddle to his fellow believers in Yeshua:

"Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted.  But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ."(Isaiah 53:4-6)

Furthermore, the connection is made in the New Testament with Passover, describing Yeshua as our Passover Lamb, slain for us.²³ Anyone inside a household which had applied the blood to the door was spared from death not by works, but simply by the merit of the blood of the lamb.  This is the imagery used in the New Testament to describe what Yeshua accomplished for us when he laid down his own life on the tree.

Since this is the case the New Testament is making, Yeshua must be subjected to the criteria of sacrificial eligibility found in the Law of Moses.  Was Yeshua morally uncorrupted?  The New Testament declares it to be so, but how is it possible for a man to be entirely morally pure?  The answer to this question lies in the answer to an even bigger question: even if Yeshua was morally pure and he “was bruised for our iniquities”, how could the Lord lay on one man “the iniquity of us all”?  The answer to both these questions lies in the very nature of the Messiah.  It will be remembered that under the Mosaic Law a single finite, yet morally pure animal could take the place of one finite and morally corrupt person.  Yet, if there could be a substitute who was infinite in nature as well as morally pure, such a sacrifice would have the power to atone for and infinite number of finite transgressors.  There would be no need for repeated sacrifice, for the ultimate price had already been paid.  And yet, which being is infinite in nature but God?  This raises a serious question.  Does the Tanakh expect the Messiah to be divine in His nature?

Although this question is complex, four passages will be offered as an introduction to this subject.  Firstly, Genesis 3:15 reads, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel”.  Here God is pronouncing the curse on the serpent, yet also giving a prophecy concerning the future Seed of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent and receive a fatal wound.  This figure is commonly understood to be the Messiah who will crush the devil, yet it is interesting that He is called not the Seed of Adam, but the Seed of Eve.  The promise does not close the issue of who the father of this Seed will be.

Secondly, in 1 Chronicles 17:11-13 the Lord promises David, “I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne forever.  I will be his Father, and he shall be My son...”  This passage indicates very clearly that the coming seed of David will be considered by God to be His very own Son, and that this Son will have an eternal throne.  That Solomon’s dynasty came to a definite end should indicate to the reader that Solomon was not the promised seed of David, lest we make God out to be a liar.  There remains, therefore, another seed of the house of David in which the promise will be fulfilled.

Thirdly, God promises in Isaiah 9:6-7,

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His     shoulder.  And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting     Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever.  The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will perform this."

This prophecy clearly states several that should be considered in conflict and blasphemous if the coming Messiah would not be divine: He will be born of a woman, He will be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father, and he will reign from that time into eternity.  This man called Almighty God will not be opposed by God for this seemingly blasphemous title, rather “the zeal of the LORD of Hosts will perform this.”  Any man whom God declares to be Mighty God and Everlasting Father may safely be said to participate in the divine nature.

This is exactly what is claimed of Yeshua in the New Testament.²⁴ The Tanakh provides the foundation for understanding how any one substitutionary sacrifice could possibly atone for numerous sins of many people, while upholding the Law of Moses and fulfilling Isaiah 53’s declaration that “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all”.  The New Testament also presents a convincing case that Yeshua was resurrected from the dead and continues to reign, though this argument is outside the scope of this paper.

The solution offered by the New Testament in the person of Yeshua adequately answers the riddle of Exodus 34 without diminishing God’s self-revelation, deals fully with the problem of atonement for sin,  fulfills Messianic prophecy, and is Jewish at its heart.
Conclusion

Though this study may present as many questions as it does answers in the mind of the thoughtful reader, it is hoped that a compelling case has been made that Yeshua stands firmly in the biblical atonement tradition established by Moses, and is Himself the only satisfying answer to the demands of the Tanakh.

Endnotes

1. Telchin (2002), p. 59.

2. Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations are taken from the New King James version of the Holy Bible

3. Romans 9:3-5.

4. Telchin (2002), p. 66.

5. John 7, 10:22.

6. Hitler (1969), p. 60.

7. See Malachi 3:6.

8. Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

9. Leviticus 4:3, for example.

10. See Exodus 12:5, Leviticus 1:3, Numbers 6:14 for examples.

11. Compare Exodus 29:36 to 32:34.

12. Dictionary.com, LLC. (n.d.), on-line document. “Halacha: Jewish religious law.”

13. The Movement for Reform Judaism (n.d.), on-line document. “...halachah is that which renders the static text of the Bible fluid and relevant in our lives...”

14. See Kac (1983), p. 62.

15. Dorff/Nevins/Reisner (2006), p. 19. The legal decision to endorse homosexuality by the Rabbinical Assembly.

16. Neusner (2011), p. 287; or b.B.M. 59b.

17. Exodus 20:3.

18. See Deut 26:17.

19.Baeck (1948), p. 56, n.13.

20. House (2006), Chart 21.

21.See Genesis 12:3, Jeremiah 31:35-37, Romans 11:25-29.

22. He does this in 1 Peter 2:20-25.

23. See 1 Corinthians 5:7.

24. See John 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1969.

The Movement for Reform Judaism. Contemporary Issues: Halachah. (n.d.) Available from  http://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/a-to-z-of-reform-judaism/contemporary-issues/halachah.html (accessed 25 Nov. 2011).

Telchin, Stan. Abandoned: What is God’s will for the Jewish people and the church? Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books, 2002.

Dictionary.com, LLC. Halacha. (n.d.) Available from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/halacha (accessed 25 Nov. 2011)

Kac, Arthur W. The Spiritual Dilemma of the Jewish People. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Dorff, Elliot N., Daniel S. Nevins, and Avram I. Reisner. Homosexuality, Human Dignity & Halakhah: a combined responsum for the committee on Jewish law and standards. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2006.

Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. vol. 14. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2011.

Baeck, Leo. The Essence of Judaism. New York: Shocken Books, 1948.  Quoted in Arthur W. Kac, The Spiritual Dilemma of the Jewish People. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

House, H. Wayne. Charts of World Religions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.