The Substitutionary Life of Christ

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Why was it "required"? Did those blood sacrifices make the people righteous? "Sacrifice and offering you did not require, but an open ear" ---- an open ear to hear what God says, and to do it.

The practice is ancient all right. The heathen from virtually every nation sacrificed to their gods to appease the wrath of these gods. The Jews imported the practice into their own religion. God hadn't said a word to the Israelites about sacrifice when He brought them out of Egypt:

You continue to make the assertion I have underlined in your quote. What is your authority for this? Please show us where you get this; it sounds like something from a secular source.

The practice of blood sacrifice is indeed ancient, doubtless as old as the Fall.

Genesis 4:4 (New International Version)

4. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

Genesis 8:20 (New International Version)

20. Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

Job 1:5 (New International Version)

5. When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, "Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." This was Job's regular custom.


So we see righteous men, long before there was an Israel, offering blood sacrifices to God. And we also find God, long before Israel, commanding it:

Job 42:7-8 (New International Version)

7. After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

How did these ancient people know God required these sacrifices? Although we read little of what God commanded in these ancient times, we can be certain they received commandments prior to Moses, for Job says:

Job 23:12 (New International Version)


12. I have not departed from the commands of his lips;
I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread.


And are we to believe God accepted sacrifice that He had not commanded, for which there was no divine warrent? I think not:

Leviticus 10 (New International Version)
1. Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. 2. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.


You continually quote David:

Psalm 40:6 (New International Version)

6. Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.

To which could be added:

Psalm 51:16-17 (New International Version)

16. You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

17. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.

Hosea 6:6 (New International Version)

6. For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.


What you seem to fail to grasp is that these statements are not absolute, but relative; they do not make void the many commands and regulations (literally hundreds) regarding the blood sacrifices, which were but a type of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

The prophet Samual clearly places sacrifice and obedience in their proper relative relation:

1 Samuel 15:22 (New International Version)

22. But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

[Guest]

The practice is ancient all right. The heathen from virtually every nation sacrificed to their gods to appease the wrath of these gods. The Jews imported the practice into their own religion.

You continue to make the assertion I have underlined in your quote. What is your authority for this? Please show us where you get this; it sounds like something from a secular source.

Do you need sources to back up the statement, "The heathen from virtually every nation sacrificed to their gods to appease the wrath of these gods"? The sources are so abundant in ancient history, that it is surely not necessary to cite them. However, I will cite one quote from The Sumerians by C. Leonard Woolley, first published in the Norton Library 1965 by arrangement with the Oxford University Press. The Sumerians, by the way, lived in the delta formed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the very birthplace of mankind, the garden of Eden (Genesis 2). Woolley writes that "the Semitic element here was swamped by the Sumerians who had imposed on it their language and their civilization and had the land called after their own name." (Chap 1 The Beginnings)

Here's a revealing quote from Chapter 4 Sumerian Society:

The fact is that throughout the religion of the Sumerians is one not of love but of fear, fear whose limits are confined to this present life, fear of Beings all-powerful, capricious, unmoral. Somehow or other virtue does appeal to the gods (that this should be so seems to be a necessity of human nature than an attribute of the godhead as conceived of in Sumer), but experience shows that mere virtue is not enough to engage and keep their favour; practical religion consists in the sacrifices and the ritual that placate and in the spells that bind them.

Interestingly enough even "subsitutionary atonement" seems to have been practised by the Sumerians. Also in Chapter 4:

... the animal stood for the man, as the liturgy was careful to explain --- 'The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he hath given up a lamb for his life, he hath given up the lamb's head for the man's head' --- and we have here a relic of human sacrifice such as was actually found in the graves of the prehistoric kings at Ur.

It seems that a man designated to be sacrificed to appease the gods, could have a lamb sacrificed in his place.

But perhaps you are asking sources for only my second sentence:

The Jews (I meant "Hebrews) imported the practice into their own religion

This fact is present implicitly even in the Scriptures:

If the Israelites were not getting religion from the nations around them, why would Yahweh give them this instruction, "Do not learn the way of the nations" Jer. 10:2. It would have been unnecessary.

If the Israelites were not getting religion from the nations around them, why would Joshua have said:

"Now therefore revere the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:14,15 NRSV

The Israelites sacrifices, like that of the Sumerians and other nations included even human sacrifice:

Psalms 106:37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons;
Psalms 106:38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Ezekiel 16:20 And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured.
Ezekiel 20:31 When you offer your gifts and sacrifice your sons by fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, says the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.

Did the Israelites get these practices from the heathen? Or did God instruct them to do these things? It seems clear indeed where the practices originated. Or was the practice of sacrificing their offspring "but a type of God's sacrifice of His Son for us"?

The practice of blood sacrifice is indeed ancient, doubtless as old as the Fall.

I don't think so. Abel's offering of his animals was not a "sacrifice of appeasement"; it was a gift to God. Abel may have offered himself to God and made a personal sacrifice, even as we are to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. It is stated in Genesis that God was not pleased with Cain and his offering. The problem wasn't that Cain had offered vegetables instead of meat. The problem was that Cain had not offered himself. When Cain got angry about it, did God say, "Now Cain, if you had offered meat to Me, like Abel did, I would have accepted it.". No God said, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do well, sin is couching at your door, but you must master it!"
This is what God required right from the beginning --- righteousness and mastery of sin. He has the same requirements to this day, and gave His Beloved Son as a sacrifice on our behalf in order to provide the grace to carry it out.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Do you need sources to back up the statement, "The heathen from virtually every nation sacrificed to their gods to appease the wrath of these gods"? The sources are so abundant in ancient history, that it is surely not necessary to cite them.

How do you know that the heathens did not learn of, and pervert, the blood sacrifices of God's people? Abel and Noah certainly antedated the peoples you cite. Your assertion that the Israelites got the idea of substitutionary atonement from the heathen and that God accepted and endorsed it is nothing more than speculation.

Hebrews 11:4 (New International Version)

4. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.


Starke comments:
"God himself instituted the offerings, as we see from Hebrews 11:4, that as the belief of Abel in his offering had for its necessary ground the divine command, promise, and revelation, so the offerings themselves must be types of Christ. We cannot doubt that from the very beginning God reserved to himself the firstlings or first-born. Such a command He repeated, Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:13. It was for a type of Christ, the first-born before all creations."


How could Able have had faith in his offering if it was not made in accordance with "thus saith the Lord". And why would God have looked with favor upon it? And how would Abel have known to bring the first-born?

The story of Nadab and Abihu ought to give you pause in your speculative theory that the blood sacrifice was brought into the Law from the heathen nations, instituted by God, and He just went along with it.

[Guest]

How could Able have had faith in his offering if it was not made in accordance with "thus saith the Lord".

There is no record that God ever asked Cain or Abel to offer anything to Him, so how could it be "in accordance with 'thus saith the Lord'"?

It was Cain and Abel's own idea to offer the fruits of their labour to Yahweh. They thought it might please him. God was ready to receive their offerings even though He had no need of them. It's a bit similar to the time your little boy brings you the gift of a toad, and your little girl brings you the gift of a dandelion. You don't want a toad or a dandelion, but you thank them to show them that you appreciate that they loved you enough to give you a gift.

And why would God have looked with favor upon it?

Read the passage carefully:

And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering...

It was basically Abel whom God looked upon with favour. But He did not look with favour upon Cain, not because he offered vegetables, but because he "didn't do well" and he wasn't mastering the sin which was "couching at his door." Abel, on the other hand, submitted to God, offering himself. That was the "better offering" which is mentioned in Hebrews, not the fact that it was meat rather than vegetables. Naturally, Cain and Abel offered what they had; Abel was a shepherd and offered sheep, while Cain worked the land and offered the products which grew.

And how would Abel have known to bring the first-born?

He didn't possess some hidden knowledge. He simply offered the best that he had, because he loved God. Cain, too, probably offered the best of his crops, though the passage doesn't say so.

God didn't want either mutton or vegetables. He wanted righteousness, and the mastery of sin. Abel succeeded. Cain didn't. That's why Abel and his offering were accepted while Cain and his offering weren't.

[Guest]

There is no record that God ever asked Cain or Abel to offer anything to Him, so how could it be "in accordance with 'thus saith the Lord'"?

It was Cain and Abel's own idea to offer the fruits of their labour to Yahweh. They thought it might please him. God was ready to receive their offerings even though He had no need of them. It's a bit similar to the time your little boy brings you the gift of a toad, and your little girl brings you the gift of a dandelion. You don't want a toad or a dandelion, but you thank them to show them that you appreciate that they loved you enough to give you a gift.

There is an easy answer to this: Abel was a prophet. Since Abel was a prophet it's no wonder where he got the idea from, God himself revealed his will to the people through Abel.

Luk 11:50 "that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

How else could Hebrews record the sacrifice of Abel as "faith"? It certainly wouldn't be considered faith if he picked it up from the someone other than God since God dispises worship of Him in a manner other than He dictates. Therefore, God must have dictated animal sacrifice or the Hebrews citation is wrong.

[Guest]

Let's examine the passage a little more thoroughly:

By 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. Hebrews 11:4

In my opinion, this passage differentiates between Abel's sacrifice and Abel's gifts. I believe Abel's gifts were his offerings of sheep to God, but his sacrifice was the sacrifice of himself, of his life, in submission to God. He was one of those who long before Christian times, did what Paul advocated in Romans 12:1

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Cain's, on the other hand, was not a complete sacrifice of himself to God.
Although he had enough regard for God to want to offer gifts from his produce to God, his small sacrifice (of doing with less produce) was much inferior to Abel's complete sacrifice of himself to do God's will. So Abel's was a "better" sacrifice. This was Abel's faith. This was how he "obtained the testimony that he was righteous". He was righteous through faith; I'm talking about a real, practical righteousness which he obtained through faith, just as we should.

Abel was indeed a prophet --- a prophet of righteousness as Noah was later. He probably proclaimed the truth of the self-sacrificing life to Cain. But Cain thought if he offered the gifts of his produce to God, that would be sufficient. But God made clear to Cain what he really needed: to "do well" and to "master sin". God indicated that If he did that, then his offerings would be accepted.

[Guest]

Abel being a shepherd did not bring an offering of anything other than what God had given life to. Cain on the other hand brought the fruit of the labor of his own hands. Abel was a prophet because he understood that a life was required to give him forgiveness for his sins, whereas Cain thought his own efforts should be enough. And it seems Adam would have been the one to tell them both since God Himself killed the first beast to cover his nakedness (shame from sin). That first death stood in the place of Adam's own life, since the penalty for sin is death. And this God had warned him disobedience would bring. The substitutionary death of the animal thus prolonged their lives in this earth, staying the penalty due them.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I would like for you to explain your understanding of Matthew 26:28 where Jesus says His blood is shed for the remission of sins. Note that in the Greek the same words are used regarding Baptism in Acts 2:38. Do the words mean the same in both places?

Matt 26:28
28. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
- TO PERI POLLWN EKCUNNOMENON EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN

Acts 2:38
38. Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
- METANOHSATE, [FHSIN,] KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN > EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN

[Guest]

Abel being a shepherd did not bring an offering of anything other than what God had given life to. Cain on the other hand brought the fruit of the labor of his own hands.

Didn't Abel also "labour with his hands" to care for the sheep? They wouldn't have survived on their own.

Hadn't God "given life to" the plants which Cain grew in order to reap their produce? Cain couldn't have created grains and vegetables by his own efforts.

Abel was a prophet because he understood that a life was required to give him forgiveness for his sins, whereas Cain thought his own efforts should be enough.

This is mere speculation, speculation which has been handed down to us, and which we have unthinkingly accepted. Scriptural evidence that Cain and Abel thought and understood in the ways you have suggested is totally lacking.

And it seems Adam would have been the one to tell them both since God Himself killed the first beast to cover his nakedness (shame from sin).

More speculation. There is not a shred of Scriptural evidence that God killed an animal in order to use its skin to cover Adam and Eve. The record states merely that He covered them with skins (or hides). Surely God, who created animals, could also create hides.

[Guest]

Paidion,
I should know better...

Well then lets take the hyper-literalist route for a second. The tunics of skin needn't be those of animals at all. Where does it say that when God made Adam that he was a being dressed in flesh? It says he was made a living soul. In fact it was sin that made him realize his nakedness. Revelation also mentions several times that formerly dead saints when they appear in heaven are given garments to wear. So here we have some bearing for believing that the resurrection of the spiritual body is euphemistically referred to being like this garment we see God gave to Adam and Eve.

I mean seeing as how we must lose this flesh to enter heaven and Adam had to put it on to leave and enter the earth...