animal sacrifice

[Bessica]

Hello. I'm having trouble understanding why the Old Testament requires so many animal sacrifices. It seems sacrificing animals was a way to honor God and a way for God to forgive sins. I don't understand why God would need or want to treat animals this way. Can we explain this simply as cultural influence that made it into the Bible? I mean, this is just how people thought back then, so God allowed it?
Thanks.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hello. I'm having trouble understanding why the Old Testament requires so many animal sacrifices. It seems sacrificing animals was a way to honor God and a way for God to forgive sins. I don't understand why God would need or want to treat animals this way. Can we explain this simply as cultural influence that made it into the Bible? I mean, this is just how people thought back then, so God allowed it?
Thanks.

Hi,

The fact that people have to ask this in the church today is symptomatic of where the church is and our failure to teach our predicament accurately. Please indulge me a little, and I think it will make sense.

The animal sacrifice thing was actually God's idea, but to understand it I want to first give something pretty hard, but if we consider it we may begin to understand God's view of our situation: what sin is in God's eyes, and the dire situation we find ourselves in. This is a view of what sin is, given from the eyes of a Bible teacher of days gone by:

"What is sin? Sin is saying, “I renounce the God who made me. I disallow His right to govern me. I care not what He says to me, what commandments He has given, nor how earnestly He implores me. I prefer self-indulgence to His approval. I am indifferent to all He has done to and for me. His blessings and gifts move me not. I am going to be lord of myself.”

It is the excellence of God and the infinite perfections of His glorious being which renders Him worthy of and entitled to our supreme love and fullest obedience. Our failure to love so lovable an Object as the God of love is that which chiefly renders us to blame and is the crime of crimes.

The evil of sin arises from our obligation to love and serve Him who is infinitely glorious. The language of every sinner’s heart is, “I care not what God requires; I’m going to have my own way. I care not what God’s claims are upon me. I refuse to submit to His authority. I care not what He has threatened to do to those that defy Him; I will not be intimidated. His eyes may be upon me, but I am not going to be restrained thereby. I care not what He loves and what He hates; I shall please myself.”
But when the Holy Spirit enlightens and convicts a soul, his language is, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.”

True repentance issues from a realization in the heart, produced therein by the Holy Spirit, of the sinfulness of sin, of the awfulness of ignoring the claims of God and defying His authority." A.W. Pink

It is from such a standpoint of the awfulness of sin that God requires our death or the death of Another.
I'll continue a little later.
H.

 

[wayseer]

Hello. I'm having trouble understanding why the Old Testament requires so many animal sacrifices. It seems sacrificing animals was a way to honor God and a way for God to forgive sins. I don't understand why God would need or want to treat animals this way. Can we explain this simply as cultural influence that made it into the Bible? I mean, this is just how people thought back then, so God allowed it?
Thanks.

I also have trouble understanding this apparently insatiable need. I mean, the Temple must have been more like an abattoir than a place for worship. And can you image the stench? Apart from choking on the smoke the whole place must have been a mecca for every fly within miles.

There are some functional aspect to consider. One was the need to feed the Levites who sole job was to look after the sacrificial ceremonies and to carry out their priestly duties.

The other was it set up a nice little business for many people just supplying these animals.

But don't forget there were no such things as butcher's shops in those days. Even Rome in all its glory had to go through much the same process which had the functional aspect of supplying the populace with protein.

So I am inclined to agree that the who process was more cultural than what we would like to believe. Many of the Prophets called attention to the fact that God desired contrition and integrity rather animal sacrifices.

 

[Bessica]

[/COLOR] It is from such a standpoint of the awfulness of sin that God requires our death or the death of Another.

I understand the gravity of sin, but I haven't been able to understand how killing all these animals has anything to do with God's forgiveness.

 

[Bessica]

So I am inclined to agree that the who process was more cultural than what we would like to believe. Many of the Prophets called attention to the fact that God desired contrition and integrity rather animal sacrifices.

I have recently been pressed on this issue. I have been told that a demand for burnt offerings is totally in line with neighboring pagan cultures. What some of the prophets said makes much more sense, but I don't know how to deal with God's orders and seeming approval.

 

[Codger]

No no no! God instituted the rituals of the Old Covenant in order to teach us in a literal way the coming of the spiritual realm of the New Covanant.

The minimum sacrifice that was offered daily was the morning and the evening sacrifice. The evening sacrifice was made about 2:30pm. These two tamid lambs were offered every day without fail. These two lambs were symbolic of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus who was the perfect lamb of God. There are many references to this in the NT.

The literal ritual of Jubilees was looking forward to the day when Jesus would set the captives free spiritually - forgive their sins. He died on the year of 29 Jubilee.

There are countless types from the Old Covanant that are shown in antitypes in the New Covenant and tell of the accomplishments of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Bessica]

No no no! God instituted the rituals of the Old Covenant in order to teach us in a literal way the coming of the spiritual realm of the New Covanant.

The minimum sacrifice that was offered daily was the morning and the evening sacrifice. The evening sacrifice was made about 2:30pm. These two tamid lambs were offered every day without fail. These two lambs were symbolic of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus who was the perfect lamb of God. There are many references to this in the NT.

The literal ritual of Jubilees was looking forward to the day when Jesus would set the captives free spiritually - forgive their sins. He died on the year of 29 Jubilee.

There are countless types from the Old Covanant that are shown in antitypes in the New Covenant and tell of the accomplishments of Jesus on the cross.

I see the parallel: the animals were seen as receiving the punishment for the sinners.
I think I get the foreshadowing, but not well enough to argue it myself. My friend always points to the passages that portray God as enjoying the odor of the offering and says that other gods were the same way back then. So was God actually appeased temporarily by these offerings or was this system solely a means to alter how the Israelites thought of sin, death, and forgiveness?

Ps That’s really interesting…I never realized that Jesus died on the year of Jubilee. Is that from scripture or from other sources?

 

[wayseer]

I have recently been pressed on this issue. I have been told that a demand for burnt offerings is totally in line with neighboring pagan cultures. What some of the prophets said makes much more sense, but I don't know how to deal with God's orders and seeming approval.

Many of us wrestle with those same issues - you are not alone. I would much rather have a 'user-friendly' Bible but I guess we are stuck with what we have.

Indeed, the Yahweh culture of the 1 millennium BC reflect much of the surrounding culture. The significance is not in the similarities, but in the differences.

The significant difference was that the tribes which we call Hebrews worshiped one God - not a whole bathtub full of squeaking ducks so to speak.

But I think you need to recognise that what we do all too often is read into the biblical texts 21st century meanings and ideas. What we have to try to do is to suspend our own ideas and beliefs and try to understand just what those early scribes were struggling with. (Bad wayseer ends sentence with a preposition).

As I indicated, much of what they did was purely functional in aspect - the ritual served a purpose beyond what the texts indicate. Sure, there may have been a sacrificial aspect to burning animals, and it was a step up from cooking children, but the process also was a means of distributing much needed protein among the peoples.

Three thousand years is a long time and our ancient brothers and sisters were a pretty gross lot. What the texts do give us is a pretty good window on how society and culture operated. But remember, if either of us had lived back then we would have seen nothing really unusual in what was going on. We might had some misgivings about the politics of it all, as we do today, but doing essential the same things.

I guess the question then arises, how much do we take as 'being of God' rather than purely cultural influences? And that is something of an arm wrestle.

 

[wayseer]

I never realized that Jesus died on the year of Jubilee. Is that from scripture or from other sources?

We don't know in which year Jesus died. The historian, Josephus, who access to Roman records, does not date Jesus' death. We can only narrow it down to the years when Pilate was procurator.

As far as I know Josephus makes no mention of a Jubilee during the period of his writings.

There are supposedly Christian sources that make the astonishing claim that Jesus died in the Year of the Jubilee. But as Jubilee is purely a Jewish institution I would hesitate to accept Christian claims on the matter. There is no mentions in the NT of the Year of the Jubilee.

 

[Bessica]

Thanks Wayseer!

 

[Hupomone10]

I wanted to follow up from my previous post regarding the true nature and vileness of sin.

The animal sacrifices instituted by Moses weren't the first time. If it were, it would be possible that one could say it came from neighboring cultures. If this substitute thing were real, we would expect to see it practically from the beginning; and if fact that's what happened.

Right after Adam and Eve sinned and became dead in their sins, they tried to do what we often do - they tried to cover up their sins. "they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Gen 3:7. But God's reaction to this is significant. Gen 3:21 "And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." He showed them right from the beginning what it would take to be right once again with Him. He showed them that the deeds they could do weren't sufficient. They couldn't just dress themselves up and enter His presence; they had to come by the death of another. These animals were the first type of Christ. Now we could say why didn't He just tell them this, and not kill the animals? I guess we'll have to ask Him that when we get there. But if He merely told them, I wonder how long that would stick? I think we have our answer by how little it stuck with the religious people by Jesus day - the Pharisees & Sadducees. Human nature will always try to work out its own salvation. It gravitates to faith in itself rather than faith in another. So God had to hammer this point home time after time, generation after generation, so there would be a precedent that couldn't be ignored when His Son came and died, the Perfect Sacrifice. And yet we still have churches today that confuse this teaching of Christ's substitutionary death for us and say it's not essential, that we need only love others and that's good enough.

It's graphic; but knowing that the God who created these animals, and of whom it is said "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God" (Luke 12:6) would not have instituted this were it not necessary. We are far too stubborn for anything less to work.

H.

 

[Bessica]

I wanted to follow up from my previous post regarding the true nature and vileness of sin.

The animal sacrifices instituted by Moses weren't the first time. If it were, it would be possible that one could say it came from neighboring cultures. If this substitute thing were real, we would expect to see it practically from the beginning; and if fact that's what happened.

Right after Adam and Eve sinned and became dead in their sins, they tried to do what we often do - they tried to cover up their sins. "they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Gen 3:7. But God's reaction to this is significant. Gen 3:21 "And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." He showed them right from the beginning what it would take to be right once again with Him. He showed them that the deeds they could do weren't sufficient. They couldn't just dress themselves up and enter His presence; they had to come by the death of another. These animals were the first type of Christ. Now we could say why didn't He just tell them this, and not kill the animals? I guess we'll have to ask Him that when we get there. But if He merely told them, I wonder how long that would stick? I think we have our answer by how little it stuck with the religious people by Jesus day - the Pharisees & Sadducees. Human nature will always try to work out its own salvation. It gravitates to faith in itself rather than faith in another. So God had to hammer this point home time after time, generation after generation, so there would be a precedent that couldn't be ignored when His Son came and died, the Perfect Sacrifice. And yet we still have churches today that confuse this teaching of Christ's substitutionary death for us and say it's not essential, that we need only love others and that's good enough.

It's graphic; but knowing that the God who created these animals, and of whom it is said "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God" (Luke 12:6) would not have instituted this were it not necessary. We are far too stubborn for anything less to work.

H.

I see what you're saying about really hammering this concept into their realities. He basically conditioned their way of thinking.

I hesitate to bring this up, but this ultimately brings up the issue of why blood sacrifice has anything to do with forgiving sins. If Jesus died of old age would sins still be forgiven? I don't see the connection with sins being forgiven and Jesus being executed (or simply dying). Is this just a mystery that we can't know, or am I missing something major? I know this is very foundational, but I guess it's always been taken for granted.

 

[wayseer]

I hesitate to bring this up, but this ultimately brings up the issue of why blood sacrifice has anything to do with forgiving sins. If Jesus died of old age would sins still be forgiven? I don't see the connection with sins being forgiven and Jesus being executed (or simply dying). Is this just a mystery that we can't know, or am I missing something major? I know this is very foundational, but I guess it's always been taken for granted.

No, you are not missing anything at all. Very astute actually and valuable questions.

The early followers of the Jesus movement where Jews and saw in Jesus death the imagery of the 'blood sacrifice' which was performed in the Temple. Jesus death then became known as the 'last sacrifice' which consequently threw up all sorts of theological problems in explaining Jesus' sinless life - because any sacrifice had to perfect to be perfectly acceptable.

That is a very brief explanation.

But you have to remember that there were any number of sacrifices made at the Temple that had nothing to do with sin. Certainly some worshipper could make a sacrifice for personal sin.

On the Day of Atonement the High Priest having gone through a long period of ritual washing and cleanliness ablutions actually got inside the Holy of Holies to sprinkle blood on the judgement seat as sign of atonement for the Jewish nation.

There is a huge volume of work dedicated to the topic and you might like to make some searches to find out more specific answers.

 

[ebia]

I also have trouble understanding this apparently insatiable need. I mean, the Temple must have been more like an abattoir than a place for worship.

For most of that world the temples were the abattoirs, so that wouldn't have been surprising to them in the way it is to us with our idea of a nice, clean, sunday-best, experience.

So I am inclined to agree that the who process was more cultural than what we would like to believe. Many of the Prophets called attention to the fact that God desired contrition and integrity rather animal sacrifices.

You seem to imply that being culturally conditioned and being God's provision for atonement are mutually exclusive.

 

[ebia]

We also need to remember - sacrifice is giving up (in this case giving up for God). In a world where the predominant wealth is in livestock its inevitable that the main form of sacrifice will be of livestock.

 

[razeontherock]

I see what you're saying about really hammering this concept into their realities. Is this just a mystery that we can't know, or am I missing something major?

Yes, you are missing something MAJOR! Wayseer too.

I'm not saying this is a "Salvation issue." We are not saved by our own understanding. But Paul said he yearned to know Him more, and prayed for others to receive the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.

I can tell you that (accompanied by in-depth study) is FAR better than just reading what somebody else has to say about it! So let me say, EVERY detail, of EVERY (Biblical) sacrifice, was accomplished in Christ's ONE sacrifice.

If you really want to understand who He is, once you've gleaned as much understanding out of the New Testament as you possibly can, realize that the details of who He is aren't spelled out until you do the same with the Old Testament. Those sacrifices are there for a reason, and learning what they all signify / accomplished in the Spirit is a very worthwhile undertaking!

It is not JUST symbolism, metaphor, etc. It was REAL. Also consider that all that reality vanished overnight with Christ's death, even in cultures that didn't hear the Gospel for centuries later. Very, very few peoples continued any type of blood sacrifice for much after His death. (The main one was the Incas, seems they were Devil worshippers and completely wiped out)

Also consider that Cain and Abel weren't just having discussion over dinner like we might come here. Cain KNEW his sacrifice was rejected! It made a real difference in his life, not some argument about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The point being, pursuing this will make Christ more real in each of our lives.

 

[Hupomone10]

I can tell you that (accompanied by in-depth study) is FAR better than just reading what somebody else has to say about it! So let me say, EVERY detail, of EVERY (Biblical) sacrifice, was accomplished in Christ's ONE sacrifice....

If you really want to understand who He is, once you've gleaned as much understanding out of the New Testament as you possibly can, realize that the details of who He is aren't spelled out until you do the same with the Old Testament. Those sacrifices are there for a reason, and learning what they all signify / accomplished in the Spirit is a very worthwhile undertaking!
...The point being, pursuing this will make Christ more real in each of our lives.

Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for saying it, I can add nothing to it.

 

[Walkntune]

Hello. I'm having trouble understanding why the Old Testament requires so many animal sacrifices. It seems sacrificing animals was a way to honor God and a way for God to forgive sins. I don't understand why God would need or want to treat animals this way. Can we explain this simply as cultural influence that made it into the Bible? I mean, this is just how people thought back then, so God allowed it?
Thanks.

I believe the spiritual realm runs parallel with the natural realm. Just as something must die for you to sustain life in the natural, it is also the same in the spiritual realm.MHO anyway.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here's a couple of example scriptures to consider, and it shows that the context of a verse helps explain it.

Psalm 50:5 "Gather My godly ones to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice."

Who are the godly? It tells us: those who have made a covenant with God by sacrifice, applied to us today that would mean accepting the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. God still requires sacrifice in order to be godly, but it is the trust in the sacrifice of Christ, not just going through the motions of the sacrifice. And yet, this is only the starting point, the initial start of the covenant relationship with God, as we shall see in v.14. I'm using the NLT because of its clarity on this (50:8-15):

8 I have no complaint about your sacrifices
or the burnt offerings you constantly offer.
9 But I do not need the bulls from your barns
or the goats from your pens.
10 For all the animals of the forest are mine,
and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know every bird on the mountains,
and all the animals of the field are mine.
12 If I were hungry, I would not tell you,
for all the world is mine and everything in it.
13 Do I eat the meat of bulls?
Do I drink the blood of goats?
14 Make thankfulness your sacrifice to God,
and keep the vows you made to the Most High.
15 Then call on me when you are in trouble,
and I will rescue you,
and you will give me glory.”

This Psalm shows the importance of the sacrifice, and yet the inadequacy of mere outward sacrifices, as opposed to heart involvement and purity of life.

 

[wayseer]

I can tell you that (accompanied by in-depth study) is FAR better than just reading what somebody else has to say about it!

If you really want to understand who He is, once you've gleaned as much understanding out of the New Testament as you possibly can, realize that the details of who He is aren't spelled out until you do the same with the Old Testament. Those sacrifices are there for a reason, and learning what they all signify / accomplished in the Spirit is a very worthwhile undertaking!

Question - how did the early Christians 'gleaned' their understanding - they had no NT? In other words, the early Christians did not need a NT to know who Jesus was.

Question - what of the OT Prophets who questioned the whole sacrificial system?

And you might make mention on how the Spirit (capital 'S') got in on the act in the OT. There is a very limited number of mentions of the 'spirit' (small 's') and three mentions of the holy spirit (small 'h', small 's') in the OT. Reading a Christian theology of the Holy Spirit backwards into the OT is theologically questionable and culturally inappropriate.

Very, very few peoples continued any type of blood sacrifice for much after His death.

Perhaps that had more to do with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE - there was no place where animal sacrifice could take place.

For Moslems, all animals are sacrificially killed which continues today. It is only us heathen Westerns who don't bother paying due respect to the animals that we kill or the ground that we destroy.

So let me say, EVERY detail, of EVERY (Biblical) sacrifice, was accomplished in Christ's ONE sacrifice.

A point that I have noted but one that is not the point of the discussion.