Did God Ever Truly Require 'blood' Sacrifice ?

[A. Ben-Shema]

It seems very strange to me that a God of Love and Truth would ever have required the killing of human or animal victims for any purpose whatsoever! This seems more like a requirement of Satan. What could possibly be gained by such a bloody activity? Can God not forgive without the necessity of bloodshed?

This also applies to the death of Jesus - was it really a requirement of God? and was it really for our sins?

Any ideas?

PLU

[Conductor42]

Well that all depends on if you believe in the bible, or another religion that believes/once believed in sacrifices. The Shomerim still do every Pesach. In the Ancient Israeli(te) cult, most of the animals parts were used to feed the priests, with certain exceptions in order to fulfil the torah.

[A. Ben-Shema]

All the ancient world religions have an idea of, belief in, or requirement for sacrifice of some kind. However, the original 'Spiritual' meaning of the Law of sacrifice has, in most cases, been lost or misunderstood. The original Law of God required that each of us sacrifice (i.e. make Sacred / Pure / Holy) our own initial (i.e. ‘first-born’) animalistic (beastly / carnal / unspiritual) nature, through the purifying ‘flame’ (= God’s 'Light') of Truth, in order that we might be ‘reborn’ (resurrected) into Spiritual consciousness (i.e. ‘True and Eternal Life’) – or, to put it another way, we must each abolish (‘kill’) our own (initially) ‘beastly’ (carnal) nature. This original and Eternal Law was (and still is) falsely interpreted by various materialistic / literalistic priesthoods to mean that God requires the bloody slaughter of (‘first-born’ and ‘pure’) human or animal victims, to absolve the sins of humanity! This is why orthodox Christianity, following Paul, has interpreted Jesus’ crucifixion in the same carnal way (i.e. as a ‘blood’ sacrifice for our sins).

The only way to achieve this genuine Sacrifice of the 'lower' self is through the practice of genuine Gnosis, i.e. Mystic Communion with the Light of God.

N.B. The word 'sacrifice' actually means (in its original usage): 'to make sacred'. It has nothing to do with bloodshed or killing!

Peace, Love, & Understanding

[Jezz]

[FONT=Verdana]It seems very strange to me that a God of Love and Truth would ever have required the killing of human or animal victims for any purpose whatsoever! This seems more like a requirement of Satan. What could possibly be gained by such a bloody activity? Can God not forgive without the necessity of bloodshed?

This also applies to the death of Jesus - was it really a requirement of God? and was it really for our sins?

I sympathise with your question wholeheartedly. Ths is one of the major reasons that I joined the Orthodox Church.

Any ideas?

A couple.

Here is one - written by an Orthodox author in second half of the second century AD:

St Ireneus, Against Heresies, IV:XVII:1

Chapter XVII.—Proof that God Did Not Appoint the Levitical Dispensation for His Own Sake, or as Requiring Such Service; For He Does, in Fact, Need Nothing from Men.
1. Moreover, the prophets indicate in the fullest manner that God stood in no need of their slavish obedience, but that it was upon their own account that He enjoined certain observances in the law. And again, that God needed not their oblation, but [merely demanded it], on account of man himself who offers it, the Lord taught distinctly, as I have pointed out. For when He perceived them neglecting righteousness, and abstaining from the love of God, and imagining that God was to be propitiated by sacrifices and the other typical observances, Samuel did even thus speak to them: “God does not desire whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices, but He will have His voice to be hearkened to. Behold, a ready obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” David also says: “Sacrifice and oblation Thou didst not desire, but mine ears hast Thou perfected; burnt-offerings also for sin Thou hast not required.” He thus teaches them that God desires obedience, which renders them secure, rather than sacrifices and holocausts, which avail them nothing towards righteousness; and [by this declaration] he prophesies the new covenant at the same time. Still clearer, too, does he speak of these things in the fiftieth Psalm: “For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, then would I have given it: Thou wilt not delight in burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart the Lord will not despise.” Because, therefore, God stands in need of nothing, He declares in the preceding Psalm: “I will take no calves out of thine house, nor he-goats out of thy fold. For Mine are all the beasts of the earth, the herds and the oxen on the mountains: I know all the fowls of heaven, and the various tribes of the field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? ” Then, lest it might be supposed that He refused these things in His anger, He continues, giving him (man) counsel: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows to the Most High; and call upon Me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me; ” rejecting, indeed, those things by which sinners imagined they could propitiate God, and showing that He does Himself stand in need of nothing; but He exhorts and advises them to those. things by which man is justified and draws nigh to God. This same declaration does Esaias make: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord. I am full.” And when He had repudiated holocausts, and sacrifices, and oblations, as likewise the new moons, and the sabbaths, and the festivals, and all the rest of the services accompanying these, He continues, exhorting them to what pertained to salvation: “Wash you, make you clean, take away wickedness from your hearts from before mine eyes: cease from your evil ways, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow; and come, let us reason together, saith the Lord.”

© source where applicable

(This is from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, and you can find it online here.)

We do not believe that God instituted sacrifices because He needed to see blood before He could forgive. The reason He instituted them was something as follows: Man could sense that something wanted him dead, and one of the ways man naturally tended to try and escape this fate was to kill an animal. It was hoped that, in doing so, whatever it was that wanted him dead would be satisfied with the animal's death instead of his own. The problem with this superstition was that it led people to offer the sacrifices to false gods who were imagined to be satisfied thereby. But because this tendency to want to sacrifice was so deeply ingrained in man's psyche, rather than try to abolish it instead God decided to try and channel the impulse so that it was directed towards Him rather than towards false gods. This is why he instituted the sacrificial rituals in the Pentateuch. He used these to teach His chosen people some important spiritual lessons, and help them to mature in their faith in preparation for the time when the Messiah would come. Never, at any point, did God tell the Jews to offer sacrifices because He actually needed the blood, as the Prophets point out repeatedly (and as St Irenaeus points out above).

Why, then, did Christ have to die? Well, imagine that there was a great king with a kingdom. However, one day one of the king's people disobeyed one of his commands, and because of his disobedience he inadvertently let the king's great enemy into his kingdom, who started to destroy it and capture the king's people. This enemy proved that there was no one who could him, and he eventually captures everyone. But suppose that the king's son had absolute power over this particular enemy. Such a person could disguise himself as one of the weak people and let the enemy capture him. The enemy would then take him behind enemy lines to where the other prisoners were being held. He could then, by virtue of his great power, destroy the enemy from the inside - thereby escape from the enemy and free all of the captives along with him. At last, the enemy would be defeated.

This is essentially what we as Orthodox Christians believed that Christ accomplished by His incarnation, death, and resurrection. The great enemy of humankind (and, indeed, the universe) is death. God sent His Son into the world to become weak like us, and to suffer death like us. When He died, although Death thought that he had won a victory, in fact it was He who was dying voluntarily so that He could go "behind enemy lines" (as the kingl's son did in my above story) and free all of those whom the enemy had captured. And He Himself proved that He had conquered death by walking free from death's bonds - ie, by raising from the dead. It is our belief that all human beings will eventually likewise be raised from the dead.

So you see, we do not believe that Christ was slain because God required "blood sacrifice" before He could forgive and satisfy some strange sense of "justice" (indeed, to demand punishment of someone known to be innocent is the very definition of injustice). God could forgive us without all that, but that in itself would not solve the problem - ie, we'd still end up as captives to our enemy (ie, death). God sent His Son to die so that He could go behind enemy lines and rescue those imprisoned by the enemy.

[Jezz]

All the ancient world religions have an idea of, belief in, or requirement for sacrifice of some kind. However, the original 'Spiritual' meaning of the Law of sacrifice has, in most cases, been lost or misunderstood. The original Law of God required that each of us sacrifice (i.e. make Sacred / Pure / Holy) our own initial (i.e. ‘first-born’) animalistic (beastly / carnal / unspiritual) nature, through the purifying ‘flame’ (= God’s 'Light') of Truth, in order that we might be ‘reborn’ (resurrected) into Spiritual consciousness (i.e. ‘True and Eternal Life’) – or, to put it another way, we must each abolish (‘kill’) our own (initially) ‘beastly’ (carnal) nature. This original and Eternal Law was (and still is) falsely interpreted by various materialistic / literalistic priesthoods to mean that God requires the bloody slaughter of (‘first-born’ and ‘pure’) human or animal victims, to absolve the sins of humanity! This is why orthodox Christianity, following Paul, has interpreted Jesus’ crucifixion in the same carnal way (i.e. as a ‘blood’ sacrifice for our sins).

I agree with elements of what you wrote above, right up to the last sentence. Orthodox Christianty does not interpret Christ's crucifixion in the way that you suggest. The understanding that you are familiar with is not found in St Paul's writings and came many centuries after. This view dominates today in denominations that have sprung from the Roman Catholic Church, but in the Orthodox Churches (mostly found in the East) the view has never gained a foothold.

The only way to achieve this genuine Sacrifice of the 'lower' self is through the practice of genuine Gnosis, i.e. Mystic Communion with the Light of God.

I agree with those words - indeed, the Orthodox Church has used very similar language throughout the centuries to describe the process of theosis (ie, becoming like God). However, I strongly suspect that you are pouring a different meaning into words like "Gnosis" and "Mystic communion" than what the Church does. "Mystic communion", in the Orthodox Church, means participation in the mysteries of the Church - especially Holy Communion. I might be wrong though.

N.B. The word 'sacrifice' actually means (in its original usage): 'to make sacred'. It has nothing to do with bloodshed or killing!

This may be true for the English word, but this trick doesn't quite work with the original Biblical languages. In Hebrew (and in many ancient languages), the word used for sacrifice meant the slaughter of an animal in a ritualistic manner.

[A. Ben-Shema]

In Hebrew (and in many ancient languages), the word used for sacrifice meant the slaughter of an animal in a ritualistic manner.

How do you know for certain that the original meaning of the Hebrew term for sacrifice did not mean what I interpreted it to mean. Much of the original Hebrew language was forgotten during the Babylonian exile.

I will quote from the preface and introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the NEW ENGLISH BIBLE:
“There are passages where, in the present state of our knowledge, no one could say with certainty which of two (or even more) possible meanings is intended… There is probably no member of the panel (of translators) who has not found himself obliged to give up, perhaps with lingering regret, a cherished view about the meaning of this or that difficult passage… It is certain that this (i.e. the ‘received’ text of the Hebrew Old Testament) does not always represent what was originally written… many obscurities still remain in the Hebrew Scriptures. The classical Hebrew vocabulary as known today is small, with the consequence that the meaning of an unusually large number of words is uncertain or unknown.”

PLU

[Conductor42]

How do you know for certain that the original meaning of the Hebrew term for sacrifice did not mean what I interpreted it to mean. Much of the original Hebrew language was forgotten during the Babylonian exile.

Ata medebar ivrit?

[Jezz]

How do you know for certain that the original meaning of the Hebrew term for sacrifice did not mean what I interpreted it to mean. Much of the original Hebrew language was forgotten during the Babylonian exile.

How do you know that it does? Given that you are making the assertion, you ought to back it up with at least some argument.

And yes, much of the Hebrew language has been lost. However, for a relatively frequent word like "zabach" and its cognates (of which there are hundreds of occurences in the OT) there is enough to preserve its meaning.

I will quote from the preface and introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the NEW ENGLISH BIBLE:
“There are passages where, in the present state of our knowledge, no one could say with certainty which of two (or even more) possible meanings is intended… There is probably no member of the panel (of translators) who has not found himself obliged to give up, perhaps with lingering regret, a cherished view about the meaning of this or that difficult passage… It is certain that this (i.e. the ‘received’ text of the Hebrew Old Testament) does not always represent what was originally written… many obscurities still remain in the Hebrew Scriptures. The classical Hebrew vocabulary as known today is small, with the consequence that the meaning of an unusually large number of words is uncertain or unknown.”

How do I know? Because I checked the dictionary! What dictionary did you check which told you "zabach" means "to make holy"?

Your little trick for the English definition of "sacrifice" only works because of the etymology of the word: it is derived from two Latin words: "sacrum" (meaning "holy") and "facio" (meaning "to make or do"). So literally, "sacrifice" means "to make holy", if we were to take the meaning of the Latin words from which it was derived. But note that even this is stretching, because

This little trick fails completely in Hebrew or Greek. Their words for sacrifice ("zabach" and "thusow" respectively) are not derived from another language.

In Hebrew, the word for "holy" is "qodesh". The word "to make holy" is "qadash". The relationship between the two words is obvious (they have the same consonants).

In Greek, the word for "holy" is "hagios". The word "to make holy" is "hagiazow". Again, the relationship between the two words is obvious.

In neither of these two cases is the word "to make holy" the same as the word "to sacrifice". "Sacrifice" (zabach) in the Hebrew pretty much always means "to ritually slaughter an animal in the service of a religion or cult", and thus it always involves bloodshed or killing. Whenever a live animal/person is made holy, or a non-animal is made holy, then a different word is used (usually qadash).

[A. Ben-Shema]

How do you know that it does? Given that you are making the assertion, you ought to back it up with at least some argument.

And yes, much of the Hebrew language has been lost. However, for a relatively frequent word like "zabach" and its cognates (of which there are hundreds of occurences in the OT) there is enough to preserve its meaning.


How do I know? Because I checked the dictionary! What dictionary did you check which told you "zabach" means "to make holy"?

Your little trick for the English definition of "sacrifice" only works because of the etymology of the word: it is derived from two Latin words: "sacrum" (meaning "holy") and "facio" (meaning "to make or do"). So literally, "sacrifice" means "to make holy", if we were to take the meaning of the Latin words from which it was derived. But note that even this is stretching, because

This little trick fails completely in Hebrew or Greek. Their words for sacrifice ("zabach" and "thusow" respectively) are not derived from another language.

In Hebrew, the word for "holy" is "qodesh". The word "to make holy" is "qadash". The relationship between the two words is obvious (they have the same consonants).

In Greek, the word for "holy" is "hagios". The word "to make holy" is "hagiazow". Again, the relationship between the two words is obvious.

In neither of these two cases is the word "to make holy" the same as the word "to sacrifice". "Sacrifice" (zabach) in the Hebrew pretty much always means "to ritually slaughter an animal in the service of a religion or cult", and thus it always involves bloodshed or killing. Whenever a live animal/person is made holy, or a non-animal is made holy, then a different word is used (usually qadash).

An ancient Hebrew word for 'sacrifice' (i.e. 'olah, which is used in e.g. Gen 8:20; 22:2; Lev 16:9; 17:8; etc.) is spelt: 'ayin - lamedh - he, and means: to go up, ascend, rise; [N] to be lifted up, withdraw, be exalted; [H] to take up, set up, to sacrifice; [Ho] to be offered up, be carried away, be recorded; [Ht] to raise oneself up; from the base meaning of rise in elevation comes the fig. extension “to exalt, honor,” as the lifting up of a person in status." e.g. to rise up above our animal nature, to the Spiritual realm AND thus be made 'SACRED' ~ which comes from the same Latin root as 'SACRIFICE.'
For this Ancient HEBREW definition of 'olah (sacrifice): SEE (CLICK) HERE!
i.e. Meaning to“ASCEND”

..............................................

'and-he-raised-up a-rising-sublimation...' (Gen 8:20) Both the noun and the verb which the hierographic writer uses to express the action of Noah sacrificing to the Divinity, issue alike from the root ('I cannot reproduce the ancient Hebrew characters'), which characterizes every thing which is raised with energy, which mounts from a low place toward a higher, which is exhaled, which is sublimated chemically, evaporates, is spiritualized, etc. This expression merits close attention in its hieroglyphic sense."
Footnote from (Gen 8:20) THE HEBRAIC TONGUE RESTORED by Fabre d'Olivet (SEE - CLICK - HERE)

..........................................

And from Philo Judaeus (a contemporary of Jesus):
"Nor if anyone, using washings and purifications soils his mind, but makes his bodily appearance brilliant; nor if again out of his abundant wealth he builds a temple with brilliant artments of all kinds, at a vast expense; nor if he offers up catombs and never ceases sacrificing oxen; nor if he adorns temples with costly offerings, bringing timber in abundance, and skilful ornaments, more valuable than nay of gold or silver, still let him not be classed among pious men, for he also has wandered out of the way to piety, looking upon ceremonious worship as equivalent to sanctity, and giving gifts to the incorruptible being who will never receive such offerings, and flattering him who can never listen to flattery, who loves genuine worship (and genuine worship is that of the soul which offers the only sacrifice, plain Truth), and rejects all spurious ministrations, and those are spurious which are only displays of external riches and extravagance....For God delights in altars on which no fire is burned, but which are frequented by virtues, and which do not blaze with great flame, such as those sacrifices do kindle which are offered by impious men, and which are no sacrifices at all, and which serve to remind one of the ignorances and wickedness of each of the sacrificers."

[Jezz]

An ancient Hebrew word for 'sacrifice' (i.e. 'olah, which is used in e.g. Gen 8:20; 22:2; Lev 16:9; 17:8; etc.) is spelt: 'ayin - lamedh - he, and means: to go up, ascend, rise; [N] to be lifted up, withdraw, be exalted; [H] to take up, set up, to sacrifice; [Ho] to be offered up, be carried away, be recorded; [Ht] to raise oneself up; from the base meaning of rise in elevation comes the fig. extension “to exalt, honor,” as the lifting up of a person in status." e.g. to rise up above our animal nature, to the Spiritual realm AND thus be made 'SACRED' ~ which comes from the same Latin root as 'SACRIFICE.'
For this Ancient HEBREW definition of 'olah (sacrifice): SEE (CLICK) HERE!
i.e. Meaning to“ASCEND”

..............................................

'olah is best translated as "burnt offering". It is not a sacrifice proper. There are sacrifices (or parts of sacrifices) which aren't burnt, but are used in other ways (eg, eaten by the priests and their families).

And making something spiritual doesn't necessarily make it holy. There are some things which are spiritual but unholy (eg, the demons).

I think I agree with your comments about spirituality being "a rise above our animal nature", but this doesn't have anything directly to do with the question of the meanings of the words.

'and-he-raised-up a-rising-sublimation...' (Gen 8:20) Both the noun and the verb which the hierographic writer uses to express the action of Noah sacrificing to the Divinity, issue alike from the root ('I cannot reproduce the ancient Hebrew characters'), which characterizes every thing which is raised with energy, which mounts from a low place toward a higher, which is exhaled, which is sublimated chemically, evaporates, is spiritualized, etc. This expression merits close attention in its hieroglyphic sense."
Footnote from (Gen 8:20) THE HEBRAIC TONGUE RESTORED by Fabre d'Olivet (SEE - CLICK - HERE)

..........................................

Same comments apply here as above.

And from Philo Judaeus (a contemporary of Jesus):
"Nor if anyone, using washings and purifications soils his mind, but makes his bodily appearance brilliant; nor if again out of his abundant wealth he builds a temple with brilliant artments of all kinds, at a vast expense; nor if he offers up catombs and never ceases sacrificing oxen; nor if he adorns temples with costly offerings, bringing timber in abundance, and skilful ornaments, more valuable than nay of gold or silver, still let him not be classed among pious men, for he also has wandered out of the way to piety, looking upon ceremonious worship as equivalent to sanctity, and giving gifts to the incorruptible being who will never receive such offerings, and flattering him who can never listen to flattery, who loves genuine worship (and genuine worship is that of the soul which offers the only sacrifice, plain Truth), and rejects all spurious ministrations, and those are spurious which are only displays of external riches and extravagance....For God delights in altars on which no fire is burned, but which are frequented by virtues, and which do not blaze with great flame, such as those sacrifices do kindle which are offered by impious men, and which are no sacrifices at all, and which serve to remind one of the ignorances and wickedness of each of the sacrificers."

That second bolded sentence don't really contradict what I said (ie, that sacrifice refers principally to the slaughter).

As for the first bolded sentence - I looked up the original Greek and managed to understand enough to realise that the translation may not be 100% accurate. But I didn't think that the matter warranted my further attention, so I haven't bothered to look into it any further and I probably won't be responding again.

[Conductor42]

Anybody can take a dictionary and try to make a translation of a word in a language they don't understand and make it mean whatever they wish.

[Tladatsi]

It seems very strange to me that a God of Love and Truth would ever have required the killing of human or animal victims for any purpose whatsoever! This seems more like a requirement of Satan. What could possibly be gained by such a bloody activity? Can God not forgive without the necessity of bloodshed?
PLU

Let me point out that in the ANE most people only ate meat once a month or less. It was a really big deal to have a meal with red meat. So they brought the animal that they were going to eat to the local "high place" and the Levite blessed the animal, killed it, kept a portion, and the family ate their meat. It is really not any different than saying a prayer of thanks to Yahweh before a meal plus it was a way to support the Levites who had not land. The same was true for the sacrifices of grain or first born males.

So sacrifice was a very practical and necessary process for the most part.

The satan was a heavenly being who served Yahweh. The text does not describe him as being an angel but moved back and forth between heaven and earth and spoke with Yahweh directly. The satan had no power in the world that Yahweh did not give him. No one sacrificed to the satan.

The main exception to this was the "olah" or holocaust. Here the flesh of sacrifice was completely consumed by the fire and no one ate it. This was closer to what most modern readers think of as sacrifice although it was very definitely the less frequent form of sacrifice. Since all things on earth come from Yahweh, a gift from Him, it was thought that to return one of His gifts in exchange for forgiveness was the theory.

Human sacrifices were, it would seem, always "olah" and did not appear to be very common. Isaac, Jephthah's daughter, and the sons and grandsons of Saul are the only examples that are pretty clear.

[Tanakh Keeper]

[F seems very strange to me that a God of Love and Truth would ever have required the killing of human or animal victims for any purpose whatsoever! This seems more like a requirement of Satan. What could possibly be gained by such a bloody activity? Can God not forgive without the necessity of bloodshed?

Any ideas?

1) Killing an animal for any purpose whatsoever is an evil act? How about to eat? The priests didn't get a portion of land like the other tribes did. Almost all of the sacrifices were eaten by them and their households.

2) Almost all forgiveness then, as now, takes place without animal sacrifices. Sincere repentance and prayer atones for sins and mistakes.

[abu njoroge]

It seems very strange to me that a God of Love and Truth would ever have required the killing of human or animal victims for any purpose whatsoever! This seems more like a requirement of Satan. What could possibly be gained by such a bloody activity? Can God not forgive without the necessity of bloodshed?

This also applies to the death of Jesus - was it really a requirement of God? and was it really for our sins?

Any ideas?

PLU

perhaps there is a hidden reason for Jesus over turning the tables in the market place? I think one reason Jesus came was to stop the blood sacrifices. It says in Isaiha that they were an abomination. For me Jesus was a great teacher,prophet,and spiritual master. I believe he came to show us the way home, and how to find the kingdom in the here and now. Many couldnt understand his teachings. Most were not ready for a life devoted to love. How can you love what you can not see(God), when you dont even love what you can see(your neighbor)? He taught how to find the Holy Spirit right now. It was easier to worship Jesus than it was for one to open their heart. Thus religion has one to supposidlly do the spiritual work for all humanity. Myself I would rather meet Gods Spirit in the here and now,than to hope for salvation after death.

[Narnian]

I know the Torah is full of them because I have read right through the bible, but I do not believe God ever required blood sacrifices. This was the erroneous ancient way of thinking - that God required appeasement from wrath. It began with human sacrifice on a mountain to keep the sun up in the sky. In the E text of the Torah (before the J text was written) Abraham is said to actually sacrifice his son Isaac. But J inserts the text about an angel and a ram. King David sacrifices 7 brothers on the mountain and "god" is appeased and sends rain for their crops. Women were 'sacrificed' for adultery. We could even say that holy wars were/are human sacrifice. Later, animals were slaughtered instead of humans, but what was needed was a total subversion of this deeply ingrained belief and pattern of thought that went Tension -> Scapegoat -> Sacrifice -> Relief. Jesus chooses to become the FINAL sacrifice - he puts an end to all blood sacrifice by 'acting', as it were, as the blood sacrifice to end all sacrifice. Only THEN could Grace and Spirit take over and humanity could mature spiritually.