The Christadelphian September 1957, John Carter

“Sacrifice”

Sacrifice plays an important part in the worship of Old Testament times: it might be said to be an essential part of acceptable worship. From the days of Abel we read of men coming to God with an offering; Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and David, all offered sacrifices. In all cases they offered a slain animal, either as a burnt or some other offering. This institution of blood sacrifices from earliest times as the offerings of individual worshippers, and later embodied in the elaborate Levitical code to guide the worship of the people of Israel, must intend some vital lesson.

Modern writers have sought for explanations outside the Scriptures. It is true that other nations besides Israel had their sacrificial systems. This is to be expected if we accept the Bible history that originally all mankind was one and the division into nations followed as a divine judgment for apostasy. Since sacrifices formed part of the worship before the division took place, we can well understand the various branches of the human family continuing to follow the modes of worship which marked their earlier days. But since corruption had already set in, and was in fact the cause of the dispersion, then the methods followed by the nations are likely to be degenerate forms of worship. The comparison may provide information why some some of the regulations were given to Israel. For example, the degenerate worship was so often associated with fertility cults that Israel was forbidden to practise some of the rites of other nations. The explanation for the prohibition is to be found in the prevailing corruption around Israel.

Some strange reconstructions of the Bible story have been invented by modern writers. Frazer, deeply versed in the study of comparative religion, suggests that the Passover developed from an annual night of terror when executioners were about the streets, when blood was put on the door to deceive them into thinking that the house had been already visited. How contrary such a notion is to the Bible account we all know. The Bible story becomes on Frazer’s view, a myth without any historical foundation. Similar treatment of other Biblical accounts of men’s approach to God with sacrifices robs the Bible of any value as a divine revelation. Even when the account is given greater credence, it is surprising what varied theories of the object of sacrifice have been advanced. Most of these theories are marked by some idea of an evolution both in the form of sacrifice and in the meaning attached to it.

There is progress in the unfolding of the revelation in harmony with the changing circumstances in which men lived. This is illustrated in the major promises given in Eden, to Abraham, and to David. Each promise is suited to the circumstances when it was made: but there is no development in the principle of God’s dealing with men. God is the same in all ages, and man since the fall has at all times stood in need of the same reconciliation with God. The ritual of sacrifice is basic to the Scripture teaching on reconciliation, and its significance has to be sought in that context. In the first stage of human history there was no sacrifice, for man was in harmony with his God. The relationships which were ruptured by sin led in the divine wisdom to the appointment of sacrifice.

While there is no reference to a command being given to Adam concerning sacrifice, it is implicit in the different reception given to the offerings of Cain and Abel. God had respect to Abel’s offering—a response difficult to understand if there had been no command. There is no reference to sacrifice in the provision for a covering for Adam and Eve after transgression, yet it is only understandable if sacrifice was a vital part of the transaction. The narrative of Genesis was not written until generations afterwards when men had received more instruction about sacrificial offerings. It is therefore legitimate to read Genesis in the light of that fuller knowledge. Human history is very compressed in the opening chapters of Genesis, but the patient reader gradually realizes what an unfathomable wealth of instruction is hidden there. Those whose memories go back to bro. C. C. Walker’s expositions know his habit of tracing the roots of many things to the Bible’s early chapters.

It is clear that man’s innocence passed with the entrance of sin. “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” It was a confession such as a child might make, telling only too well what had happened. God needed not to ask the next question for His own sake, but to bring home to man that he had disobeyed. “Who told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” The man’s disobedience already had brought its toll: he was aware of a change in himself and felt a changed relationship towards his Maker. No longer on terms of friendship, he knew he had broken the harmony with God. His conscience functioned to his shame.

In his summary of the principles of religion at the end of Chapter 5 of Elpis Israel, Dr. Thomas expresses in a sentence the effect of sin: “Man’s defilement was first a matter of conscience, and then corporeal”; and he adds, “For this cause, his purification is first a cleansing of his understanding, sentiments, and affections; and afterwards, the perfecting of his body by spiritualizing it at the resurrection”. He then sums up the principles of religion as follows:

“The elementary doctrinal principles of religion are few and simple; and no other reason can be given for them than that God wills them. They may be thus stated:

(a) No sinner can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, that he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.

(b) Sin cannot be covered, or remitted, without the shedding of blood.

(c) The blood of animals cannot take away sin.

(d) Sin must be condemned in sinful flesh innocent of transgression.

(e) Sins must be covered by a garment derived from the purification-sacrifice made living by a resurrection.”

“Sin cannot be covered or remitted without the shedding of blood.” This is an incontrovertible doctrine of Scripture, and it follows that wherever sin has been remitted there must have been some knowledge of the divine basis upon which such remittance takes place. It may not be present as a deep understanding of the divine reasons for the arrangement, but there must be a knowledge of the fact that remittance and blood shedding are connected. At this point let it be said that in the very use of the term “blood shedding” we are using the language of the typical system which requires to be translated into the facts denoted by the ritual.

The record says: “Unto Adam and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin, and clothed them”. God put aside their own devices by which they sought to hide their shame. He did not instruct them that they must clothe themselves with coats of skin; God made the coats for them. A covering for sin is not something man can provide himself, it must be provided by God. The record does not say that the animals whose skins were used were offered sacrificially; but it is clear that the God-provided covering had been procured through death.

When we turn to the offerings of Abel we find three hints that some instruction had been given. The offering was of the firstlings of the flock: the method of offering was with the fat: and the time was “at the end of the days” (margin) or at an appointed time. If the kind of offering had been optional there does not seem to be any reason for Cain’s offering to be refused. He brought the fruit of his labour as a tiller of the ground; while Abel, the shepherd, brought the lamb. The respect for the one and not the other, then, must be connected with the character of the offering in relation to what was known of God’s will.

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh” (Heb. 11 : 4). There was an excellence about Abel’s offering which was offered in faith. But faith is connected with God’s word: “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. Abel, then, had accepted God’s instruction, and had brought the required offering. The same result is reached from the consideration of God’s remonstrance to the angry Cain: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”. “At the entrance a sin-bearer is lying” is Rotherham’s translation. Robert Young, who translated the Bible besides compiling the Concordance which bears his name, has these comments on verse 7:

“A sin-offering. The same original word occurs with this meaning in Lev. 6 : 25–30; Exod. 29 : 14, 36; Num. 8 : 8.

“Croucheth. Applied to the lying down of a lion (Gen. 49 : 9), of wild beasts (Isa. 13 : 21) of flocks (Isa. 17 : 2), of an ass (Num. 22 : 27), of a leopard (Isa. 11 : 6), of sheep (Gen. 29 : 2), of Issachar (Gen. 49 : 14), of the deep (Gen. 49 : 25), or curses (Deut. 29 : 20), of a bird (Deut. 22 : 6), of a person (Song 1 : 7).

“Thou rulest over it. That is, thou hast power over the animal to keep alive or to offer in sacrifice; its desire is towards thee—it is not afraid of thee.”

The note in the Companion Bible is to the same effect. From this we see that God directed Cain to the way in which he could acceptably come in worship, and so indicated wherein his own offering had fallen short of what was required. Had he chosen, a lamb was obtainable.

The first family were therefore instructed that approach to God was only by obedience to His revealed will which required they come with the evidence of an animal slain. The other offerings of which we read in patriarchal times appear to have been elaborated under the national code given to Israel. But before the code was given the nation had a drastic lesson concerning the condition by which men could come to God. The book of Exodus is a parable of redemption, and the events that happened from Passover to Sinai are given a typical meaning in the New Testament. The way of redemption in Israel’s experience began by the slaying of the Passover lamb. They were then baptized in the Red Sea. They were provided with bread from heaven, and water from the smitten rock. They learned that success in their battles depended upon the unfailing hands uplifted to God in which they saw a combination of prophet-mediator, priest and king prevailing for their victory. They had to follow the token of God’s presence in the pillar of fire and cloud. Each item was deeply significant—Jesus himself giving us the meaning in the addresses which John records. Salvation at every stage was of God. It would seem that a people which had experienced such blessings were surely in God’s favour. But more had to be done before their redemption was completed. They assembled at the mount not for worship or fellowship, but to hear the terms of the covenant set out: but they were held away. They had to wash their clothes, but that did not avail. The whole mount was out of bounds to them: they could not draw near. So stern was the prohibition that if man or beast touched the mount they must die. Even the beast that had touched the mount had not to be touched—it had to be struck through with a dart. The whole manifestation was terrible: thunder and lightning, thick cloud, and trumpet voice that struck terror into all hearers. It was a strange sequel to what they had so far experienced.

The contrast is pointed in chapter 24. Here we are told of the confirmation of the covenant. Young men of the children of Israel offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and “Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words” (Exod. 24 : 6–8).

When this was done Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy elders went up to the mount and saw the God of Israel. The people hitherto kept away are now welcomed, and the change from the prohibition only shortly before in force is pin-pointed by the statement: “And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God and did eat and drink”. They now became the guests of the Almighty. What had wrought the change? The answer is that the blood of the covenant had been shed and sprinkled upon them: and now they were the people of God.

But the parable goes further: for the next command is that they shall make a tabernacle that God might dwell among them (25 : 8). The instruction concerning the tabernacle was followed by appointment of a priesthood to lead them in their approaches to God (28 : 1).

Israel could not miss the lesson of the change in their relationship which was established in the covenant confirmed in shed blood.

Leviticus follows Exodus, historically, logically and spiritually. It details the laws concerning the various offerings—burnt, sin, trespass, peace—which became an essential part of their national law. Their constitution was provided by God, for God was their King and they were His Kingdom. The continuance of their national life was based upon their obedience: and the forgiveness of their sins was associated with offerings which reached their climax in the ritual of the Day of Atonement when, after the High Priest had taken the blood of the sin offering into the Most Holy, “all their iniquities, and all their transgressions, and all their sins” were confessed, and laid upon the live goat to be taken entirely away.

The reason for the very great importance of the blood in their ritual was given in Lev. 17 : 11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” “I have given it”—for the arrangement was of God: He provided the way of atonement: but it was the way that involved the taking of the life of the animal. Only through life given was there atonement.

Another lesson was enshrined in the law of the offerings. There was a close identification established between the animal offered and the one who offered (Lev. 1 : 2–4). The hands laid on the animal’s head made it the man’s representative: what befell it was recognized as something due from him. It is here that we get to the nerve of the lesson. Man is a sinner: sin is rebellion—and God has imposed death for sin. The acceptable offerer recognizing his true relationship to God humbly saw in the animal’s death a token of what was due to him. When this is recognized a moral feature enters into the whole transaction. The offering becomes a symbol of the ruptured relations with God which sin has wrought, and a token of the principle which God demands shall be recognized as a condition of forgiveness.

But no spiritually minded Israelite would fasten upon the literal blood as itself effective to make reconciliation. This would reduce the healing of a sundered relationship between a holy God and a sinner to a mechanical operation. It is true that the blood “was given to make an atonement for your lives”; it is true that we are told that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. But to construe the saying literally leads to absurdity. The fluid in the veins of either animal or man cannot achieve what is a moral operation: it cannot cleanse the flesh it touches, but otherwise: still less can it cleanse the conscience which is inward and spiritual. Besides, the blood of Jesus is no longer accessible; nor was it ever available as an actual literal thing. The claims of the Roman Catholic to have phials of Christ’s blood need only to be stated to be dismissed. We must then seek the meaning of the ritual: we must seek the ideas of which the ritual language is but a symbol: just as the ritual itself was a symbol and its meaning had to be found.

Another reflection must have troubled the mind of a thoughtful man. While he was identified with the offering and it became his representative, he must have felt that that was not adequate. The animal was not to blame for his sin: viewed apart from God’s appointment, it was not right that an animal should die because he had sinned. In itself, then, an animal offering could not effect atonement. The man had sinned: an action of his had come between him and God. To restore the fellowship the act must be forgiven: and this can only be by God forgiving. Anything that is required by God to effect reconciliation must be on the same plane as governs the relationship—that is, the moral plane. The principles which the offerings were designed to set out were moral principles. Moral excellence in the ultimate offering for sin was foreshadowed by the freedom from physical blemish of the animal.

The impotence of the animal offerings was demonstrated by the service on the day of Atonement. On that day all the transgressions, all the sins, all the iniquities, were in a way gathered up—although there had been a continual series of daily offerings on behalf of the nation and a succession of offerings by individuals. And then even the offerings of that great day were all repeated the following year. Had any one of them provided the true basis for the forgiveness of sins—that basis would have stood always. Repetition spelt ineffectiveness.

The system of sacrifice in Old Testament times was a part of the revelation of God. It was important in its instruction positively and negatively to all who were exercised thereby. But that importance is even surpassed by the fact that the idiom of the Old Testament sacrifices provided the mould in which the language relating to the work of Jesus Christ was cast. Confusion arises when the New Testament terms are used as counters in verbal discussion without regard to moral values involved. The “blood of Christ” is a phrase moulded on the Old Testament sacrificial language. It stands for his death as a sacrifice. The word “sacrifice” carries us forward to something that God required to be done as a condition of receiving men to favour. Christ’s death exhibited a principle of God’s dealings with men: in Paul’s words: “It declared God’s righteousness”. The restriction on the meaning of the terms used, and the use of language which has implied that a mechanical value attached to the blood of Christ, has produced strifes of words and confusion of thought. To say Christ was brought from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant is using Old Testament ritual language. The Apostle used it constantly as a convenient shorthand. We misuse it when we fail to see that Paul meant that God raised Jesus from death and gave him endless life because of his obedience to God and his voluntary death. To have our sins washed in his blood is to say that God forgives us for his sake, because he laid down his life as God required. Unless in our thought the Apostle’s language has become for us a well defined shorthand for other ideas, we should continually and consciously, as we read, think what it means.

John Carter.