Musings on animal sacrifices

[steve]

I am with dizerner on this. I know it is the traditional evangelical position, which makes many here want to distance themselves from it as far as possible. However, certain facts are undebatable (if we accept the witness of scripture), which would have to fit into any holistic explanation of the issue:

1) God could have covered Adam and Eve with wool, linen or hemp clothing, rather than killing animals, if God had an aversion to sacrificing animal lives for man's covering. His choice to kill animals (especially seen in conjunction with the emphasis on blood sacrifices throughout the rest of the Bible) strongly suggests that the evangelical party line—i.e., that God offered the first animal sacrifice for the first sinners—is correct about this;

2) There are multiple biblical reasons that could be given for God's rejection of Cain's sacrifice: a) It was not the first fruits, as Abel's was the "firstling" of the flock (Gen.4:3-4), suggesting that Cain did not place the worship of God on as high a priority as did Abel; b) Abel offered by faith, which Cain did not (Heb.11:4); c) Abel's general life was righteous, while Cain's was not (1 John 3:12); d) that Abel's was a blood sacrifice, while Cain's was not (Lev.17:11; Heb.9:22). The reason why Abel's was a "more excellent sacrifice" than was Cain's (Heb.11:4) may be any one or a combination of these—but it is overconfident speculation to rule out the blood issue as highly important;

3) All pagan religions offered sacrifices. Their pagan practices do not provide the precursor to Levitical sacrifices, however. All nations came from Noah, who practiced (as the most righteous, not the most superstitious man on earth) the sacrifice of all clean animals. By the way, it was God, not Noah, that created the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Gen.7:2)—i.e., those suited and those unsuited for sacrifice. It was God's idea. Noah merely obeyed. All generations afterward followed the precedent of Noah and the antediluvian saints, though they began to change the glory of God into the image of men and birds and four-footed beasts. Their problem was not their instinct about sacrifices, but their misidentification of the proper object of worship.

4) To say that God accommodated Israelite desires to offer sacrifices is sheer speculation, and speculation that contradicts scripture. First, because no such desire on Israel's part is every stated or hinted at in scripture. Second, because it was God who ordained the tabernacle's construction (without consulting Israel about their interests) and even had a heavenly pattern of the same which He revealed to Moses on the Mount. There was no function for the tabernacle other than to offer sacrifices—mostly animal sacrifices.

5) Statements about God not taking pleasure in sacrifices merely mean that He has no pleasure in them divorced from righteous and faithful living. If He really hated them, He was under no obligation to institute them—especially without being asked. To compare this with His giving Israel a king is vacuous argumentation, since we are specifically told that Israel made request for a king, and that God objected to their request, though granting it. We are never informed of any desire Israel had for animal sacrifices, nor that God objected to any such request.

6) The Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed the death of Christ (John1:29; 1 Cor.5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-20), which, by all New Testament accounts, is a pretty central subject relevant to God's ultimate salvation of mankind. If Jesus is the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world, then such sacrifices were no afterthought or concession, but reflect God's eternal plan. There is nothing surprising in the fact that God would initiate such practices for the purpose of foreshadowing Christ, just as He similarly instituted temporary dietary restrictions, festivals and sabbath for the same purpose (Col.2:16-17).

[Paidion]

1) God could have covered Adam and Eve with wool, linen or hemp clothing, rather than killing animals, if God had an aversion to sacrificing animal lives for man's covering. His choice to kill animals (especially seen in conjunction with the emphasis on blood sacrifices throughout the rest of the Bible) strongly suggests that the evangelical party line—i.e., that God offered the first animal sacrifice for the first sinners—is correct about this;

To say that God killed animals to provide garments of leather (the meaning of the Greek word in the Septuagint) for Adam and Eve is sheer speculation. Did He also make the necessary tanning equipment to tan the leather? And a sewing machine to sew the leather into garments?

There is nothing in Genesis stating that God killed animals in order to produce this leather. Surely the God who created all animals and people could directly create leather garments for Adam and Eve.

[steve]

If God created leather skins that had never covered an animal...in what sense were they "leather"? Isn't leather made of animal cells? Doesn't it contain DNA recording the animal's characteristics? Why would God do something so elaborate as to make "skins" that had never belonged to an organism, when He could as easily have made Naugahyde or Kevlar? The significance of the garments being made of "skins" would seem to be that they were the skins of something that has skin. All such things are animals.

Certainly you don't think that the killing of animals (e.g., for food) is objectionable to God. Why would it be more objectionable for Him to kill animals for man's coving than for Jesus to catch fish for His disciples' breakfast. I believe you are trying too hard to deny the obvious.

[Paidion]

That's obvious?—that God killed animals to make clothes for our first parents? It would be obvious only if it were stated in the Genesis account. Why couldn't He create the leather directly? I can't tell you why He made leather garments rather than some other kind. But that He killed animals for the raw material is no more obvious than that He created a sewing machine to make the clothing.

I am in no way suggesting that killing animals is objectionable to God. I am dealing only with the presumption that He killed animals to make Adam and Eve's clothing. It seems that people think this only on the basis that WE could make leather garments only if animals were killed to give us a source of leather. The Creator doesn't need that source.

[steve]

It is amazing how our presuppositions render one man's "obvious" point another's nonsense.

[Paidion]

It is amazing how our presuppositions render one man's "obvious" point another's nonsense.

Yes, that is amazing, my brother.

And it is also wonderful that our various marked differences in theological issues do not separate us as disciples of Christ. There are so many divisions among Christians brought about by mere theological and philosophical differences in beliefs or even opinion. Our unity in Christ does not depend on unity of thought or belief, but in discipleship. I rejoice that both you and I believe in submission to the authority of Christ in our lives, and don't consider our position in Christ to amount to mere belief in some particular theory of atonement. Probably neither you nor I will experience any major paradigm shift any time soon. I assure you that our differences have no bearing on how I regard you as a Christian brother. I am privileged to have met you in Thunder Bay and to have experienced during that brief time your heart and your love for people. And I have never ceased to be amazed at how much you accomplish in a time frame that would take most of us perhaps 10 times the time, or maybe even 20 or 30 times to accomplish half as much.

May Christ continue to empower you and through you to expand His Kingdom!

With love in the Altogether Lovely One,

[TK]

Thanks for all the responses.

I personally don't think Cain's unacceptable sacrifice had anything to do with it not being an animal, but rather the poor condition of his heart.

I have never really thought about sacrifices being the Hebrews idea and not God's- like their desire for a king. Something to consider, I suppose.

But it is very hard to get around the foreshadowing component of the atoning blood sacrifice. It certainly seems like that was Gods idea from the beginning.

[dizerner]

Thanks for all the responses.

I personally don't think Cain's unacceptable sacrifice had anything to do with it not being an animal, but rather the poor condition of his heart.

But the text specifically references his actions:

Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, 5 but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Why would the Lord first say "Why are you angry?" if it was some mysterious heart attitude that the Lord didn't like, but never specifically addressed. It has to have been clear to Cain what exactly was wrong with his offering or the Lord would not say "Why are you angry?" because it's very obvious that if Cain's offering was arbitrarily rejected he had a right to be angry, don't you think? You can rewrite the text out of a desire to make it say something else, but I don't think you could insist the first meaning was "the poor condition of his heart." It's only when Cain "does not do well" that sin lies at the door. I see no indication that the Lord was saying "Take your veggies and come back with a good attitude this time." Sin only lied at the door if he "did not do well" with his offering. Notice that Cain only had his "countenance fall" after his offering was rejected, and somehow that prompted him to murder Abel. But let's look to a testimony in the New Testament:

...not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous.

Notice it clearly says "because his deeds were evil" not "the poor condition of his heart." Now we have to think, what is any recorded evil deed before he murdered? Only one—his offering. If we are to say his offering was rejected only because of his attitude in bringing it, we are completely going outside what the text tells us. His offering was rejected because it was an evil deed. We have another NT witness:

4By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

Now we must consider, why was faith what made the difference between Cain and Abel's offering? Notice the text lays a special emphasis on "a better sacrifice" and that God testified about "his gifts" and that it's connected to being "through faith" with the implied object grace. If it was only Cain's "poor heart attitude" which made his veggies not accepted, you will have to explain to me how that connects to faith and what faith has to do with Cain's sacrifice. Did Cain need more faith in his veggies? Ah, but we have one last New Testament witness, let's see what it says!

Jude 1:11 is the last reference of three to Cain in the NT. It's in the midst of a general condemnation of ungodly people, and goes like this:

11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (Jud 1:11 NKJ)

Hold up! What's "the way" of Cain? Can we find it in the preceding verses? It goes all the way back to the very beginning of this condemnation:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God... and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Does refusing to offer a lamb in sacrifice "deny Jesus Christ" maybe? Does offering vegetables instead of a lamb "pervert the grace of our God"? I think that fits far more than some ambiguous and unmentioned "poor heart attitude" which is not even found in the text.

I have never really thought about sacrifices being the Hebrews idea and not God's- like their desire for a king. Something to consider, I suppose.

But it is very hard to get around the foreshadowing component of the atoning blood sacrifice. It certainly seems like that was Gods idea from the beginning.

Keep considering Paidion's teaching and you might deny most of the OT become a Universalist (even Satan will be saved!) and deny that the blood and death of Christ pays for our sins.

[steve]

Keep considering Paidion's teaching and you might deny most of the OT become a Universalist (even Satan will be saved!) and deny that the blood and death of Christ pays for our sins.

Part of this is a non sequitur, since one might see merit in Paidion's arguments for some of his views without being persuaded by arguments for some of his other views. I agree that his position on blood sacrifices appears to be in conflict with the Old Testament teaching (and seemingly with the New Testament, as well). Of course, he is not embarrassed to be told this, because he has made his views about the Old Testament plain elsewhere. Anyone who respects the authority of Moses and the prophets, as Jesus did, will not go all the way to where Paidion has on that matter, though they might find some merit in other points—even controversial ones, that he raises and defends.

We need to be careful to avoid the temptation of saying, "Because I strongly disagree with this person on such-and-such a matter, I can safely ignore everything he/she believes, if I find it currently disagreeable." This is the same error as saying, "Because I have learned many truths from such-and-such a person, I will accept without scrutiny anything he says on other subjects." I am pretty sure that most of us would see both of these attitudes as equally in error. We cannot avoid the resposibility of proving all things, and holding to what is good (1 Thess.5:21).

[dizerner]

Hey Steve!

Of course I'm not into character assassination! However, people have a right to know about the source a teaching comes from. If a Mormon or JW knocks on my door and says "I believe Jesus is Lord!" I have a right to know what else he teaches. When I say "consider" a doctrine, I mean "give attention and pay heed to," not merely "think about or discuss." And the Bible tells me that if I give more attention to error than to truth, that could effect me and my thinking.

...may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation

For there will be a time when people will not listen to sound teaching, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate teachers for themselves, because they have an insatiable curiosity to hear new things

For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

Do you think what we "pay close attention" to can affect our thinking and attitudes? If I spend all my time reading what a liberal or atheist thinks about the Word of God might that not affect me spiritually, since I am meditating on it, and giving it value?

Doctrine spiritually and biblically is not just something you sit down and speculate about but it has spiritual reality and power and that's why it is compared to leaven, leavening a loaf of bread. A good tree or bad tree will bear corresponding fruit, and that includes doctrine.

If someone is constantly leading me away from fundamental biblical truths and a respect for them, they do not have a godly or right spirit. This is why we are to test the spirits. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" knows Jesus. Not everyone who professes a generic religious regard for the Bible is born again.

So I don't see it as a non-sequitur at all!

God bless!