The whole concept of subtitutionary atonement was already being questioned by the time of the prophets. And the idea of another human paying the price for one's own sin was specifically repudiated.
Quote:
"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)
Maimonides commented that performing sacrifices was something that the
Israelites wanted, and that God permitted it, but then gradually weaned them away from it. Fundamentalist Jews today disregard this, wishing to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifice.
There were two primary theological responses to the destruction of the second temple. It was still believed that sin needed to be atoned for. The Pharisees, whose school developed into rabbinic Judaism in the centuries after the destruction of the temple, replaced sacrifice with prayer and good works. The basis for this theology was developed over the preceding centuries during the Babylonian captivity, when there was no temple available for sacrifices, and also in the diaspora, where Jews lived with no access to the temple. The Christian movement grafted mystery religion mythology onto a Jewish root, and replaced ongoing animal sacrifices with the "one time for all" sacrifice of a dying-and-resurrecting god-man savior.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
