Requirement for Blood?

[Jayrok]

Sort of a spinoff from another thread, but I have a question on God's desire for sacrifice...

Hebrews 10:5-6

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

This comes, of course, from Psalm 40:6:

Scripture Verse:

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

If it is true that ""Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...... with burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require."

If God didn't desire or require sacrifices and burnt offerings.. and sin offerings did not please him...

Why did he sacrifice Jesus.. or himself?


I thought blood sacrifice wasn't a requirement from God?

[Mark_S]

If it is true that ""Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...... with burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require."

If God didn't desire or require sacrifices and burnt offerings.. and sin offerings did not please him...

Why did he sacrifice Jesus.. or himself?


I thought blood sacrifice wasn't a requirement from God?

The rest of Hebrews 10 answers this very question. I'll cite since this is a much more clear explanation than I could ever write.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

The apostle having shown that the tabernacle, and ordinances of the covenant of Sinai, were only emblems and types of the gospel, concludes that the sacrifices the high priests offered continually, could not make the worshippers perfect, with respect to pardon, and the purifying of their consciences. But when "God manifested in the flesh," became the sacrifice, and his death upon the accursed tree the ransom, then the Sufferer being of infinite worth, his free-will sufferings were of infinite value. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must of his own will place himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so. The fountain of all that Christ has done for his people, is the sovereign will and grace of God. The righteousness brought in, and the sacrifice once offered by Christ, are of eternal power, and his salvation shall never be done away. They are of power to make all the comers thereunto perfect; they derive from the atoning blood, strength and motives for obedience, and inward comfort.

© source where applicable

[Jayrok]

The rest of Hebrews 10 answers this very question.

no it doesn't. It says that through this one sacrifice he has made perfect those that are being made holy (verse 14). But it doesn't answer the question as to why God required the final sacrifice in the first place. The bible tells us God doesn't desire, or require blood sacrifice.. then it says he sent an ultimate sacrifice anyway.. Why?

The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must of his own will place himself in the sinner's stead

Says who?

Do you also think all the lambs and rams/bulls were consenting sacrifices? If they didn't consent to being killed, did the sacrifice not work?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Sort of a spinoff from another thread, but I have a question on God's desire for sacrifice...

Hebrews 10:5-6

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

If God didn't desire or require sacrifices and burnt offerings.. and sin offerings did not please him...

Why did he sacrifice Jesus.. or himself?

I thought blood sacrifice wasn't a requirement from God?

One might think that if they were to take just a very narrow snippet of the context of Hebrews 10. But then there's verse 4, which must be read before verse 5 can be fully understood:

(Heb 10:4,5) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The "sacrifice" of verse 5 is simply a reference specifically to the blood of bulls and goats mentioned in verse 4, and is not applicable to the sacrifice of Christ.

[Jayrok]

One might think that if they were to take just a very narrow snippet of the context of Hebrews 10. But then there's verse 4, which must be read before verse 5 can be fully understood:

(Heb 10:4,5) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The "sacrifice" of verse 5 is simply a reference specifically to the blood of bulls and goats mentioned in verse 4, and is not applicable to the sacrifice of Christ.

That is the point of the psalms. That sacrifice and offerings God did not desire. God forgave sins, not because they slaughtered a goat. But because they obeyed him. God did not need blood sacrifice to forgive the sinner.. that is the whole point of King David in Psalm 40. There are numerous occasions in the Hebrew bible that God forgave sinners without them even offering a sacrifice. It was simply a requirement for them because they were held to a higher standard.

So no, blood of goats and bulls doesn't take away sins.. neither does blood of men... or god-men.

So that still doesn't answer why God insisted on sacrificing himself on a cross. If God doesn't desire or require a blood sacrifice, then why did he sacrifice Jesus?

[shunyadragon]

That is the point of the psalms. That sacrifice and offerings God did not desire. God forgave sins, not because they slaughtered a goat. But because they obeyed him. God did not need blood sacrifice to forgive the sinner.. that is the whole point of King David in Psalm 40. There are numerous occasions in the Hebrew bible that God forgave sinners without them even offering a sacrifice. It was simply a requirement for them because they were held to a higher standard.

So no, blood of goats and bulls doesn't take away sins.. neither does blood of men... or god-men.

So that still doesn't answer why God insisted on sacrificing himself on a cross. If God doesn't desire or require a blood sacrifice, then why did he sacrifice Jesus?

I like this thread and it raises some good questions the Christians have not answered yet. All cultures of the world evolved from animal/human sacrifice to symbolic sacrifice. The Judeo/Christian history is not much different.

God in the Bible and other scripture of the world tends to guide humans away from the need of blood sacrifice. Various lessons in the OT and Koran are symbolic of this, like the story of Isaac or Isaiah.

The emphasis on the necessity of blood atonement in the Cruxifiction and death of Christ is basically an imaginative creation early Roman Christianity.

Like the Buddha's of the east Christ came suffered and died for the salvation and enlightenment of humanity, and not blood sacrifice and atonement for sins. They did not have to, but did so voluntarilly.

[FlimFlamboyant]

That is the point of the psalms. That sacrifice and offerings God did not desire. God forgave sins, not because they slaughtered a goat. But because they obeyed him.

This is partially true. However:

(Heb 9:22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Of course, the thing about animal sacrifice was that it had to be done over and over again, because animals obviously can't be a kinsman redeemer to man, because, well, they ain't kin. :)

God did not need blood sacrifice to forgive the sinner.. that is the whole point of King David in Psalm 40.

Whether or not it was needed is not the issue. It was, however, required under the Law program, as the verse I referenced above states.

There are numerous occasions in the Hebrew bible that God forgave sinners without them even offering a sacrifice. It was simply a requirement for them because they were held to a higher standard.

For example? These special occasions in no way negated the need for periodic animal sacrifice at the temple.

So that still doesn't answer why God insisted on sacrificing himself on a cross. If God doesn't desire or require a blood sacrifice, then why did he sacrifice Jesus?

I'm pretty sure I've covered this before in another thread. I'll dig around for it. In any case, your premise is wrong, thus, so is your conclusion.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I like this thread and it raises some good questions the Christians have not answered yet. All cultures of the world evolved from animal/human sacrifice to symbolic sacrifice. The Judeo/Christian history is not much different.

There's nothing symbolic about the sacrifice of Christ. It was literal, and it was literally required. I did find the thread that I was speaking of in my previous post. It is located here

[Jayrok]

This is partially true. However:

(Heb 9:22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I didn't post this verse myself because I figured someone else would. Remember, you are quoting the author of Hebrews.. the same author that is painting the picture of Jesus necessarily being sacrificed for the world's sins.

Is there such a verse in the Hebrew scripture? If there is, then we have a contradiction of sorts.

Whether or not it was needed is not the issue. It was, however, required under the Law program, as the verse I referenced above states.

It was required because God decreed it. But he didn't say doing so would cleanse everyone of their sins. It was an act of obedience. It was done on behalf of the tribe, or single offender, by the priests... for unintentional sins.

If God didn't need it to forgive sins, then why was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for sins?

For example? These special occasions in no way negated the need for periodic animal sacrifice at the temple.

Periodic animal sacrifices were ceremonial.

1 Sam 15:22

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

Saul's soldiers brought back cattle from their plunder and Samuel tells him that God doesn't want their sacrifice as much as he wants their obedience.

Hosea 14:1-2

Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.
Your sins have been your downfall! 2 Take words with you
and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

Here we see that prayer is an adequate substitute for the blood of bulls (sacrifice).

psalm 69:30-31

I will praise God's name in song and glorify him with thanksgiving. 31 This will please the LORD more than an ox, more than a bull with its horns and hoofs.

Daniel 4:27

Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

Daniel tells king Nebuchadnezzar that he should renounce his sins by doing what is right and being kind to the oppressed. Doesn't mention sacrifice for forgiveness.

In Jonah, the people of Nineveh were forgiven and spared by God when he took compassion on them because of what they did to obey him. No sacrifice mentioned, just some fasting and repentence.

When solomon built the first temple, he prayed to God a variety of prayers asking God to forgive Israel's sins. In 2 Chronicles 6, he offers this prayer (among others):

"When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because your people have sinned against you, and when they pray toward this place and confess your name and turn from their sin because you have afflicted them, 27 then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel.

2 Chronicles 7:13-14

"When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

In this chapter, God appears before Solomon and said he heard his prayers.
He says if Israel will humble themselves and pray to God and turn from their wicked ways, he will hear them and forgive them of their sins.

So there are a few times where God does forgive sins of men without mention of an animal sacrifice.

sacrifice of animals was decreed by God to his people, but he didn't require it to be the "only" way to atone for their sins. It was one way, but not the only way as the author of Hebrews suggests.

In any case, your premise is wrong, thus, so is your conclusion.

says you.

[Jayrok]

There's nothing symbolic about the sacrifice of Christ. It was literal, and it was literally required. I did find the thread that I was speaking of in my previous post. It is located here

Here is the pertinent information you posted in the other thread, that deals with our discussion:

Why does God require blood? The punishment for sin is death, is it not? Thus the source of our life must be taken away. Where is it?

(Lev 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Leviticus 17 is talking about God forbidding the Jews from eating the blood of the animals, because the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Yes, it says that blood makes atonement for the soul.. But realize that it doesn't say that blood is the only means of atonement for sins. Nor does it say that without this bloodshed, there is no remission of sins.

And that is what we are talking about. The bible tells us that God doesn't desire or require sacrifice.

Do you think the verses that mention this are in contradiction to what you posted on Lev 17?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Jayrock, as I began to go through your post, and reply accordingly, I came to see a recurring theme, and I should perhaps clear something up. We may agree a little more than you might be thinking right now. The animal sacrifices mandated under the law of Moses could not make full atonement for the sins of mankind. Impossible. However, they were required as acts of obedience to God. They were also a shadow of the blood of the Lamb that would eventually come. Consider Abraham's attempted offering up of his son Isaac. It was a test of his faith, and the blood of Isaac had nothing to do with it.

If God didn't need it to forgive sins, then why was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for sins?

Your confusion here seems to stem from the fact that you recognize no difference between the blood of those animals, and the blood of Christ. There are however, monumental differences.

An animal cannot make full atonement for a man. They are two different creatures, thus the principle of the kinsman redeemer cannot apply. Any man other than Christ also could not make atonement for a man because they couldn't meet the following requirement:

(1Pe 1:18,19) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

[FlimFlamboyant]

And that is what we are talking about. The bible tells us that God doesn't desire or require sacrifice.

... sacrifice of ANIMALS. You're generalizing things for the sake of your argument, and it doesn't work. In Psalm 40, what in the world could David have possibly been referring to other than the animal sacrifices mandated under the Mosaic law?

[Jayrok]

Jayrock, as I began to go through your post, and reply accordingly, I came to see a recurring theme, and I should perhaps clear something up. We may agree a little more than you might be thinking right now. The animal sacrifices mandated under the law of Moses could not make full atonement for the sins of mankind. Impossible. However, they were required as acts of obedience to God. They were also a shadow of the blood of the Lamb that would eventually come. Consider Abraham's attempted offering up of his son Isaac. It was a test of his faith, and the blood of Isaac had nothing to do with it.


Your confusion here seems to stem from the fact that you recognize no difference between the blood of those animals, and the blood of Christ. There are however, monumental differences.

An animal cannot make full atonement for a man. They are two different creatures, thus the principle of the kinsman redeemer cannot apply. Any man other than Christ also could not make atonement for a man because they couldn't meet the following requirement:

(1Pe 1:18,19) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

I read those passages to say that God never really required blood sacrifice, for the atonement of sins, period. Whether it be from animals or humans, or a spotless lamb like Christ. He doesn't need any sacrifice.. what he needs is for people to seek forgiveness for their sins and repent. I don't see why Jesus had to die as a sacrifice, when God didn't need a sacrifice.

He told them to sacrifice animals, but he had the will and power to forgive their sins without anything dying... at all. In Ezekiel 18, God said if a wicked man turned from his old ways and did what is just and right, he would surely live. He was forgiven without killing a goat... and forgiven without killing Jesus Christ.

If I said Jesus wasn't without blemish (meaning he was beaten to a pulp and a bloody mess before he reached the cross), then you may come back with "the without blemish part really means sinless".. again we have the symbolic vs the figurative.. With the bible, it is hard to determine what is literal and what is metaphor.

You told Shunyadragon that Christ's death wasn't symbolic.. it literally happened.. If you are going to be literal, then why wasn't Christ's sacrifice in accordance with the "law program"? I mean, why wasn't Christ's blood sprinkled on the altar of the temple by a levite priest? You'll say that Jesus was the priest.. The method of sacrifice by the priests was important, and the handling of the blood on the altar.

[Jayrok]

... sacrifice of ANIMALS. You're generalizing things for the sake of your argument, and it doesn't work. In Psalm 40, what in the world could David have possibly been referring to other than the animal sacrifices mandated under the Mosaic law?

What was he talking about? He was talking about sacrifice in general. Pagan religions in his time were sacrificing humans to their gods. God didn't need any type of sacrifice, animal or supernatural..

[FlimFlamboyant]

I read those passages to say that God never really required blood sacrifice, for the atonement of sins, period.

Big surprise. It's pretty obvious to me that David had the law of Moses in mind, and the sacrifices surrounding it when he wrote that. The fact that he mentions burnt offering in conjunction with sin offering seems to make that pretty clear. Unless you can prove otherwise, your whole argument doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as I can tell.