Mercy, not sacrifice

[Extraneous]

No need to apologize at all. I promise, I take no offense at that. We are rather faceless on here, and I don't expect everyone to look at my profile. My pic showing an icon of Christ confuses some people too. It really is ok. I rather like thinking of the ideal where we are no longer male or female to one another, but all in Christ - perhaps in heaven.

(Not saying we will NOT be male or female - I don't actually know - but at least it won't matter between us)

Yes, thats all i saw was the profile pic.

And yes, that sounds good to me sister. I can relate to that.

 

[graceandpeace]

Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

We know that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so it is meant to teach us spiritual lessons and it invites us to ponder why certain laws were given, but nevertheless, the understanding the weightier matters of the law does not allow us to neglect following it. That would be the same mistake that the Corinthians made where their knowledge puffed them up where they thought that it was ok to sin once they thought they understood it.

That doesn't really address my point, but it does add to another, in that I don't see any spiritual value to much of the OT laws, including killing animals.

 

[graceandpeace]

Did God require blood sacrifices as part of the structure of worship in the OT? Of course. But I think the reason was not because God was unable to forgive their sin without having His divine thirst for blood somehow sated. That paints a very strange picture of God. (I'm not saying you are saying this, only taking the idea to a bit of a more logical conclusion.)

Instead, I believe the purpose of the blood sacrifice was MOSTLY to point forward as a sort of type of sacrifice, hinting at the way in which Christ would redeem mankind. The Church teaches of many such typologies in the OT, so I think this is valid. It is possible too, and this is just supposition on my part, that it might make more of an "impression" upon a person, watching the animal die, and having to complete such an act, seeing the lifeblood drain out of it - it might make them recognize the horror of sin and the damage it does to our own souls.

I understand typology, but I still don't see the value of blood sacrifice. Moreover, I find it problematic that it was mandated.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just am not at ease with much of the OT & how some of the NT ties into it.

Now the tricky part. CAN God possibly just forgive without Christ's sacrifice of blood and death? Is He under some kind of cosmic mandate that won't allow Him to show mercy, even if He wants to, without somehow satisfying the "payment"? Well ... to be honest, this doesn't ring true for me. What law is greater than God Himself? We hear that "justice" demands it, and because God is just, it is necessary. But what does mercy demand? And is God not also merciful? I don't think God is bound by any cosmic Law higher than Himself - after all, He created the cosmos. He is perhaps bound by His nature, but that nature is not only justice.

I can agree with this.

In fact, truthfully, Christ's sacrifice on our behalf is inherently UNjust ... why should we be let off "scot-free" as it were, just for the asking? While an innocent man is punished in our place? Even if He volunteers it? Again, it is mercy at work, rather than pure justice.

I don't believe in penal substitution, but the whole idea behind it is that God's justice needs to be satisfied, so I don't see much room for mercy.

That is why I mentioned Christ's victory over death, accomplished BY His death. From all I can find, that is the main view of atonement that has always been most in view of the Church, from the beginning. And that DOES require Christ to die. Not to satisfy some kind of vengeance without the satisfaction of which God refuses to release us, but because of a natural law (death), brought about by the curse resulting from sin, and that did require a reversal. Any death would probably do - my guess on this point - but there are other reasons for the publicly humiliating and tortured death of crucifixion.

Yea, again I can get on board with Christus Victor. But, I still fail to see why it would be required, when I would think God could just forgive & restore as He/She/It sees fit. (I really wish there was a good gender-neutral English pronoun. )

I hope that addresses your question, and I am very hopeful of correction or acknowledgement from my Orthodox brothers and sisters if what I have said agrees with Orthodox theology, because I'd like to know that myself. And thanks again for asking and letting me think.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I understand typology, but I still don't see the value of blood sacrifice. Moreover, I find it problematic that it was mandated.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just am not at ease with much of the OT & how some of the NT ties into it.



I can agree with this.



I don't believe in penal substitution, but the whole idea behind it is that God's justice needs to be satisfied, so I don't see much room for mercy.



Yea, again I can get on board with Christus Victor. But, I still fail to see why it would be required, when I would think God could just forgive & restore as He/She/It sees fit. (I really wish there was a good gender-neutral English pronoun. )



Thanks for joining the conversation.

Will try to reply, but it will be a few days. I'm visiting a monastery right now and can't quite get I to this frame of mind. God bless!

 

[Soyeong]

That doesn't really address my point, but it does add to another, in that I don't see any spiritual value to much of the OT laws, including killing animals.

You were making that point that if we focus on mercy and forgiveness, then blood sacrifice to somehow appease God is questionable, if not definitely unneeded, so I quoted Matthew 23:23, where Jesus said the focus of the law was on justice, mercy, and faithfulness, but that they should also obey the other commands in the law, which includes sacrifices. It's one thing to not understand how the law has spiritual value, but another thing to say that God's law is questionable and unneeded because you don't understand how it has spiritual value. If we have faith in God, then we will trust that He knows how we should live through obeying His commands even when we don't understand why He gave them.

God's laws are spiritual in that they are intended to teach spiritual principles that go above and beyond what is required according to the letter. For instance, the spiritual understanding of adultery is that a man should not even lust after a married woman, and someone who obeys this principle is inherently also obeying the law as written against physically committing adultery. Meeting a stricter requirement necessarily also involves meeting a lesser requirement. Another example is in obeying God's dietary laws. Eating is one of our most common activities and when we pause before we eat to consider whether it is something that God would have us consume, it teaches us the principle of keeping our focus on God throughout our day and to pause to consider whether God would have us consume other things. God's laws invite us to ponder why He gave them, but we should studying them to obey Him, not to excuse us from obeying Him.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Perhaps i was a bit over Zealous for a moment, if so please forgive me. What i meant to say is that religion divides us, and so do politics. These things defile us. In my opinion.

What are we divided over any way? Walk in love, put away things that cause debate. It will only distract us from walking in the spirit. It surely will. If i may share my faith- i dont go to church but i find joy being around other brethren here at CF, i believe i share in the spirit with them here. Thats the point of Church. I believe in walking in humility, love, kindness, gentleness, and brotherhood. Sadly however, we allow religion to stumble us, just as the Pharisees also did. I dont even have the religious things that the Churches have, but i have the Lord and feel greatly blessed.

Please brothers, i just want to share the blessing that is in my heart. I wish i could make you as rich as i feel right now. There is no reason for all this religious stuff that we argue over. It serves only to distract us. Look at the harm it is doing to us as a body. I have none of that stuff yet i have the Lord. Christ is so much simpler than all this. Maybe the Lord wants me to shine this light, i don't know and i wont presume to speak for the master. I just feel a great thing in my heart that wants to come out. Blessings and peace to us all, through our Lord. Amen.

Welcome to traditional Theology. If you look at most of the threads in here you will note that this forum is all about our differences and our commonalities. While we may not be communing under the same bishops at the same altars, we do "unite" here it explore our differences, gain understanding and grow personally and spiritually.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That doesn't really address my point, but it does add to another, in that I don't see any spiritual value to much of the OT laws, including killing animals.

Other than as an act of obedience to God.

 

[Extraneous]

Welcome to traditional Theology. If you look at most of the threads in here you will note that this forum is all about our differences and our commonalities. While we may not be communing under the same bishops at the same altars, we do "unite" here it explore our differences, gain understanding and grow personally and spiritually.

Im was glad to share my opinion as well.

 

[Extraneous]

 

[Extraneous]

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.

15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.

16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.

17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.

18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

19 The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion:

22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.

23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble.

24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet.

25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh.

26 For the Lord shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

 

[graceandpeace]

You were making that point that if we focus on mercy and forgiveness, then blood sacrifice to somehow appease God is questionable,

Sort of.

Referencing back to the OP, the passages in Hosea seem to say that if we just repent/ask for forgiveness (offer the "bulls of our lips"), God will forgive us. That God desires mercy, not sacrifice - at least not blood sacrifice. Since Jesus uses this point in his own ministry, it raises questions about the concept of blood sacrifice - about animal sacrifices & about interpreting Jesus's own death. I'm trying to understand how to reconcile these points.

so I quoted Matthew 23:23, where Jesus said the focus of the law was on justice, mercy, and faithfulness, but that they should also obey the other commands in the law, which includes sacrifices.

This verse comes from a diatribe against the Pharisees, so I don't think it is a helpful place to look for answering the OP.

It's one thing to not understand how the law has spiritual value, but another thing to say that God's law is questionable and unneeded because you don't understand how it has spiritual value. If we have faith in God, then we will trust that He knows how we should live through obeying His commands even when we don't understand why He gave them.

I don't see spiritual value in killing animals, but that was a side remark & not the heart of the issues I've raised.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just a thought, graceandpeace ... I built a farm and worked it after learning the Scriptures pretty well. I have to say that seeing with my own eyes just how a hen gathers her chicks and shelters them, or how pruning vines affects them both when they are wounded and when they bear, and many, many, many other examples of the kinds of agricultural themes, parables, etc. that we read throughout the Bible - head knowledge of these things is one thing, but experiencing it all as a part of life make it take on a deeper meaning and one that penetrates the heart. I would say that it really IS possible to make a much deeper understanding of death as the consequence of sin if one has to slaughter an animal and watch that happen. I'm sorry if the imagination produces something graphic for you - or perhaps you don't have experience in this and so it doesn't? (I don't know your background?). But the "value" being "only" the teaching of how terrible sin is from the beginning, because all suffering and death are the result of sin - it is not a small thing to deeply appreciate that, and even if that (and the pointing forward to Christ) were the only things to be gained from it - it is still valuable enough.

I love animals and I absolutely hated the times I had to put one down (I only did so in mercy) but it taught me enough and I know slaughtering well. I'm not being callous when I say that although it might seem so. It is the opposite though.

 

[All4Christ]

@graceandpeace - I could have missed someone already stating this - so please forgive me if this is a repeat. St Irenaeus spoke often about sacrifice and how God did not need it - but that sacrifice changes how we approach God. He explains it much better than me - especially at this time of night

Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend. But the sinner, says He, who kills a calf [in sacrifice] to Me, is as if he slew a dog. Isaiah 66:3

And in regards to us partaking of the body and blood of Christ today:

Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. For even as God does not need our possessions, so do we need to offer something to God; as Solomon says: He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord. Proverbs 19:17 For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in: naked, and you clothed Me; sick, and you visited Me; in prison, and you came to Me. Matthew 25:34, etc. As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these [services], yet does desire that we should render them for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful; so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission.

St Irenaeus also held to the Christus Victor model (as part of the larger recapitulation model).

I know this doesn't fully answer your concerns, but it is an interesting viewpoint on the meaning of sacrifice and why we do that, despite God's mercy.

Source is "Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18"

 

[Pamelav]

IMO, even tho God is pleased with mercy far more than sacrfice, which comes from the heart of man, in Hebrews it says, 'and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.' I believe they thought they were fine obeying the laws even tho their hearts were 'far away from Him.' Even in Matthew John the Baptist said, 'and don't think you can says to yourselves, "we have Abraham for our father." ( thinking themselves secure in that ) after calling them a brood of vipers. God is after ones heart.

 

[graceandpeace]

This thread is old now, but I will say thank you to those who offered their thoughts.

I don't see much hope for resolving some of these difficulties, but such is the way of religion. When I can, I will explore this issue more in my own time.

 

[hedrick]

I assume you're aware that there are plenty of models for the atonement that don't say God requires sacrifice. There are ancient models. But both mainline and some evangelicals have been exploring these ideas because of concerns about the picture of God that's associated with satisfaction theories.

Of course it's silly to say that Christ's death wasn't a sacrifice. The concern isn't about Christ making a voluntary sacrifice to save us. It's with the idea that God requires sacrifice to forgive us, which is what the passage cited in th OP is about. Hence the issue is with theories involving satisfaction, not with all sacrificial ideas and imagery.

 

[graceandpeace]

I assume you're aware that there are plenty of models for the atonement that don't say God requires sacrifice. There are ancient models. But both mainline and some evangelicals have been exploring these ideas because of concerns about the picture of God that's associated with satisfaction theories.

Of course it's silly to say that Christ's death wasn't a sacrifice. The concern isn't about Christ making a voluntary sacrifice to save us. It's with the idea that God requires sacrifice to forgive us, which is what the passage cited in th OP is about. Hence the issue is with theories involving satisfaction, not with all sacrificial ideas and imagery.

I understand. I'm definetly not comfortable with satisfaction theories. And I agree that Jesus's death has been understood as a sacrifice.

I guess my issue is with the concept of needing a sacrifice at all. Keyword, "needing" - does God need sacrifices? I think not.

So perhaps the answer really is just a matter of choosing how to interpret sacrifice in the first place. The idea of requiring blood to appease God is disturbing to me, but thinking of Jesus as the victor over death, or as a peaceful God-man willing putting an end to sacrifice forever, is more palatable. As a recent blog I read put it, perhaps Jesus's sacrifice is the means by which all of our score-keeping (& thus appeasement) is invalidated.

 

[Cappadocious]

I understand. I'm definetly not comfortable with satisfaction theories. And I agree that Jesus's death has been understood as a sacrifice.

I guess my issue is with the concept of needing a sacrifice at all. Keyword, "needing" - does God need sacrifices? I think not.

So perhaps the answer really is just a matter of choosing how to interpret sacrifice in the first place. The idea of requiring blood to appease God is disturbing to me, but thinking of Jesus as the victor over death, or as a peaceful God-man willing putting an end to sacrifice forever, is more palatable. As a recent blog I read put it, perhaps Jesus's sacrifice is the means by which all of our score-keeping (& thus appeasement) is invalidated.

Here are a few thoughts:

Let us rule out, to begin, the notion that Christ's sacrifice pays, answers or atones for a debt of punishment: That is, a payment, the content of which is punishment in terms of torments or deprivation for their own sakes.

Now that we have ruled out a debt of punishment for Christ's sacrifice, let's rule it out for Old Testament sacrifices, too. Old Testament sacrifices were not paying a debt of punishment to God. After all, the Hebrews didn't sentence or torture their animals to death, and some of the sacrifices were not animals at all, but rather grain. Not to mention the offerings of firstfruits, which were often non-animal. Sacrifices were also eaten by the people in some circumstances, such as the Paschal lamb.

So if the sacrifice isn't filling up a debt of punishment, what it is doing? Well, here's a thought: There is a debt, but it is a debt of righteousness, not punishment. That is, the content of the payment is righteousness, not torments or punishment.

And righteousness is life,
And life is being in communion or toward communion.

If these three are one, or at least interconnected in the right way, then we can make some better sense out of the sacrifices. Life is in the blood, hence why it was given to fill the break in life/communion/righteousness. What of the firstfruits and the grain offerings? They were real self-emptyings toward God. They are a very movement towards God, being poor towards God. And being poor towards someone is necessary for communion.

So Christ becomes man, and becomes truly, totally poor towards God, filling up unrighteousness (death, anti-communion) with his righteousness (life, being toward communion). There is no communion without sacrifice, because sacrifice is in some sense the very content of communion.

Now, the classic question, why did God have to do it? Why didn't he just zap the debt paid? Well, because if the debt is righteousness, and righteousness is being toward communion, and being toward communion is being totally poor toward the other, then the only way to pay it is by being totally poor toward the other. And God zapping that the case seems to involve making us who we're not while we're still us, and God can't do that. (The question, "why didn't God just force us or predispose us to be totally poor toward the other, then?" pertains to the whole problem of free will and moral responsibility, which is a different topic).

Now, the Psalm 51 question: God cares about spirit only, right? And spirit only means my mental intentions, right? Like how David said God doesn't want physical sacrifices, just a broken spirit? So why did he require these ugly, physical, tangible, slimy sacrifices?

Well, to that I have to say: Nope. Mental intentions aren't acts of being toward communion, repentance, reconciliation, being poor toward the other. They aren't significant of themselves. And that reading of Psalm 51 is baloney. Some shadowy intention floating around in the ether doesn't count for anything in the real world, and thank God for that. When a peasant offers one of his only birds, that's repentance. Thinking about being humble simply isn't.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Here are a few thoughts:

Let us rule out, to begin, the notion that Christ's sacrifice pays, answers or atones for a debt of punishment: That is, a payment, the content of which is punishment in terms of torments or deprivation for their own sakes.

Now that we have ruled out a debt of punishment for Christ's sacrifice, let's rule it out for Old Testament sacrifices, too. Old Testament sacrifices were not paying a debt of punishment to God. After all, the Hebrews didn't sentence or torture their animals to death, and some of the sacrifices were not animals at all, but rather grain. Not to mention the offerings of firstfruits, which were often non-animal. Sacrifices were also eaten by the people in some circumstances, such as the Paschal lamb.

So if the sacrifice isn't filling up a debt of punishment, what it is doing? Well, here's a thought: There is a debt, but it is a debt of righteousness, not punishment. That is, the content of the payment is righteousness, not torments or punishment.

And righteousness is life,
And life is being in communion or toward communion.

If these three are one, or at least interconnected in the right way, then we can make some better sense out of the sacrifices. Life is in the blood, hence why it was given to fill the break in life/communion/righteousness. What of the firstfruits and the grain offerings? They were real self-emptyings toward God. They are a very movement towards God, being poor towards God. And being poor towards someone is necessary for communion.

So Christ becomes man, and becomes truly, totally poor towards God, filling up unrighteousness (death, anti-communion) with his righteousness (life, being toward communion). There is no communion without sacrifice, because sacrifice is in some sense the very content of communion.

Now, the classic question, why did God have to do it? Why didn't he just zap the debt paid? Well, because if the debt is righteousness, and righteousness is being toward communion, and being toward communion is being totally poor toward the other, then the only way to pay it is by being totally poor toward the other. And God zapping that the case seems to involve making us who we're not while we're still us, and God can't do that. (The question, "why didn't God just force us or predispose us to be totally poor toward the other, then?" pertains to the whole problem of free will and moral responsibility, which is a different topic).

Now, the Psalm 51 question: God cares about spirit only, right? And spirit only means my mental intentions, right? Like how David said God doesn't want physical sacrifices, just a broken spirit? So why did he require these ugly, physical, tangible, slimy sacrifices?

Well, to that I have to say: Nope. Mental intentions aren't acts of being toward communion, repentance, reconciliation, being poor toward the other. They aren't significant of themselves. And that reading of Psalm 51 is baloney. Some shadowy intention floating around in the ether doesn't count for anything in the real world, and thank God for that. When a peasant offers one of his only birds, that's repentance. Thinking about being humble simply isn't.

Wonderful. I need to read this a few more times.

Just one thought - isn't it true that in a common Protestant understanding, God DOES just "simply zap" a person "righteous" based on contractual fulfillment? Just a little irony that crept into my mind while I read your post.

 

[Cappadocious]

Just one thought - isn't it true that in a common Protestant understanding, God DOES just "simply zap" a person "righteous" based on contractual fulfillment? Just a little irony that crept into my mind while I read your post.

I don't know, but I'd think that theologically educated protestants would just say that they are participating in what Christ accomplished which wasn't a zapping.