Christianity and blood sacrifice

[CelticRebel]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

 

[mkgal1]

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement

From what I understand - yes. That's the Franciscan view as well.

This article may interest you:

Quoting Richard Rohr:
At-One-Ment, Not Atonement
Sunday, January 21, 2018

The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.

Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.

The many “substitutionary atonement theories”—which have dominated the last 800 years of Christianity—suggest that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. The terrible and un-critiqued premise is that God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.

For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness, but had to be the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation—or we were steering the cosmic ship! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love. -----> Continued here: https://cac.org/at-one-ment-not-atonement-2018-01-21/​

 

[basilbear76]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

Then why not become Orthodox?

 

[Not David]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

Jesus was a sacrifice but not according to Penal Substitution or Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I prefer "Moral Example".

 

[ewq1938]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins?

You would have to deny a lot of scripture that shows blood was required, not to mention Christ's own blood for our sins.

Exo_30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

[basilbear76]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

Our faith should be in Jesus Christ Himself, not a theory about how He saves us.

There IS a difference.

 

[CelticRebel]

From what I understand - yes. That's the Franciscan view as well.

This article may interest you:

Quoting Richard Rohr:
At-One-Ment, Not Atonement
Sunday, January 21, 2018

The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.

Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.

The many “substitutionary atonement theories”—which have dominated the last 800 years of Christianity—suggest that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. The terrible and un-critiqued premise is that God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.

For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness, but had to be the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation—or we were steering the cosmic ship! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love. -----> Continued here: https://cac.org/at-one-ment-not-atonement-2018-01-21/​

Thank you for this helpful and informative reply!

 

[CelticRebel]

Then why not become Orthodox?

I have seriously considered it. But for practical and theological reasons, I could not. The nearest Orthodox church to me is over 100 miles away. Then, theologically, there are Orthodox doctrines that I cannot accept -- the perpetual virginity of Mary, baptismal regeneration, the necessity of apostolic succession, and some others. I am close to the Orthodox view of man and sin.

 

[CelticRebel]

Jesus was a sacrifice but not according to Penal Substitution or Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.

Thanks. What view do you hold on this?

 

[CelticRebel]

You would have to deny a lot of scripture that shows blood was required, not to mention Christ's own blood for our sins.

Exo_30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Jeremiah 7:22-23 has God saying directly that He did not command sacrifice. Hosea 6:6, God says He desires mercy and not sacrifice. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 9:13.

So, where did sacrifice come from if not from God? The surrounding pagan religions.

I'm not denying the crucifixion. I'm denying the meaning of it in Western theology.

 

[hedrick]

Christus Victor seems to be at least consistent with if not based on Rom 6: Jesus suffered the worst of human life, and was victorious. Through union with him we die and are reborn.

But Scripture isn't limited to one description. One interesting one is the interpretation of Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice. At the Last Supper, Jesus said he was shedding the blood of the covenant, for the new covenant. This is a reference to Ex 24:8. Heb 9 and 10 understand his death that was as well. This seems to be Jesus' most explicit explanation.

The previous posting asks where OT sacrifices came from if sacrifice isn't necessary for forgiveness (as some of the prophets say). I don't think OT sacrifice is punishment. Rather, it's a act that shows the seriousness of our commitment. First, poor people can use grain rather than an animal. You can't punish grain. Second, sacrifice is used not only for repentance but for the making of covenants and for "fellowship."

It's not necessary for forgiveness, but sometimes the situation is serious enough that just saying "I'm sorry" doesn't feel like it's enough. Sacrifice helped people demonstrate (to themselves at least as much as to God) the seriousness of their commitment.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

If you read carefully, the blood of Christ was spilled by the Jews who rejected Him.
Matthew 27
And all the people answering said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."

They had an opportunity to be the nation to bring the end to Satan's power over all nations. However, only a small remnant recognized the Messiah and thus the rest spilled His blood not knowing that God would bring Him back and give salvation to a new nation who would deliver the fruits of redemption. The new Israel and the New Covenant. The blood atonement was produced through the hands of the wicked and God the Father , through the resurrection, crushed the head of the serpent. It is important to note that it is the resurrection and ascension that proved the divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There are three parts to the work of atonement from Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Blessings

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<CR>Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.
Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.<CR>

end

If we start rejecting scripture because someone thinks it was influenced by pagan religions where do we stop?
Did God not know what He was talking about in Isaiah?

Isaiah 55:11
(11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.​

 

[ewq1938]

Jeremiah 7:22-23 has God saying directly that He did not command sacrifice.

That's not what God says. He says he didn't command sacrifices in the day he brought them out of Egypt not that he never commanded sacrifices because I already quote God commanding sacrifices AFTER the day he brought them out of Egypt.

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

Hosea 6:6, God says He desires mercy and not sacrifice.

That's long into the future from the day Israel left Egypt. By that time they had violated the covenant and offended God so much that he no longer wanted their sacrifices since the sacrifices were no long valid.

So, where did sacrifice come from if not from God?

They were originally commanded by God.

The surrounding pagan religions.

No.

I'm not denying the crucifixion. I'm denying the meaning of it in Western theology.

Your view contradicts old and new testament scripture. This is not related to Eastern or Western theology because both in the majority understand that God did command sacrifices and blood for atonement of sin even up to the last sacrifice, Christ's blood.

I am only offering correction. You are free to reject it and continue on this denial of God not ever commanding these things if you wish.

 

[basilbear76]

I have seriously considered it. But for practical and theological reasons, I could not. The nearest Orthodox church to me is over 100 miles away. Then, theologically, there are Orthodox doctrines that I cannot accept -- the perpetual virginity of Mary, baptismal regeneration, the necessity of apostolic succession, and some others. I am close to the Orthodox view of man and sin.

You realize that the Orthodox are not the only ones who believe in baptismal regeneration.

Jean Chauvin, know to history as John Calvin, believed in Our Lady's perpetual virginity.

Irenaeus of Lyons said the apostolic succession preserves purity of doctrine.

 

[Der Alte]

If you read carefully, the blood of Christ was spilled by the Jews who rejected Him.Matthew 27
And all the people answering said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."
They had an opportunity to be the nation to bring the end to Satan's power over all nations. However, only a small remnant recognized the Messiah and thus the rest spilled His blood not knowing that God would bring Him back and give salvation to a new nation who would deliver the fruits of redemption. The new Israel and the New Covenant. The blood atonement was produced through the hands of the wicked and God the Father , through the resurrection, crushed the head of the serpent. It is important to note that it is the resurrection and ascension that proved the divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There are three parts to the work of atonement from Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Blessings

While the Jews did assume responsibility for the blood of Christ that does not absolve the Romans who actually carried out the crucifixion.

 

[Not David]

Thanks. What view do you hold on this?

The idea of Ramson theory can include the idea of sacrifice, it is like Narnia when Aslan offered himself to the White Witch instead of Edmond.

 

[CelticRebel]

<CR>Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.
Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.<CR>
If we start rejecting scripture because someone thinks it was influenced by pagan religions where do we stop?
Did God not know what He was talking about in Isaiah?

Isaiah 55:11
(11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.​

I referenced three scriptures passages in which God explicitly says that He did not command sacrifice and does not desire it. This is not just what I "think." These are the words of God and Jesus. That being the case, one is compelled to ask where did blood sacrifice come from.

 

[CelticRebel]

That's not what God says. He says he didn't command sacrifices in the day he brought them out of Egypt not that he never commanded sacrifices because I already quote God commanding sacrifices AFTER the day he brought them out of Egypt.

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.




That's long into the future from the day Israel left Egypt. By that time they had violated the covenant and offended God so much that he no longer wanted their sacrifices since the sacrifices were no long valid.




They were originally commanded by God.




No.




Your view contradicts old and new testament scripture. This is not related to Eastern or Western theology because both in the majority understand that God did command sacrifices and blood for atonement of sin even up to the last sacrifice, Christ's blood.

I am only offering correction. You are free to reject it and continue on this denial of God not ever commanding these things if you wish.

If you understood construction of grammar, you would know that what I stated is correct. Further, that's not the only scripture on the subject, as I have also shown. If you believe God's words, then you must believe that He did not command sacrifice nor desire it, as that is what He states in many places -- in the OT prophets, and through Jesus. Only priestly religion requires blood sacrifice; prophetic religion does not.