-4-
Anti-Missionary
Objections to Blood Sacrifice
We should not pass over this topic without considering
the anti-missionaries' objections.
Objection: Since human sacrifices are
forbidden by the law (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31), God could not have
possibly commanded or accepted the "sacrifice" of Jesus.
Answer: In the cited passages, God commanded Israel not to
sacrifice their babies in the fire to false gods. Of course, the senseless, vile
murder of innocent babies is an abomination in God's sight. He never commanded
it, nor did it ever come into His mind do so. The assertion that God could never
require a human sacrifice begs the question. Certainly, the Levites were
commanded to offer animal sacrifices on an approved altar. But Jesus was not a
sacrifice offered by Levitical priests. He was a sacrifice commissioned and
offered by God Himself (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53).
This sacrifice is beautifully
prefigured in Abraham's commission to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Jewish
tradition taught that when we pray for mercy we are pleading the blood of Isaac.
Apparently, it is not only Christians who see something symbolic in the
"sacrifice" of Isaac. Rabbis from the past interpreted the phrase
"when I see the blood I will pass over you" as God actually saying
"when I see the blood of Isaac." However, Isaac did not die. As
Abraham raised his dagger to pierce his firstborn son Isaac, God told him not to
do it, but to offer a ram that was caught in the nearby thicket instead. (Again,
the imagery of substitution!). Interestingly, what God commanded Abraham to do
as a test of faith, He actually did by offering His Son Jesus for our sins.
Objection: It is the blood on the
"altar" (Lev. 17:11) that makes atonement for one's sins. Jesus wasn't
crucified on the altar; therefore, it could not be a true sacrifice. Samuel
Levine states it this way:
Furthermore, the entire chapter
17 of Leviticus, and even verse 11, seems to indicate in the strongest terms
that all sacrifices and means for atonement that use blood must be offered in
the Tabernacle or the Temple. Since Jesus was not offered in the Temple, nor did
any priest sprinkle his blood, he was not an atonement for anyone...The obvious
answer is that in Leviticus, God is simply saying that He gave us the option of
using blood, not that blood is essential" (Levine, pp. 43,46).
Answer: The anti-missionary presumes that the Law of Moses is
immutable (incapable of being superseded). But Jeremiah prophesied of a new
Covenant in which sins would be atoned for permanently (Jer. 31:31-34). The
blood of animals was the basis for the first covenant. The blood of Jesus'
sacrifice is the basis for the New Covenant. During the time of Moses' law, the
rule was that sacrifices had to be made on the altar by the Levitical priests in
the tabernacle. But there was one notable exception to this. One time God was so
angry at Israel that He sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem (2 Sam. 24:16). At
this, David repented of his wickedness (v.17). But David's repentance still was
not enough to avert God's righteous anger. The Lord commanded David to build an
altar unto the Lord at the threshing floor of Araunah, the Jebusite, to offer
burnt offerings upon it. Once God's anger was transferred from the guilty
transgressors to the innocent sacrifice, the Lord was appeased and the plague
was lifted. This example sets the precedent for the sacrifice of Jesus that was
made outside the "city gate" of Jerusalem (Heb. 13:12). The concept of
the life of the flesh being the blood is found before the law (Gen. 9:4); during
the law (Lev. 17:11) and after the law (Heb. 9:22). It was only during the time
of the Mosaic Law that God required, as a rule, that the blood be offered upon
the altar of the temple.
Furthermore, prophetic Scriptures
mention nothing about the Messiah being offered upon a stone altar. To the
contrary, they imply that He would be sacrificed alongside of sinners where
people could stare and gloat at Him. (cf. Isa. 53:12; Psalm 22). His sacrifice,
therefore, could not have taken place in the Most Holy Place where only the High
priest could enter.
Regarding Levine's theory that
blood sacrifices were merely optional, the sin sacrifices of the law were direct
"commands" from God not options! (Lev. 8:21; 10:3; Num. 28:2; Deut.
12:1; Josh 8:31; 1 Sam. 2:29). In
their fervor to circumvent the blood sacrifice of Jesus, anti-missionaries must
downplay the role of blood in their own law. Not only does Levine's commentary
on Lev. 17:11 have no light of Scripture for its support, but it also
contradicts the opinions of some of his own sages. The great Jewish commentator
Rashi said this about Leviticus 17:11, "Let life come and atone for
life." This is in perfect harmony with a number of opinions voiced in the
Talmud:
Does the laying on of the hand
make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is
said: 'For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life...' Does
the waving make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is
written, 'For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the
life'?1...Surely atonement can be made only with the blood, as it says, 'For it
is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life'!2
Objection: Jeremiah said that God never
"commanded" the Israelites to offer "burnt offerings or
sacrifices" (Jer. 7:22). Therefore they are optional.
Answer: Jeremiah never said that God didn't command the
Israelites to offer sacrifices but, rather, that he had not "commanded them
in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
offerings or sacrifices..." (Jer. 7:22). It wasn't until after the law was
given and broken that God gave them direct commands to offer animal sacrifices
(Lev. 8:21; 10:3; Num. 28:2; Deut. 12:1; Josh 8:31; 1 Sam. 2:29). God merely
commanded them to obey His voice "in the day" He brought them out of
Egypt (Jer. 7:23; Exodus 15:26).
Objection: Since the destruction of the
temple, prayers and good deeds have replaced the need for blood atonement:
"If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray,
and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven
and forgive their sins..." (2 Chronicles 7:14). This is why Daniel during
the Babylonian captivity had forgiveness of sins without blood sacrifice.
Answer: First, the quotation from Solomon's prayer at the
temple's dedication actually proves our point. The basis upon which the prayers
of the obedient Israelites were accepted was the blood sacrifices:
...I have heard thy prayer, and
have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice...Now mine eyes shall
be open, and mine ears attend unto the prayer that is made in this place...(2
Chron. 7:12-15).
Second, Solomon taught that when
the Israelites were taken captive into a foreign land that they were to pray
back toward the house of sacrifice the temple then God would hear from heaven
and forgive their sin (1 Kings 8:46). With regard to Daniel's example, the
anti-missionary has no analogy that fits his own practice. In obedience to
Solomon's command, Daniel prayed toward Jerusalem three times a day, once during
the time of the evening sacrifice (Daniel 6:11; 9:21). Almost seventy years
after the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, Daniel was still praying
toward Jerusalem during the time the evening sin sacrifice used to be offered!
Unfortunately for the anti-missionary, Daniel did not believe or practice the
replacement theology expounded by modern-day Judaism. Modern Judaism doesn't3
look back to the temple sacrifices nor do they look forward, as Daniel did, to
the death of the Messiah foretold in Daniel 9:24-27 that was to make complete
"reconciliation for iniquity."
Objection: Flour and incense were
acceptable forms of atonement; it doesn't have to be blood sacrifices. (Lev.
5:11-13).
Answer: In Leviticus chapter 5, Moses gave specific legislation
regarding the trespass offerings. If someone were too poor to afford a lamb, a
goat or even two doves or two young pigeons, he was able, in lieu of these, to
bring an offering of flour (v.11-13). However, this flour was offered on the
altar, which had been sprinkled by the blood of the sin offerings (Lev. 7:1-2).
As we learned from Leviticus 17:11, it was the blood, not the flour, which
provides the atonement for sin. Also, it was an animal sacrifice that was made
for the whole nation on the Day of Atonement not a flour offering.
Objection: In the book of Hosea, we read
that God "desired mercy, and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). Also, Samuel
told Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22 "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams."
Answer: If prayers and good deeds are perfectly sufficient for
the atonement of sin, then why did God institute the various blood sacrifices of
the Mosaic Law? As we have shown,
it has always been on the basis of blood sacrifices that prayers and good works,
grain offerings, etc., were made acceptable to God. However, if an evil,
unrepentant person were to bring a sacrifice for his sins, such would be an
abomination to God. In the first chapter of Isaiah, God said He hated the
sacrifices, Sabbaths and prayers of the rebellious Israelites. Would any Jew
today dare to say that the Sabbath and prayers are not necessary? Hardly! So how
would someone maintain that the blood sacrifices are not necessary?
In view of the foregoing, Hosea's
message to the disobedient Jewish nation must be elliptically understood:
"God desires mercy [a righteous life], and not sacrifice [only]."
The context of 1 Samuel 15:22 reveals that King Saul had disobeyed the Lord's
command to destroy everything in the city of Amalek. He held back the best of
the sheep and oxen. When confronted by Samuel, Saul justified his actions on the
pretext that he was going to offer them as sacrifices to the Lord. Saul labored
under the misconception that you could live a sinful life just as long as you
offered an animal sacrifice. Many "Christians" are just as foolish in
thinking that they are free to pursue a life of sin and self-indulgence with
impunity just as long as they "accept" the sacrifice of Jesus. The
anti-missionary today goes to the opposite extreme. He thinks that just as long
as he leads a holy life, animal sacrifices are unnecessary. Yes, "to obey
is better than sacrifice." But
it does not logically follow that obedience does away with the need for blood
atonement.
One Jewish source joins with us
in the repudiation of this anti-missionary objection:
The prophets of the First Temple
period often spoke out against sacrificial ritual (Amos 5:21-27; Hos. 6:6; Micah
6:6-8; Isa. 1:11-17; Jer. 6:20; 7:21-22). Righteous and just behavior along with
obedience to the Lord are contrasted with the conduct of ritual unaccompanied by
proper ethical and moral attitudes (Amos 5:24; Micah 6:8; Isa. 1:16-17; Jer.
7:23). It has thus been assumed by many scholars that the prophets condemned all
sacrificial rituals. De Vaux has shown the absurdity of such a conclusion since
Isaiah 1:15 also condemns prayer. No one holds that the prophets rejected
prayer; it was prayer offered without the proper moral commitment that was being
denounced; the same holds true for the oracles against formal rituals. Similar
allusions in the Psalms which might be taken as a complete rejection of
sacrifice (e. g., 40:7-8; 50:8-15) actually express the same concern for inner
attitude as do the prophets. The wisdom literature sometimes reflects the same
concern for moral and ethical values over empty sacerdotal acts (Prov.15:8;
21:3,27)...The demand by Hosea for 'mercy and not sacrifice....knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings' (Hos. 6:6; cf. Matt. 9:13; 12:7) is surely to be
taken as relative, a statement of priorities (cf. also 1 Sam. 15:22). The inner
attitude was prerequisite to any valid ritual expression" (Isa. 29:13).4
Objection: "Thus, in Psalms 51:17 it
says that, 'The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite
heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.' Blood is not essential, Jesus is not
essential, because God will always accept a broken, repentant spirit... (Levine,
p. 46).
Answer: The theology of the anti-missionary forces him to pit
Scripture against Scripture. We have already proven that the sacrifices of the
law were commanded, thus mandatory. David teaches that a repentant heart is also
part of the saint's sacrifice to God not a replacement for animal sacrifices.
The Christian is free to accept both Psalm 51:17 and Lev. 17:11 without pitting
one against the other. "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live" (Deut. 8:4).
Both Psalm 51:17 and Lev. 17:11 are commands that have proceeded out of the
mouth of God. Therefore, we are not at the mercy of the false dilemma of
"either, or" both are true.
Even the immediate context of
Psalm 51:17 disproves the anti-missionary's contention. God was saying through
David that He wanted a broken and contrite spirit to accompany the offering of
the animal sacrifices. When this precondition is met, then, and only then, is He
"...pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt-offering and
whole burnt-offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar"
(Psalm 51:19).
Moreover, David said in Psalm
141:2, "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting
up of my hands, as the evening sacrifice." Are we to believe that David by
his request was abrogating the sacrificial system? Certainly not. He continued
to charge Aaronic priests to offer them in the tabernacle. Shortly before his
death, David commissioned his son Solomon to build the temple so that animal
sacrifices would continue to be made.
Objection: Hosea taught Israel that when
they returned to Him from captivity, they would only have to "render as
bullocks the words of [their] lips" (Hosea 14:3). Animal sacrifices would
no longer be necessary.
Answer: Again, the basis for which the sacrifice of our lips is
acceptable is the blood atonement. The full quotation from Hosea says,
"Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, take away all
iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render as bullocks the words of
our lips." We learn from other passages that the iniquity of a repentant
person is expiated by the blood sacrifice. The replacement doctrine expounded by
Judaism today would have been classified as heretical by the godly remnant that
returned under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah. The fact that the righteous
remnant rebuilt the temple and offered blood sacrifices in accordance with Lev.
17:11 clearly disproves the anti-missionary's interpretation of Hosea 14:3. If
Hosea was instituting a new practice, why didn't the returning remnant practice
it?
Objection: Ezekiel 18:21-22 states
"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and
keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely
live, he shall not die. And his transgressions that he hath committed, they
shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall
live." This passage doesn't mention a word about blood sacrifice being
necessary in order to be righteous only doing what is "right."
Answer: Here the anti-missionary labors under the misconception
that if a passage doesn't specifically list a particular thing, then it is
necessarily excluded from what God requires. The fallaciousness of such
argumentation is self-evident. Even the anti-missionary refuses to abide by such
a rule. Ezekiel 18 doesn't specifically mention prayer. Does that mean that
prayer is not necessary for sin's expiation? Not according to the
anti-missionary prayer is the cornerstone of his replacement theology.
Ezekiel 18 doesn't mention contributions to the temple (Exodus 30:15-16) or
charity (Dan. 4:27); yet the anti-missionary lists these things as alternate
forms of atonement. Are we at liberty to pick which one we want to the exclusion
of others? If it is contended that
part of doing what is "right" includes prayers and good deeds, then
we, on the same basis, would say that part of doing what is "right" is
offering the animal sacrifices that God has commanded in His Word. (Apply this
answer to the anti-missionary's misuse of Deut.30:19-20 and all other like
passages where Israel is called to obey the Lord in general terminology.)
Objection: The sacrifices of the law were
only for unintentional sins. Jesus' sacrifice was for all sin. Therefore, the
sacrifices of the law could not serve as a type of the alleged New Covenant
once-and-for-all sacrifice.
Answer: This is untrue. Some of the O.T. sacrifices were made
for unintentional sins done in ignorance. But the sacrifices made on the Day of
Atonement were for "all the sins" of Israel (Lev. 16:16). The sins of
adultery and murder that David committed against Uriah the Hittite were
deliberate and premeditated. Yet his forgiveness was wrought through repentance
(Psalm 51:3; 17) and the offering of sacrifice (Psalm 51:9).
Objection: Cain was told that He could
master Satan (Gen. 4:7). Nothing is mentioned about sacrifices.
Answer: Cain was told that he could rule over "sin,"
not Satan. Cain was on the verge of killing Abel who had just brought a sin
sacrifice from the firstlings of his flock. God honored Abel's sacrifice while
rejecting Cain's fruit offering, which made Cain very angry. God commanded him
to get a hold of himself. This passage mentions nothing about men achieving
salvation outside of God's sacrificial system. It is axiomatic that since the
fall of man no one has been able to live a sinlessly perfect life. This is why
God instituted the sacrificial system.