Christianity and Animal Sacrifice
Christians today pretend that animal sacrifice was once commanded by God who has done away with it. The book God wrote through men, the Bible, teaches that animal sacrifice is not banned and that we must not eat blood.
The
Jehovah’s Witnesses forbid blood transfusions and say that they will prevent a
person from being raised to life and salvation.
The Bible is against eating blood which is
why they oppose it.
In his Encyclopaedia of Bible
Difficulties (page 85), Gleason L. Archer tries to answer the question if
Christians are allowed by God to eat blood.
He correctly concludes that Christians are not supposed to eat
blood. God told Noah not to eat flesh
with the blood still in it (Genesis 9:4).
Nobody can say that the prohibition was about avoiding infection for
Noah would hardly have eaten raw meat.
In Leviticus 17 God explains that the reason he wants nobody to eat
blood is because it is the life of the creature and life is sacred. He gives an ethical reason for the ban
meaning that it can’t be done away for right cannot become wrong. Acts 10 where Peter seems to be told that
unclean food is now clean mentions only animals not blood so it does not lift
the ban. When the apostles later decreed
that sexual sin and blood are to be banned for the Gentiles in Acts 15 it
proves that the two crimes are equally unjust not because they are forbidden
but because they are bad. It shows that
Peter was not told that blood was clean but the opposite.
It is said that God only forbade blood
because he wanted to impress upon the primitive peoples that life was sacred
because they did not understand that the soul gave life more blood did so he
had to make do by banning blood. This accuses
God of deception and denies his omnipotence and is refuted by the fact that God
said the ban was forever and allowed a lot of murder and this motive is not
declared in the Bible.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right to teach
that true Christians cannot have blood transfusions. Transfusions are eating blood in a different
way. If it is so bad to take blood into
the stomach where it is broken down then it is worse to take it into the veins
where it is not.
It is said that eating blood is literal in the
Bible for blood transfusions are a recent invention. But eating blood means that it is being taken
into the body. It is this taking in that
is censured not the actual swallowing or chewing. The argument is like saying that when a
person forbids stabbing another to death he allows you to poison her or
him! Orthodox Christianity and famously
antichrist Catholicism especially will do all sorts of gymnastics to steer
clear of teaching what the Bible says on many issues and including the blood
one.
ANIMAL SACRIFICE NOT BANNED
The
Torah commands the making of sacrifices to God by priests, the Levites. These sacrifices are to be of animals and
sometimes fruits and crops. They were
offered to honour God and to obtain his pardon and to gain many other favours.
Nobody needs to be informed that Christians
do not perform animal sacrifices. They
teach that these offerings did not please God but only prefigured the blood
sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the cross for sins and our physical and
spiritual salvation. It is a strange
picture of the death of Christ that is not even hinted at in the Torah. God decreed different ceremonies for
different animals and occasions. Why all
this detail and variety if they represented the one event? Why didn’t he have the altar made like a
cross and command that the animal be killed on it? And why couldn’t the animal always have been
the same instead of different animals?
Why not lambs only when Jesus claimed to be the Lamb of God? There were lots of sacrificing priests while
Jesus was his own priest. The picture of
the sacrifice of Jesus does not exist.
It could be argued that “Jesus fulfilled
the law of sacrifice in himself, by dying on the cross. The law still exists but has been kept for
us. Hence there is now no need for
Levitical priests to offer animals to God in blood sacrifice. The ceasing of animal sacrifice does not show
that the Law has been done away”.
This may be, but it does not mean that
animal sacrifice cannot continue. If
Jesus atoned fully for our sins it would be best to make further atonement
though it is superfluous and unnecessary as a sign of love to God. We could look back on the sacrifice of Jesus
by sacrifice just as it allegedly looked forward to him. If Jesus atoned, the sacrifices of the
ancient Hebrews before the time of Jesus may be no more effective than ours
after that time. Effectiveness is
perhaps not the point of them according to the teaching of the Church. The Church says that the sacrifices were not
effective in themselves but were only effective in that the sacrificers
unknowingly were invoking the sacrifice of Christ symbolised by the rites. So we could use sacrifice to look back on the
sacrifice and invoke it but the Church doesn’t do that.
Perhaps, the priesthood and the sacrificing
of animals is still meant to be but can’t be for the order of Levitical priests
has been destroyed since the
Since the New Testament does not prohibit
animal sacrifice it is safest to assume that we are still commanded by divine
law to offer it.
It is thought that the assertion in Hebrews
that animal blood could never remove sins (9:9; 10:11) contradicts the promise
of the Law that all who offer sacrifices with repentance are forgiven for the
blood of the animal makes atonement for the sinner (Leviticus 17:11). But the first time Hebrews says that animal
blood does not work it says it is because it does not perfect the
conscience. This means that animal blood
cannot expiate sin when the person who offers it for himself or gets it offered
is imperfect for even sacrifice can’t do anything about unrepented sin. Hebrews infers that it can work when you are
sinless or repentant to get rid of all trace of sin which according to the
Bible nobody ever is or does. If you
repent of sins and leave one behind your prayer for pardon cannot be heard
because it is blasphemously asking God to remove sins and leave that one.
Hebrews 10 says that animal sacrifice gave
God no pleasure for it did not stop sin permanently. It does not say that it was unable to atone
in the sense that animals could not pay for sins even when the person offering
it had become perfect.
Animal blood cannot atone for sins when the
person who offers it is still a sinner and since Hebrews 10 is on about sinners
offering sacrifice it is not saying that it has no power in itself to atone. It says that the offering priests were not
without sin, then it says that these sacrifices were only remembrances of sin
for animal blood cannot remove it.
Some contend that Hebrews means that blood
cannot pardon your sins and the Torah means that it atones for you in a sense,
in an indirect way. In other words, if
the blood represented your own blood then by offering sacrifice you were
admitting that you deserve death and killing yourself by proxy. But if you really wish you were bleeding for
your sins and symbolising this by sacrificing an animal then it would
atone. But the Torah did not mean this
at all for it never said that the animal represented the sinner. To say that the blood atones is to say that
it atones and there is no sense in making things complicated with a fancy
convolute interpretation.
It is God’s acceptance of the sacrifice of
the blood of goats and bulls that removes sin not the blood.
The Old Testament tells us that sacrifice
is no use unless the person offering it is holy so there is nothing new in the
New Testament doctrine. Did God ask
people to sacrifice when they could not abstain from sin? Was God a hypocrite? Not if they did their best and gave God the
offering so that he could be his own priest.
When you have to do something and have no time to repent of all your
sins God can accept the sacrifice for he understands. Sinners can offer sacrifice to God in such
circumstances as long as they resolve to try and repent.
The texts from the Old Testament it quoted
to defend its position, like the bits from Psalm 48, said that God preferred
obedience to sacrifice. That is,
obedience is the most important thing.
The Law said the same thing.
Offering sacrifice is no good if you are disobedient. It is insulting God. So by using these texts we know that Hebrews
10 is not rejecting the view that animal blood expiates sin in the way that
money expiates a crime when it is paid for a fine.
When the Jews condemned Jesus for helping
sinners he told them to learn what God meant when he said that he wanted mercy
and not sacrifice (Matthew 9:13). This
was because they offered sacrifice and did not show mercy. They put sacrifice before mercy. All Jesus said was that God does not want
sacrifice from a person who has got his priorities wrong like that. He was not saying, “Never sacrifice animals
for it is wrong and silly even if you are a saint”.
Jesus’ quotation from God can be read in
Hosea 6 which says that it means that God was offended by the sacrifices of the
people because they did not love him.
That was why he told them that mercy was more important.
Hebrews says that the sacrifices and ritual
washings and food laws were imposed until the time of the new order seemingly
implying that they are abolished (
People suppose that, “Hebrews 7 says that
the Law was changed when God created a new kind of priest, Jesus, different
from the Aaronic Priesthood of the Torah”.
The solution might be that: it refers to
the law on priesthood not the whole Torah.
If it did say a law was changed that would not meant that we must hold
that the same is true of the other laws.
To add to the Law is to change it but not
change it as in cancel its teaching.
Jesus added to the Law the law that he would be the High Priest of
another priestly order. The High Priest
under Aaron could still function.
However, there is no conflict with the Law
because the Law said that only divinely authorised priests were allowed which
entitled God to start a new kind of priesthood.
If Hebrews is speaking of a cancellation
this could mean that the law ceased for Jesus not for the rest of us because
Jesus is the only sacrificing priest mentioned in the epistle for us. But it would seem that if it could cease for
Jesus then it could be abrogated. But
God never said he means this Law for everybody including his son. It could have been for everybody but not his
Son. His son was under it temporarily so
when it ceased for him it did not cease for him as in get abrogated. The Christian could think that the Law was
for ordinary people and sinners not the immaculate Son of God.
The Levitical Priesthood could still be in
force. God made a covenant establishing
an everlasting priesthood with Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (Numbers
25:13). The Church says he meant that
they would be priests forever not that there would be priests forever. But what would God promise them they would be
priests forever for? He was promising
that the priesthood would never be abolished.
The theologians read the Bible with a veil
over their eyes for they would be advocating animal sacrifice if they did not.
The Bible God evilly continues to ban blood and ask us to kill animals in the name of faith.
WORKS CONSULTED
Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley,
Christ
and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press,
Christ’s
Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of
the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early
Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin,
Essentials,
David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton,
Eunuchs
for the
God A Guide to the Perplexed, Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
God’s
Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
California, 1992
Hard
Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity Press,
Jesus
the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch,
Kennedy’s
Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Martin
Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of
Moral
Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green
and Co,
Not
Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio
Replies Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Sabbath
Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth Publications,
Secrets
of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers,
Set
My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd,
Storehouse
Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
1954
Sunday
or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the
Lord, Murfreesboro,
1943
The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
The
Christian and War, JB Norris, The Christadelphian,
The
Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro
The
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
The
Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle,
The
Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian,
The
Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ, Alba House,
The
The
Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press,
The
Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible
The
Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
The
World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue 6
Theodore
Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer,
Those
Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield,
Vicars
of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books,
War
and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture
War
and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press,
When
Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books,
Which
Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
THE
WEB
The
Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
www.ark_of_salvation.orgJewish_law.htm
The
Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
This
Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out
of town but accepted it. It argues that
Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law
of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of
it. But strangely it argues then that
Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law.
1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah
7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the
law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God
even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to
be treated as three units. What they are
is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot
be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only
temporary and states that clearly. You
can’t change what love is. The law
plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate
in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster
hatred.
Christians,
assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral
and Ceremonial law. The Christians make
the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while
the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and
civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial
law. They simply have to hold that it is
right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of
God.
A
case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a
legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was
is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he
meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the
Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law
backs this dismissal up.
Then
the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian
Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s nature but need not be
necessitated by that nature and so they can be changed. In other words, God can forbid you to pay
taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then he could
change that law. But that does not
explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable
is designed to bring about the best. So
if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at
other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws
are permanent. They are permanent but if
other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the
background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground
again. Not one of the laws in the Torah
are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about
paying money to charity instead of the temple.
God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your
house at night with impunity. Now is
that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept
the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but
which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary
and it is against the nature of a good God.
Geisler is wrong.
The
Law claims to be right. In other words,
we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would
consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law
(Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At
least Geisler would admit that stoning people to death is not necessarily
incompatible with God. He would say that
if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have the mindset that we
would do it if he asked. We want to do
it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.
Wednesday, 09 April 2008