Why does God need Blood, why cant he except repentance without the human sacrifice of Jesus?

[OneSizeFit]

Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11

Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." --Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" --Psalm 51:16-17


Question is why did we as followers of Christ return to blood sacrifice as the only acceptable way to make our sins right...

Did we foul up, did John and Paul get it wrong, or did God change his mind again when he sent his Son?

As far as I can see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus emphasized the Prophets over the blood sacrifice God of the Torah.

Thoughts?

[hedrick]

This question gets its rhetorical and emotional force from the implication that Jesus is a separate person who God is somewhat arbitrarily requiring to pay the price. But that's not the normal Christian approach. We normally assume that Christ was God's own presence, and that it was God who was acting in Christ to reconcile us (2 Cor 5:19). I think that changes things.

I would say that we don't know that this was the only thing God could have done. However if the world is set up so that decisions have real consequences (a design choice that God made, and presumably could have made differently) then sin will have consequences. God chose to arrange things so that he bore the most serious consequences himself. I think that's the way to view the issue. God could probably have arranged to overlook the consequences. But if he wanted to really deal with sin, that isn't the healthiest approach. (This is a paraphrase of something in Romans, but I haven't been able to find it.)

Unless the Incarnation is really true, then this whole mode of redemption seems morally dubious.

[Ex Nihilo]

Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11

Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." --Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" --Psalm 51:16-17


Question is why did we as followers of Christ return to blood sacrifice as the only acceptable way to make our sins right...

Did we foul up, did John and Paul get it wrong, or did God change his mind again when he sent his Son?

As far as I can see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus emphasized the Prophets over the blood sacrifice God of the Torah.

Thoughts?

Granted I don't know much about this, but I think that originally this was a design thing as well. There has to be a form of atonement, to sacrifice the single most valuable thing that people had would have been a worthy sacrifice. The life blood of your flock, the finest of your most sustainable asset. Not to mention that it says somewhere that "the blood is life", so there is definately something in the blood. What that something is, I don't know, but there is definately sometime.

It's consistent that the finest of God's "flock" would have to follow the rules. Circumventing them would be a defiance of what was set up and as a rule, God doesn't break certain rules.

I know it sounds silly now that I write it, it sounds better in my head for some reason.

[37818]

Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11

Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." --Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" --Psalm 51:16-17


Question is why did we as followers of Christ return to blood sacrifice as the only acceptable way to make our sins right...

Did we foul up, did John and Paul get it wrong, or did God change his mind again when he sent his Son?

As far as I can see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus emphasized the Prophets over the blood sacrifice God of the Torah.

Thoughts?

It has every thing to do with the fall of man. And the knowledge of good and evil being God's knowledge. And the fact that God is wholly just and at the same time fully merciful.

First off. man in the fall took on God's knowledge of good and evil and became responsable to hold God's perfect standard. (Which man being finite cannot do.)

Second, justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. Yet God does both at the same time.

The problem, if mercy is given without justice being satisfied then God would not be truly just. If God only punished sin to meet His perfect justice, no one would be saved. There could be no mercy. So God by the death of His Son satisfied His justice that God might be both just and the justifier of those who trust in Him. (Romans 3:23-26. 1 John 2:2.)

Now the Son of God being incarnate as a man did not cease to be God. So His death would be more that all the deaths of all living things. And also because Jesus was truly a man would also have to be God in order to be the sinless man (Luke 18:19.)

Now the soul of the flesh is in the flesh by means of the blood. Jesus' death for sin was the death of His soul (Isaiah 53:10, 12. John 10:18.) And this was completed before His physical death by His own volition (John 19:28, 30.) The death of His soul meant the giving of His shed blood. The payment of sin, the death of His soul was done by means of shed blood. The payment of death was done with blood, His blood (Acts 20:28.)

And besides this all the OT sacrifices were only a picture of what was to come and not the real thing (Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:11.)

[seanD]

Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11

Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." --Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" --Psalm 51:16-17

Burnt offerings were different from sin offerings, though the two are often confused. A sin offering was required. A burnt offering was done in devotion. The sin offering had to be followed by the protocols laid out for the priest, and the animal had to be blemish free. The problem with the burnt offering is that offering an unblemished animal, or a first born, was often compromised or done begrudgingly. God was addressing their attitude towards the burnt offering which was more important than the offering itself.

Question is why did we as followers of Christ return to blood sacrifice as the only acceptable way to make our sins right...

Did we foul up, did John and Paul get it wrong, or did God change his mind again when he sent his Son?

As far as I can see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus emphasized the Prophets over the blood sacrifice God of the Torah.

Thoughts?

I don't get what you mean here.

But if I understand you correctly, the sin offering was a life for a life. The blood was so prominent with the sacrifice, as gory as it was, because no other expression of death was achieved unless the blood was spilled out. It's interesting that the Hebrews knew that the blood contained the essentials of life and not the heart, the brain, or anything else. The problem with the sin offering (which was required) was that it had to be done continually, whereas the sacrifice of Christ was only needed once. Hope that answers your question.

[OneSizeFit]

Those are some really complex answers...but I think I just wanted to know, why does God an infinite, invisible, God of Love require human or animal blood? If He expects us to forgive with no strings attached why cant he forgive us with no strings attached, let alone blood?

I dont know, I'm rambling but sometimes, I'm praying and blood of Jesus will pop out of my mouth or in my mind, and I feel like some sort pagan, blood cult, vampire dude...

I'm starting to lean more towards the importance, and revelation of the Holy Spirit, than the blood sacrifice thing.

[Bavinck]

If He expects us to forgive with no strings attached why cant he forgive us with no strings attached, let alone blood?

Because God is the creator and Lord who will judge his creation in righteousness while we are the creatures that he will judged.

Bavinck

[OneSizeFit]

LOL. Life aint fair eh.

[Bavinck]

LOL. Life aint fair eh.

Actually, the point is that we aren't God. Aruging that this isn't fair is just plain silly.

[OneSizeFit]

I never said we are gods. Neither am I arguing, I wanted to know if people are comfortable with a God that demands blood for redemption.

[Bavinck]

I never said we are gods. Neither am I arguing, I wanted to know if people are comfortable with a God that demands blood for redemption.

I certainly am since I am forgiven by it.

[OneSizeFit]

Coolio.

[RBerman]

Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11

Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." --Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" --Psalm 51:16-17


Question is why did we as followers of Christ return to blood sacrifice as the only acceptable way to make our sins right...

Did we foul up, did John and Paul get it wrong, or did God change his mind again when he sent his Son?

As far as I can see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus emphasized the Prophets over the blood sacrifice God of the Torah.

Thoughts?

1) You misread the prophets. Hosea and Psalms are not criticizing sacrifices. They are criticizing those who think that sacrifices entitle them to live evil lives and then expect to be forgiven. This theme runs throughout the OT, as early as 1 Samuel 15:22 for instance.

2) I hope you're not seriously asking whether the NT "got it wrong." The NT is the Word of God. When Jesus "emphasized the Prophets," he included Moses in their number. Jesus quotes the Torah frequently and positively. But like the OT prophets, and like Paul, he knows that the Torah's sacrificial system offers no protection for those who cynically and hypocritically hope the letter of the law relieves them of the requirement to devote themselves humbly to God.

[Jedidiah]

I never said we are gods. Neither am I arguing, I wanted to know if people are comfortable with a God that demands blood for redemption.

God requires blood, then provides it Himself. What is the problem?

[Ex Nihilo]

OK, I was thinking about this a little more, you have to have a significant symbol of atonement or repentance, right? (Protestants may disagree, but this is why I am moving away from the idea...)

If there has to be a pennance, what else would be an acceptable alternative? God said that Abel's blood "cried to him" after he was murdered. There has to be some consideration of the imporance there. Or maybe it's just literary creativity.

Cain's fruit was never the issue I think, I always understood that he didn't give the BEST of his harvest that made him displeased in the eyes of God.

But if it wasn't blood, what would have been a good alternative?