Yom Kippur (יום הכפרים) begins tonight. This is the most holy day on the Jewish calendar. Also known as “the Day of Atonement” Jews fast, pray, and participate in other rituals of repentance. Texts like Leviticus 23.27-28 mention this day along within narrative context that gives this day meaning. In ancient times this day would have included a major tabernacle/temple sacrifice, something that became impossible after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
This morning I read an article by Paula Fredriksen (cheesily) titled, “Yom Kippur: WWJD?” In this article she asks whether Jesus participated in Yom Kippur. There seems to be no reason to assume that he did not. Fredriksen writes,
On Yom Kippur, then, what did Jesus do? We cannot know, of course; but within these historical parameters, we can guess. Jesus fasted and he prayed, together with his community. He took his own measure, mingling regret and resolve. He reflected on the year just past, and looked ahead to the year forthcoming. And as so many of his parables say — indeed as Philo, his contemporary, also said — Jesus took comfort in a gracious god, who welcomed not only the “perfect” but also the penitent.
For some Christians this idea may be discomforting: a humbled, penitent Jesus? Modern Christians would not be alone. One can read the account of Jesus’ baptism in the Gospel of Mark (1.9-11) followed by that of Matthew (3.13-17). Matthew depicts John as being quite uncomfortable with the idea of baptizing Jesus, asking Jesus to baptize him. It seems that Matthew must give a reason for messiah to be baptized because the baptism of John emphasized repentance, so Jesus says, “…it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” I am not saying that this conversation did not occur, but assuming Markan Priority it seems that Matthew needed to expand the narrative a bit.
This does show that the idea of Jesus as sinless is an idea that developed quite early. Jesus as the atoning priest who is the sacrifice himself is found in the Pauline Epistles, the Book of Hebrews, the Gospel of John, the Apocalypse: Jesus is the “mercy seat,” the “lamb,” and a “priest in the order of Melchizedek” to name a few images.
I am not denying the orthodox confession that Jesus was without sin. I do think that this is a good example of the different “language games” being used when one does a study of Jesus through the historical-critical lens and when one does this same study through a confessional-dogmatic lens. For those of us who are “both/and” rather than “either/or” this can become quite complicated.
the archives near Emmaus 
this made me think about new things… thank you…
This is a great post. Very provocative.
The mystery of the incarnation is filled with questions and I don’t wish to fall into a humanity that was hyper spiritualized as some Pentecostal Teachers I know do. Nor do I want to feel like I am a docetist and make Jesus only appear to be human. However, for intellectual honesty I think I tend to look more at Jesus’ humanity than his divinity, if that is even possible.
As it stands right now in my mind I see nothing that would preclude Jesus from Yom Kippur. So if he did participate what does that mean?
I don’t know and I do not wish to say anything that would be perceived as a heretic. So I will just leave this with some questions I pondered with my friend who was asked these same questions in one of his classes at Princeton Theological Seminary as he was working on his ThM.
Did Jesus ever have ceremonial uncleanliness? Or was he able to overcome them such as when he touched the women with issue of blood. Did he ever disobey his mother or was he the perfect child, completely obedient?
Did Jesus celebrate the ‘Day of Atonement”? In a sense he did. Jesus spent one Passover, hanging on a cross, making the celebration of Passover and the ‘Day of Atonement’ one.
Is there need to celebrate the ‘Day of Atonement’ today? Only if one believes the Day of Atonement Jesus effected was insufficient or ineffective.
Andrew
Did it ever dawn on you that Yahshua gave us a way to perform Passover and Atonement without animal sacrafices. Since the age of the gentiles was near and for the gospel to be spread thru out the whole world then there needed to be a change in the covenant . For this to happen there could not just be a temple in Jerusalem because it would of been impossible for all to acesss so it was moved to heaven. There would also need to be a High Priest to Mediate so the levite priesthood was abandoned and the old order was reinstated. And finally a new type of sacrafice was offered. This sacrafice served several purposes. It gave a way for the promise to Abraham’s physical seed and those who also accept the words of the renewed covenant to uphold the words of the covenant so they can take part in the land promise made to Abraham and his offspring. This renewed covenant was also ratified by the blood of Yahshua. Second It redeemed all humanity from the exile of the Elohim’s presence allowing all mankind to stand in the presence of the Elohim to be judged because without judgement death is final. This Grace was on account of Yahshua’s perfection and before it ALL mankind was doomed to never have a chance at eternal life.which was also promised to Abraham when it is said ALL NATIONS would be blessed by his SEED. While both promises all nations can become heirs ,only one is by Grace only and the other requires Doing His Commandments.
Yes Yahshua took part in all ceremonial events but not because he had to but because he loved the reason they were given
Yes, Brian, great post! Jesus was no Christian. He walked around the Temple, circumcised. Did he metaphorically also need a “circumcised heart” or not? Did he need to make sure his bread – for certain times – was rid of leaven? Was he more special than his fellow Jewish sisters and brothers? How about Paul? Last year, at another blog, we asked about whether he observed Yom Kippur: http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2011/10/07/barnstones-saint-pauls-yom-kippur/.
And have you read Harvey Cox’s “A Christian Observes Yom Kippur”? http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2110 Might help with the Jesus question you’re asking some, as might comments by Theophrastus at my BLT blogpost on Paul linked above.
Robert, it not only occurred to me but constitutes the core of my thinking about Yahshua, and the messianic nature of the old covenant. Even with defective insight (on my part), anyone who reads the bible should also arrive at the same consideration you’re asking me about. For example – what does these mean:
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.” [Isa 1;11]
“Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” [1 Sam 15:22]
By insight or otherwise, everyone should plainly see deficiency in ‘animal sacrifice’.
(Why do you ask if I’ve considered it? Does it seem I haven’t?)
I forgot to mention, I actually believe the ‘temple’ as a building of stone and gold, was a much bigger deal to the false-worshippers and their theology (in the old covenant) than to God and to the faithful who were under the covenant, as Abraham was.
“Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will all of you build me? says the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?” [ Acts 7:49] suggests this.
I don’t believe the old covenant does, (even if you point me to Solomon). When God was displeased with Israel, he removed their hedge (same word for ‘booth’ AND ‘sanctuary’), his spirit from amongst them. It was his spirit that filled them, that was in their midst, and made the temple the tabernacle.
What was Pentecost but ‘In that day I shall raise up the booth (also hedge AND sanctuary) of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me.” (again with the sacrifices) [Amos 9:11]
… Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? [1 Cor 6:19].
“Is there need to celebrate the ‘Day of Atonement’ today? Only if one believes the Day of Atonement Jesus effected was insufficient or ineffective.”
Andrew
well i believe we can celebrate the Passover and Yom Kippur by using the way Yahsua gave us for Sacrafice in the Last Supper but only as a personal or family celebration not a national one. I dont believe we could use animal sacrafices because that would be denying the true sacrafice.
If you mean this by the statement above then we agree
I agree that our body can be temple for comforters(holy spirits) to indwell if we properly cleanse it because Yahshua body was the temple of The Holy Spirit. But this indewling is to teach us how to be perfect in His(YAH’s) Commandmets . If someone doesnt want to take hold of the renewed (progressive) covenant of a set apart people then they still receive of the promise of Grace. Both promises were giving to Abraham
I think we agree Robert (mostly) …
.. For example, yes I believe Communion/Last Supper is continuous ‘Day of Atonement’, and Easter both specific Day of Atonement/Pass Over. Yom Kipper without the cross or bread/wine is unmerited and extraneous therefore.
However, with respect to revelation and covenant I hold pretty firmly to a view of God suggested in [James 1:17] “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” I’ve been criticised for this, but I believe if God is without ‘variation or shadow due to change’ necessitates that there can be no ‘progressive anything’.
What I mean then is that if we see the old covenant as somehow defect compared to the new covenant we cannot conclude that we’re gazing at separate images (like in a mirror). Some people do that .. they gaze in the old covenant and see something quite different than what they see in the new. Not me.
I believe that God has only ever showed ONE image, the same in each covenant; a reflection of a covenant between Himself as bridegroom and one bride (Israel) – without shade or variation. Jesus categorized the old covenant saying it ALL pointed to him “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” [Luke 24:44-45] and his relationship with his bride [Matt 15:24]. That’s what it means that the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it (meaning HIM as the manifestation of the righteousness of God) [Romans 3:21]
If there appears to be a progressive revelation then, what has ‘progressed’ is not God’s intent, or what he has shown, but our ability to recognize what he has shown. The image has always been clear. Not so our understanding.
Andrew
I believe the covenant made with Abraham is the same as the new covenant as to the promises made by the Elohim , this has not changed.
But the conditions to those that came after Abraham have progressed but can not change the promises
Also, your understanding of ‘Elohim’ isn’t quite clear to me. What do you mean by ‘the exile of the Elohim’s presence’, and ‘allowing all mankind to stand in the presence of the Elohim to be judged’?
I sense you possess some type of theology around the Elohim, I’m not aware of.
I like your emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus. Until I found a new book, Cover-Up: How the Church Silenced Jesus’s True Heirs, I had not ideaof how prominent women were in the early church. For instance, I had never heard of the New Testament apostle, Junia, possibly because the church tried to turn her into a male: Junius (there’s no such name).But what’s fascinating is that the Jewish followers of Jesus, the subject of the book, seem to have influenced later groups such as the 10th century Cathars and the later Lollards where women as well as men played leading roles. Although this is not the main thesis of the book, the author has thoughtfully provided an appendix covering the subject of empowered women starting with Jesus’s women disciples (such as Mary Magdalene). I think this is a very exciting read. I found it at: http://tinyurl.com/69cazll.
When Adam sinned mankind could not be looked upon by the Elohim without a covering and was exiled from the Elohim’s presence .
Yahshua’ blood became that covering , this covering covers all from Adam to the last and is permanent not temporary. This is the blessing to all nations promised to Abraham that his seed would fulfill. This is just a promise ,it is not the covenant made with Abram that he and his offspring and those joined would OWN and live in all the land shown if they took hold of the covenant of Abraham which was regiven with civil laws which then was perfected with the perfect sacrafice . only things that changed were the things which were just shadows which were the temple, priesthood, kingship and sacrafices. The civil laws ceased when they were ruled by other nations because they had to follow the laws of where they were exiled.
There is 2 promises in play ,one of physical inheritance(1st resurrection) and on of Grace to all mankind (2nd ) .Rev 20 explains this very well
Salvation is by Grace but the reward of Abraham(1000 year kingdom) is by Grace and obedience
We’ll have to forego a discuss a discussion about the meaning of the Abrahamic covenant for some other time, some other post.
Where do you get the idea “When Adam sinned mankind could not be looked upon by the Elohim without a covering and was exiled from the Elohim’s presence” (not the part about being exiled, the first part) and “Yahshua’ blood became that covering”?
Starting with Genesis 3:21 the Elohim provided the first sacrifice and covering of man . then looking to Genesis 4:4–5 we find that a sacrifice had been commanded and had to be an animal to again provide this covering . Then in Genesis 8:20–21 we find Noah performing this sacrifice . To understand this sacrifice we turn to Hebrews 9:12 to find this sacrifice was perfected by Yahshua and was for eternal redemption which was lost with Adam . Then Hebrews 9:22 states without blood there can not be a covering for sin.
For a man to be given eternal life he must first stand in judgement , this does not happen till the great white judgement, those in the first resurrection could still die the second death but it would not hold them because eternal life is given after this age.
I dont understand how people can sin then claim Yahshua died for it without feeling like a murderer. the fact is you will be judged by your own sins because Yahshua redeemed us from the curse of certain eternal death
I see. How you understand ‘Elohim’?
Some people use the word God but i use Elohim.
The Elohim are the Creator and the first creation Wisdom, the Havah, the breath of life ,the very same Chavah (Eve) was named after
How do you come to that?
I accept your argument about coverings, incidentally, but I’m still skeptical about the rest.
Easily
first the plural of the masc-fem EL
Wisdom is spoken of as being the first creation through out the OT, and is referred to as the mother in the NT.
while I am not a Christadelphian ,this is very gathered so to save space here
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?s=6b03a5318a82415b9ed54e9e133a1c00&showtopic=615
I think there another simple reason that Jesus would have observed Yom Kippur, based on his Jewish context. Yom Kippur is understood to be a *communal* confession by the Jewish people before God. Certainly each person is supposed to repent of his or her sins. But it’s not just every individual standing alone and examining his or her own heart, it’s the people coming together before God in repentance. The traditional liturgy includes a long list of sins that everyone recites, whether or not each person has committed them. The understanding is that Jews are responsible for each other, so everyone asks for forgiveness, even if it was someone else who committed the sin. Considering that Jesus died for the sins of his people, it seems completely appropriate that he would take part in their communal confession of sin.