Supreme Sacrifice (Chapter 3) ---- Offerings and Sacrifice

[_Paidion]

Chapter Three
Offerings and Sacrifice

The first offerings to God were those of Cain and Abel. Did God require these offerings? Did He ever ask for them, or suggest them? There is nothing in the Scriptures indicating that He did. Cain and Abel thought they might please God somehow by offering the best fruit of their labours. It wasn't that God needed these things. Can anyone give the Creator of the Universe a gift? The idea is preposterous to one who understands His Majesty! Those who serve lesser gods may try to give their gods something. For their gods did not create the things that were offered to them. But what does God Himself say about attempts to give Him a gift?

Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. Job 41:11

No doubt the apostle Paul had this passage in mind when he wrote:

Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:35,36

Yet God will regard the offerings of man. Won’t any good father do the same when his little daughter brings him the gift of a dandelion or his little son, a toad? The father doesn't want or need either a dandelion or a toad. Nevertheless he will accept these gifts given in their childish innocence, and make some positive remark besides. In this way, he'll recognize the intent of his children to please him. God, in whose image we are created, will also graciously receive the gifts with which we try to please Him, although He doesn't need or want them.
In Genesis 4:3-5, we read:

In the course of time Cain brought to Yahweh an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And Yahweh had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

Why did God have no regard for Cain and his offering? You may have heard preachers say that God was displeased with the kind of offering that Cain brought. Many who consider atonement as a sacrifice to appease an angry God, tell us that Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not an animal offering. They quote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." They say that Abel's offering was acceptable because it was an animal from his flock. But notice that this passage does not say that God did not have regard for Cain's offering, but rather that He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. When we read on, we find out why.

Yahweh said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it. Genesis 4:6,7

Now the truth of what God requires comes out! God would have accepted Cain and his offering if he had done well! It is not that God requires a certain kind of offering, that is, a bloody one. Indeed He doesn't require any offering! Rather God requires people to do well, and to master sin. God didn't say to Cain, "If you offer an animal sacrifice, will you not be accepted?" Rather he said, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" and "If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door... but you must master it ."
God had regard for Abel and his offering. Was it because Abel offered the right kind of offering? No! It was because Abel did well. Cain's failure to master sin manifested itself soon afterward in that he committed the first murder - that of his brother.

Doing Well and How it is Possible
God requires us to do well. He requires us to master sin. But He understands our weaknesses, our inability to work righteousness. This is why He sent His Son to die for us. This is the reason for the means of mercy provided by Christ.

In no passage do we read that Christ died in order to forgive us our sins so that we could get to heaven. Rather, as the scriptures make clear, He died in order that we would no longer be self-serving sinners, but rather come under Lordship of Christ, overcome sin, become healed of our sin-sickness, and by His enabling grace actually become purified and righteous people who are eager to do good deeds, deeds that will help others to meet their needs. Proponents of the substitutionary theory of atonement believe that we are saved from hell. However, the angel announced, “You shall call His name “Jesus” for He will save His people from their sins.

But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Matt 1:20,21


The Enabling Grace of God
In examining the passage in Titus in its entirety, we find that Paul makes clear the true meaning of "grace". Paul first tells Timothy to instruct older men, older women, young women, and younger men how to live godly lives. Then he urges Timothy to be a model of good deeds himself. He asks Timothy to instruct slaves to show true fidelity to their masters. Then he writes the following to show that these instructions in righteous living cannot be carried out in the weakness of fallen man, but requires the enabling grace of God, made available to us through the death of Christ:

For the grace of God appeared for the saving of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously, and piously in the present age, expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself on our behalf to redeem us from all lawlessness, and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and correct with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Titus 2: 11-15

Notice that, in this passage, the grace of God is said to be the means by which we are trained to live righteous lives in this world. This is a far cry from the "unmerited favour" of God overlooking our sins because of Christ's "substitutionary death". Rather, in this passage Paul gives us the purpose of the death of Christ as he does so often elsewhere. Was it to "redeem us from hell"? No! It was to redeem us from all lawlessness! To purify for Himself a people of His own who are eager to do good deeds.

Righteousness Before the Time of Christ
The question may well be asked, “How could people be righteous and pleasing to God before the sacrifice of Christ?” There is plenty of Old Testament evidence that some were. Here are just a few references:

Gen 6:9 ... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation.
De 16:19 You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.
Ps 33:1 Rejoice in Yahweh, O you righteous! Praise befits the upright.
Ps 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Yahweh delivers him out of them all.

How could these people be righteous without the enabling grace made possible by the death of Christ?

It seems that they were righteous and obedient to God, compared to those around them, but did not have the same fullness of righteousness that was made possible by Christ’s blood. Take for example, Lot. One would never guess, by reading the account of Lot’s life, that he was a righteous man. But 2 Peter 2:7 refers to him as “righteous Lot”. Secondly, consider David, a man after God’s own heart, who in his psalms calls upon God to take vengeance on his enemies, himself brings curses on them. In the words of Ps 109 concerning each of his enemies he said, “May his days be few. May his children wander around and beg. Let there be none to pity his fatherless children. And in Psalm 139, he prayed, “Do I not hate them that hate you, O Yahweh? I hate them with a perfect hatred. I count them my enemies.” Is this not a very different attitude from that which Christ taught his disciples when he said, “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, and do good to those who hate you.” Yet, after saying, “I hate them with perfect hatred, he immediately continued in his prayer, “Search me, O God, and know my heart. And see if there is any wicked way in me.” So David didn’t seem to be aware of the wrongness within him. It was through the death of Christ that regeneration and true righteousness would come about.

A Fuller Sacrifice
At first glance, the following passage seems inconsistent with the statements made concerning the sacrifices of Cain and Abel:

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 (KJV)

One who has been taught the substitutionary view might think that this passage is saying that the kind of offering is the important thing here, that a blood sacrifice was necessary. Thus Abel’s sacrifice was “more excellent”. But the more literal meaning of "pleion" is “more” or “greater” or "fuller". This word indicates that the difference between their sacrifices was one of degree rather than one of kind. Also, notice this passage speaks of Abel’s sacrifice and also his gifts. These are two different entities! Abel’s sacrifice was not his gifts. In Genesis 4, his gifts, the firstlings of his flock, were called “an offering”, but not “a sacrifice”. One could conclude that Abel’s sacrifice was that of himself, and that he found the grace of God sufficient for mastery of sin. Perhaps Cain also sacrificed himself in some fashion, but it was incomplete and inferior. God did not accept Cain and his gifts. God explained why. "If you DO WELL, will you not be accepted?" and "If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door... but you must MASTER IT." If Cain had made some progress in doing well by mastering sin, God would have accepted him and his offering. By offering himself more completely to God and overcoming sin, Abel’s sacrifice was greater than that of Cain’s.

Another Offering
The next scriptural record of an offering made to God was that of Noah as the people and animals were leaving the ark.

Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when Yahweh smelled the pleasing odour, Yahweh said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Gen 8: 20-22

As in the case of Abel, Yahweh was pleased with Noah and his offering. For Noah has lived a life of obedience to God. He had "done well" in building the ark and preserving life on it in obedience to God's command. Did God require this offering from Noah? Nothing in the text suggests such an idea.

The origin of Appeasing Sacrifices
From early times, the nations of the world tried to appease their gods through offering sacrifices to them. “The gods of the nations are demons.”

For example, the Sumerians who originated from the cradle of civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, offered appeasing sacrifices to gods, even substitutionary sacrifices.

Here is an extract from their liturgy:

The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he has given up a lamb for his life; he hath given up a lamb's head for the man's head.

The portion of the Sumerian liturgy quoted above was taken from C. Leonard Woolley's book The Sumerians, page 126. Woolley added, "and here we have a relic of human sacrifice such as was actually found in the graves of the prehistoric kings at Ur."

It seems that when a Sumerian person was chosen as a sacrifice of appeasement to the gods, he could substitute a lamb, and thereby escape death himself.

The nations sacrificed animals and they sacrificed people. Of course the demons delighted in the worship they were receiving as well as the fact that their worshippers were helping to destroy people with their human sacrifices. The Hebrews learned to offer appeasing sacrifices from the nations. The following passages tell of sacrifices made by God’s people to the demons. The Hebrews even went so far in emulating the nations, that they offered human sacrifices to their demonic gods:

They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded. Deuteronomy 32:17

They did not destroy the peoples, as Yahweh commanded them,
but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; 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. Psalms 106:34-38


The First Sacrifice Recorded in the Bible
The first sacrifice recorded in the Bible is that of Jacob. This is found in Genesis 31:54. This was offered by Jacob in connection with the covenant he made with Laban.

Then Laban said to Jacob, "See this heap and the pillar, which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass over this heap to you, and you will not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us." So Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac, and Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and called his kinsmen to eat bread; and they ate bread and tarried all night on the mountain.

Where did Jacob learn to offer sacrifice? Could he have learned it from Rebekah his mother, who was a Syrian? (Gen 25:20) Or could he have learned to sacrifice from Uncle Laban? Jacob had lived with Laban for many years, and must have observed Laban’s form of worship. Laban was a Syrian (Gen 31:20). The Syrians were worshippers of other gods. Evidence of this appears in the following passage from Judges:

Judges 10:6 And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines; and they forsook Yahweh, and did not serve him.

One may also notice that it is not recorded as to whom Jacob offered the sacrifice. Jacob had heard from Yahweh and was obeying Him. But did he sometimes sacrifice to other gods as did his mother and uncle? Perhaps not. Perhaps he transferred the concept of sacrifice to his worship of Yahweh. One thing is certain. Yahweh, the God of his father Abraham did not ask Jacob to offer sacrifice.

Yahweh had asked Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. But He hadn’t said a word to Moses about sacrifices! Yet Moses and Aaron knew about sacrifices which were meant to appease. Did Moses learn about such sacrifices from the Egyptians by whom he was raised? He must have. For God has never required anyone to offer to him an appeasing sacrifice! Moses and Aaron gave the following as a reason in asking Pharaoh to let them go into the wilderness.

Exodus 5:3 Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us; let us go, we pray, a three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Yahweh our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword."

Obviously they knew the meaning of an appeasing sacrifice. But God didn’t require it or desire it! Did Moses get the idea from the Egyptians and transfer it to his God Yahweh?

God Himself declared through Jeremiah that He had not said anything to the Hebrews about sacrifices or given them any commands about them when He brought them out of Egypt.

Jeremiah 7:22,23 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

As always, God’s main concern was obedience and righteous living. His instructions to those whom He brought out of Egypt was that they “walk in the way” that He commanded them. But he hadn’t spoken to them about burnt offerings and sacrifices!
The fact that God does not wish or require sacrifice is written in the book of Psalms:

Ps 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

Literally, it is “you have dug ears for me”. God has cleaned out the wax from my ears, so that I can hear properly. It is not sacrifice that He wants. Rather He wants me to hear and to obey the words that I hear!

Was the feast of the Passover a sacrifice of appeasement to Yahweh? No. It was a memorial of the occasion in which Yahweh passed over the Israelites while destroying the first-born of every Egyptian household. Yahweh asked every Israelite household kill a lamb, and to eat the flesh of the lamb in haste, and then place blood on their door posts. The record of God’s instructions. is found in Ex 12:1-20., but makes no mention of sacrifice. He did ask that a feast of the passover be held annually as a memorial to what He would do. However, when Moses related the revelation of God to the Israelites [verses 21-28], he called it “the sacrifice of Yahweh’s passover”. Did Moses have in mind an appeasing sacrifice or propitiation such as he had learned from the Egyptians? Or did he have in mind, when he used the word “sacrifice” that the Israelites would have to give up their choice lambs in order to honour Yahweh in this remembrance feast? The close parallel with the development of the communion is striking. Jesus asked his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me”. But later, the catholic church called this remembrance, the eating bread and drinking wine a “sacrifice”.

Yahweh Accepts Sacrifice as a Concession
Did Yahweh accept the sacrifices of the Israelites or even command them? Doubtless He did. He also commanded the Israelites to choose Saul as king.

When Samuel saw Saul, Yahweh told him, "Here is the man of whom I spoke to you! He it is who shall rule over my people." 1 Samuel 9:17

Does this fact imply that Yahweh wanted Saul to rule over His people? If this scripture were all the information we had about the matter, we might so conclude. But the account prior to this clearly shows that Yahweh did not want any king at all to rule over His people.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations."
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to Yahweh. And Yahweh said to Samuel, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. I Samuel 8:4-7

Gideon understood that Yahweh is the one and only sovereign! This is what he said:

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian." Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; Yahweh will rule over you." Judges 8:22,23

Yes, the Israelites wanted a king like the other nations. In a similar manner, the Israelites wanted to sacrifice to their God to appease Him just as the other nations did to theirs. So God gave them specific instructions as to how to do it. It seems by this concession, that God attempted to direct their appeasing sacrifices toward Himself rather than toward other gods.

Here is the first time in the Old Testament in which Yahweh gives instructions for sacrificing to Him:

Exodus 20:24 An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.

Now let’s consider the context in which this instruction was given. Moses had just related the ten commandments to the Israelites. Notice the very first of them:

Exodus 20:2-5 "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I, Yahweh, your God am a jealous God...

This commandment was especially applicable, for among the many ways in which the Israelites wished to emulate the nations around them, perhaps worship of other gods was the chief. The final thing Yahweh said to them (before He told them how to sacrifice to Him) was:

You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. Exodus 20:23

It was in the hearts of the Israelites to copy the ways of the nations ---- to have a king like other nations, to have a temple like other nations, to sacrifice like other nations, to worship the gods of other nations. Doubtless Yahweh anticipated what they would do while Moses was up communing with Him on the mountain. Instead of waiting faithfully for Moses to descend from the mountain, the Israelites
...made a molten calf; and they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" Exodus 32:4

Probably Yahweh realized that all of this “worldliness” could not be fully extirpated from the hearts of the Israelites. He permitted them to express their desire to sacrifice, but limited their sacrifice in that it was to be directed only to Himself. They were not to make gods of silver or gold and sacrifice to them along with Yahweh. If they made a stone altar, it was not to be hewn in the manner of the nations. The priests were not to ascend the altar naked in the sight of all, as was the practice of the sacrifices of the nations:

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven. You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.’ Exodus 20:22-26

After the Israelites woshipped the golden calf, Yahweh laid down strict instructions as to the attitudes they were to have toward the gods of the nations wherever they went.

Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land wherever you go, lest it become a snare in the midst of you. You shall tear down their altars, and break their pillars, and cut down their Asherim, (for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh, whose name is “Jealous”, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods. "You shall make for yourself no molten gods. Exodus 34:12-17

So appeasing sacrifices were never the will of God. But He allowed them as a concession to the desires of the hearts of His people ---- desires which they had learned in their observations of the nations they encountered. Yes, Yahweh permitted the Israelites to offer appeasing sacrifices, although He didn’t actually want them, and certainly didn’t need them. What He really wanted was their obedience and their righteousness. He knew that that was what was best for them. But since they were determined to sacrifice, their sacrifices were to be directed toward Himself only.

Another Kind of Sacrifice
There is a distinctly different kind of sacrifice with which our God is pleased! It is not an attempt to appease God. It is a willingness to give up something which we may want for our selves in order to fulfill the greater purposes of God for our lives as well as the lives of others.

There is, for example, the “sacrifice of praise” as mentioned in Hebrews:

Heb 13:15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. .

In what way is praise a sacrifice? In order to make room or to have time to offer to God oral praise (the fruit of our lips), we need to give up something else that we wish to do, or think that we need to do
So the Passover too, might correctly be called a “sacrifice” in the sense that the Israelites had to give up their choice lambs in order to participate in the remembrance feast.

It is in this same sense that Jesus sacrificed Himself for the sin of the world, and in the same sense the Father sacrificed His Son on our behalf. The Father was well-pleased with the willingness of His Son to die that people might be enabled to be righteous. Righteousness, holiness, and yes ever perfection, is His chief desire for mankind. Many early Christians, as well as Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, were willing to die for their allegiance to Christ.

The greatest sacrifice of this kind that can possibly be made is described in Romans 12:1

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

May it be so, Almighty Yahweh! May it be so for each one of us who professes to belong to Jesus the Messiah, the Altogether Lovely One!

[Guest]

The first sacrifice recorded in the Bible is that of Jacob. This is found in Genesis 31:54. This was offered by Jacob in connection with the covenant he made with Laban.

Could you please clarify? When God killed an animal to cloth Adam & Eve, wasn’t that the first sacrifice? (Gen. 3). Or Noah when he first came out of the ark, didn’t he offer burnt offerings? (Gen. 8:20).

One may also notice that it is not recorded as to whom Jacob offered the sacrifice. Jacob had heard from Yahweh and was obeying Him. But did he sometimes sacrifice to other gods as did his mother and uncle? Perhaps not. Perhaps he transferred the concept of sacrifice to his worship of Yahweh. One thing is certain. Yahweh, the God of his father Abraham did not ask Jacob to offer sacrifice.

I was just wondering if you think Jacob was a believer at this point in his life?

Gen. 28:11 – “And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep”

Just as the sun was setting on the earth, I believe the sun was setting on Jacob’s life as well. After that day there was a period of spiritual darkness in Jacob’s life. The “sun” doesn’t “rise” again until the end of chapter 32. From then on, Jacob seems to be a man of God.

So, I guess my point is that he probably wasn’t sacrificing to Yahweh, like you said.

[_Paidion]

Paidion wrote:

The first sacrifice recorded in the Bible is that of Jacob. This is found in Genesis 31:54. This was offered by Jacob in connection with the covenant he made with Laban.

Could you please clarify? When God killed an animal to cloth Adam & Eve, wasn’t that the first sacrifice? (Gen. 3).

Genesis 3 does not state that God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. That is presumption, based on our own experience that "skins" or "hides" must have had their origin in animals. For all we know, God may have created the skin directly. He had created directly a lot of other things not very long before.

In any case, even if God had killed an animal, in what way do you consider it to be a sacrifice? To whom was God sacrificing?

Perhaps you meant that God "gave up" one of his animals to clothe Adam and Eve. But when I wrote " the first sacrifice", I meant that it was the first time the Hebrew word "zebach" (sacrifice) was used in the Bible. Doubtless this was the first appeasing sacrifice to God.

Or Noah when he first came out of the ark, didn’t he offer burnt offerings? (Gen. 8:20).

This was not a "zebach" (sacrifice)but an "olah" (burnt offering). This was more like the "minchah" (gift, present, offering) that Cain and Abel offered. Only "zebach" was an appeasing sacrifice.

[Guest]

In any case, even if God had killed an animal, in what way do you consider it to be a sacrifice? To whom was God sacrificing?

Well, I guess it wasn’t a sacrifice in the purest sense of the word. But you know, the fig leaves represents many people try to hide behind their sin by conducting various good deeds. If clothes made from fig leaves were to be enough to cover the nakedness and the shame and the sinfulness of Adam and Eve, then what would be the need of God? God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Although, it perhaps wasn’t a sacrifice, the clothing made of animal skins is a representation of Jesus and the various sacrifices in the OT. How the blood “covered” the Israelites' sinfulness. The garments made of fig leaves by man were no longer sufficient. The only acceptable covering is the one God has sent to us.

But when I wrote "the first sacrifice", I meant that it was the first time the Hebrew word "zebach" (sacrifice) was used in the Bible.

Oh! So it’s the keyword “zebach,” eh? Hmmmmm … perhaps you might clarify that in your pamphlet/book??

[Guest]

In no passage do we read that Christ died in order to forgive us our sins so that we could get to heaven. Rather, as the scriptures make clear, He died in order that we would no longer be self-serving sinners, but rather come under Lordship of Christ, overcome sin, become healed of our sin-sickness, and by His enabling grace actually become purified and righteous people who are eager to do good deeds, deeds that will help others to meet their needs. Proponents of the substitutionary theory of atonement believe that we are saved from hell. However, the angel announced, “You shall call His name “Jesus” for He will save His people from their sins.

I agree with you that Christ didn’t die <i><b>primarily</b></i> so that we will go to heaven. He came and died to save “sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9). But I still think that Jesus had heaven in mind for the faithful, and hell in mind for the unfaithful (Matthew 25). While not the primary thought in God’s mind, it was still a "side-benefit," although not the main focus.

What are your thoughts?

[_Paidion]

But you know, the fig leaves represents many people try to hide behind their sin by conducting various good deeds... Although, it perhaps wasn’t a sacrifice, the clothing made of animal skins is a representation of Jesus and the various sacrifices in the OT.

In my opinion, this analogy has no basis in scripture, but has been invented by those who hold to the "substitutionary atonement" concept, who are looking for support for their view of Christ's sacrifice.

How the blood “covered” the Israelites' sinfulness. The garments made of fig leaves by man were no longer sufficient. The only acceptable covering is the one God has sent to us.

My guess is that you are using "covered" and "covering" in the sense that those who hold to the substitutionary atonement think of it ---- that is, that when God looks at our sin, He no longer sees our sin, but Christ's righteousness.

Here is another way to look at the covering for sin:

Romans 4:7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are sent away, and whose sins are covered.

Psalm 32:1 A Psalm of David. A Maskil. Blessed is he whose transgression is taken away, whose sin is covered.

What is meant when it speaks of one’s sins being covered? Having been greatly influenced by fundamentalism in my teen years, I understood this to mean that they were covered up by the blood of Christ, hidden from God, so that when He looks upon me, He cannot see my sin, but Christ’s righteousness.

However, hiding a thing from view, is not the only reason for covering a thing. We may cover a vicious dog with a cage, in order to prevent it from biting people.

Recently, I have been reading in a book by J.H. Kurtz entitled Offerings, Sacrifices, and Worship in the Old Testament. Most if it is taken up in detailed description of offerings and sacrifices ---- not very exciting. It also contains many phrases in Hebrew, which I cannot read. But Kurtz gives an interesting view of the covering in the Old Testament.
He speaks of Jacob having spoken these words concerning his brother Esau: “I will cover his face with a present.” He states that he did not mean that he would cover Esau’s face so that he would not see his anger, but rather cover it to prevent himself from being hurt by that anger. Kurtz believed the covering for sin in the Hebrew understanding was to render the sin powerless or of no effect.

Isaiah 28:18 Then your covenant with death will be covered, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through you will be beaten down by it.

The meaning is that their covenant with death that it would not hurt them would become of no effect, and they would die.

Isaiah 27:9 Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered ; And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar Like chalkstones that are beaten to dust, Wooden images and incense altars shall not stand.

When the iniquity of Jacob was rendered of no effect. For the wooden images and incense altars did not stand.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make a covering for iniquity, To bring in permanent righteousness...

The covering for iniquity indicated that their iniquity would be rendered powerless. For the result was that there would be an end of sins and permanent righteousness.

Psalm 32:1,2 A Psalm of David. Blessed is he whose transgression is carried away, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Yahweh counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

So when our sins are covered, taken away, rendered powerless, then Yahweh will not count them against us. For now there is no deceit in us.

[Guest]

How the blood “covered” the Israelites' sinfulness. The garments made of fig leaves by man were no longer sufficient. The only acceptable covering is the one God has sent to us.

My guess is that you are using "covered" and "covering" in the sense that those who hold to the substitutionary atonement think of it ---- that is, that when God looks at our sin, He no longer sees our sin, but Christ's righteousness.

Well, I didn't intend to give the impression that Christ is a "garment" of righteousness we somehow put on and God no longer sees our sinfulness.
I don't believe in what you call "substitutionary atonement" to a certain extent.

I do believe, however, that when the Israelites sacrifced their sacrifices, God "covered" his eyes from our sin. The Israelites were forgiven, put they weren't purged from their sin.

[_Paidion]

I do believe, however, that when the Israelites sacrifced their sacrifices, God "covered" his eyes from our sin. The Israelites were forgiven, put they weren't purged from their sin.

Yes, it seems that when they sacrificed, God overlooked their sin. It was a concession to their faulted concept as to how to deal with sin.

Here is a passage from the New Testament that seems to indicate the difference between the old order and the new:

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent... RSV

[Guest]

Why did God have no regard for Cain and his offering? You may have heard preachers say that God was displeased with the kind of offering that Cain brought. Many who consider atonement as a sacrifice to appease an angry God, tell us that Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not an animal offering. They quote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." They say that Abel's offering was acceptable because it was an animal from his flock. But notice that this passage does not say that God did not have regard for Cain's offering, but rather that He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. When we read on, we find out why.

I appreciate that comment, Paidion. People have this misconception that they can be acceptable to God just because they present the blood of Jesus before God. I.E. – “Antinomians” who believe “grace” and “blood of Jesus” permit me to live lawlessly.

What is God really looking for? Blood? Dead animals? No. It must go deeper than that.

“by faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain”

So it is by faith, and “overcoming” our sin (read book of Revelation). <b>But we must, must, must keep in mind that the spiritual strength to do these things comes from Jesus Christ.</b>

Here are some excerpts from Chapter 10 of “Knowing Gods Ways,” by one of my favorite bible teachers, Zac Poonen who, I think, will complement your message:

…That was how it was with Abel and Cain, one was accepted and the other rejected. Both were religious. Both brought offerings to God, but their heart attitudes were different and that made all the difference. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.

The difference between Abel and Cain was NOT, as we have commonly heard, that one brought a lamb (and shed its blood) and the other brought an offering of the produce of the ground. They were not presenting a sacrifice for their sins but an offering to the Lord. And it was quite permissible (even under the law of Moses) to present to the Lord an offering of "the produce of the ground" (Deut.26:2,10). The exhortation in Proverbs 3:9 is to honour the Lord with the first of all your produce. In Abel's case this happened to be the firstlings of his flock, because he was a keeper of flocks. in Cain's case this was the fruit of the ground because he was a tiller of the ground (Gen. 4:2). Each of them brought the firstfruits of their respective occupations. in this matter, there was nothing to find fault with in Cain.

<b>Acceptable Sacrifices</b>

But the sacrifices of God are a broken and a contrite heart, that is aware of its own nothingness and helplessness (Psa.51:17). That is what Abel had, and what Cain did not have. And that is why it is written, "The Lord had regard for Abel, and (therefore) for his offering ...... But the Lord had no regard for Cain and (therefore) not for his offering either (Gen.4:4,6).

Faith is the helpless dependence of the soul upon God and it was "by faith that Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain" (Heb.11:4). Therefore Abel's gifts were acceptable to God.

There is a great deception in the teaching that what made the difference between Abel and Cain was that Abel offered blood and Cain did not. The application of such teaching is that what makes a man acceptable to God is his presenting the blood of Jesus before God. It is almost as though the way the man lives and the condition of his heart (whether broken or not, whether with faith or not) makes no difference. All he does is plead the blood of Jesus as though it were some type of magic charm, and he gains acceptance with God. This is a lie and many are being deceived by it.

The blood of Jesus cannot be claimed by anyone and everyone. It does NOT say in the Scriptures that the blood of Jesus can cleanse anyone and everyone from their sins. No. That is a subtle perversion of Scripture. What the Scripture does say is that the blood of Jesus will cleanse all those "WHO WALK IN THE LIGHT AS GOD IS IN THE LIGHT" (1 Jn.1;7). To walk in the light of God, one must have a broken and a contrite heart, as Abel had. Only then can one's offering be acceptable to God.

If a man says that he trusts in the blood of Jesus, but has a proud and arrogant spirit, God will resist him and oppose him (1 Pet.5:6), just like He did Cain. It is only the humble who receive grace from God (Jas.4:6).

Our offerings of worship, prayer and service are acceptable to God ONLY if they come from a broken and contrite heart of faith (humble dependence an God). It is not the fluency of our speech or the efficiency of our service that God looks at, but rather the attitude of our hearts. This is the first lesson that we can learn from this incident in Genesis 4.

From the days of Cain and Abel and on until the and of time, the sacrifices of God have always been a broken and contrite spirit. He does not change. His laws remain the some.

God would not have accepted Cain even if Cain had brought a lamb and shed its blood, for his heart was proud and lifted up.

Humility of heart is the first step to salvation Then we can come into the light and ask for the blood of Jesus to cleanse us from all sin.

It is only the humble of heart who can shout Paul's shout of triumph, "If God be for us, who can be against us " (Rom.8:31), because God is only on the side of the humble. The proud cannot say that, for God is against them. Anyone who has high thoughts concerning himself, as Cain had, will end up like Cain too, even if he keeps claiming the blood of Jesus. "Do not be deceived. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap" (Gal.6:7). And that law applies universally without respect of persons…

Copyright - Zac Poonen (1999)
http://www.poonen.org/zac/

[_Les Wright]

Why did God have no regard for Cain and his offering? You may have heard preachers say that God was displeased with the kind of offering that Cain brought. Many who consider atonement as a sacrifice to appease an angry God, tell us that Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not an animal offering. They quote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." They say that Abel's offering was acceptable because it was an animal from his flock. But notice that this passage does not say that God did not have regard for Cain's offering, but rather that He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. When we read on, we find out why.

Yahweh said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it. Genesis 4:6,7

Now the truth of what God requires comes out! God would have accepted Cain and his offering if he had done well! It is not that God requires a certain kind of offering, that is, a bloody one. Indeed He doesn't require any offering! Rather God requires people to do well, and to master sin. God didn't say to Cain, "If you offer an animal sacrifice, will you not be accepted?" Rather he said, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" and "If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door... but you must master it ."
God had regard for Abel and his offering. Was it because Abel offered the right kind of offering? No! It was because Abel did well. Cain's failure to master sin manifested itself soon afterward in that he committed the first murder - that of his brother.

Hi Paidion,

I wish I had more time to read/reflect on your posts. Thanks for posting them. They are very thought provoking.

My question is this, even if God was rejecting Cain due to his 'heart condition' as opposed to the type of offering he rendered to God (which I tend to believe) that doesn't mean animal sacrifice wasn't commanded by God, but not previously recorded in scripture.

I think everybody would agree that it is dangerous to go by what isn't in scripture, but obviously we all make assumptions.

Isn't Cain's example of an unworthy sacrifice, an early example of the David's cry that 'God doesn't take pleasure in 'empty-hearted' sacrifices from those with 'heart-conditions'? (meaning sacrifices from not offered in believing faith)

Further,

Yahweh had asked Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. But He hadn’t said a word to Moses about sacrifices! Yet Moses and Aaron knew about sacrifices which were meant to appease. Did Moses learn about such sacrifices from the Egyptians by whom he was raised? He must have. For God has never required anyone to offer to him an appeasing sacrifice! Moses and Aaron gave the following as a reason in asking Pharaoh to let them go into the wilderness.

Exodus 5:3 Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us; let us go, we pray, a three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Yahweh our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword."

Paidion, what are you talking about? Yahweh told Moses in 3:18 to say to Pharaoh 'The LORD GOD of the Hebrews has met with us; and now, please, let us go three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrfice to the LORD our God.'

Yahweh Himself clearly commanded the sacrifice. It wasn't Moses' idea. Or, am I missing something?

Again, I'm no expert, but Jeremiah 7:22,23 seems to be referring to the fact that God gave Israel the 10 Commandments and the Book of the Law at Mt. Sinai (Ex 20:x-23:33)

I also find your thoughts on Moses 'adding' to God's word distrubing. I mean, wouldn't it be a more gracious reading to suppose that Moses was giving further explanation that had its origin in what God had said, given that Moses was called a prophet and all? (I see how you can hypothesize this since the scripture doesn't record God saying this to Moses, but where does this stop? Do we need a Yahweh says in quotes to truly believe its the Lord's direction?)

Paidion, I agree with you that many (perhaps most or all) other nations offered animal sacrifices. I was at first disturbed by this when studying Leviticus. You say 'appeasing sacrifices were never the will of God.' I think they were and I believe the only (but major) difference between the sacrifices God commanded and those offered to demons by other nations was that the nations did not have a sacrifice for sin. They had no 'sin' offering. Since Jesus is our SIN offering, this seems to clearly be the part of the sacrificial system that shows Yahweh's signature and approval of it.

I'm not sure where I first encountered this idea (and I'd be extrememly interested to know if it is not reliable) A case in point in Exodus, would be the Golden Calf episode in Ex 32:1-6. They offered no sin offering.

See my notes:
-V4 A – it is usually supposed that the symbol was derived from the worship of the Egyptians. But it was a living bull, not an image, that was worshipped in Egypt. More probably, therefore, the symbol was connected with the worship of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) and Assyrians, or which some traces may have survived among the descendants of Abraham. A common image with the Assyrians is that of a bull with wings and a human head, emblematic of strength and wisdom.
-V6 interestingly, there is no sin offering, which is characteristic and central to true Yahweh worship

On another related note, what do you make of Leviticus? I mean, why would God elaborate on a whole sacrificial system that he didn't really want in the first place? (Or is that chapter 4?)

Peace,
Les[/i]