“I Don’t Want Your Bloody Sacrifices!”

Have you ever been rather absent-mindedly traveling along a long stretch of highway and noticed a really interesting billboard ahead of you that makes a pointed religious statement and is signed, “God”? It might say something like,

“What part of THOU SHALT NOT did you not understand?” –God.

“Need Directions?” – God.

“Will The Road You’re On Get You To My Place?” – God”.

And one of my favorites –

“That ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ thing – I meant that. –God”

If you look carefully, you can actually find quite a few of these “billboard” type sound bites in Scripture, especially when it comes to the subject of sacrifice.

“To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. –God”

“Your sacrifices do not please me. –God”

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice. –God”[1]

“AHYH detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.”[2]

In a nutshell, “I don’t want your bloody sacrifices!” –God.

God’s outright condemnation of sacrifice is evident in plenty of Scripture texts, but oddly, Christianity’s leadership rarely points out these particular texts. Obviously, to do so would utterly destroy the foundational beliefs of what Christianity has mistakenly thought our Creator is like, and instead would make us aware of the fact that God has never desired sacrifice to begin with.

Realizing that more study was needed about the issue of sacrifice, I decided to look into Judaism’s own history and seek out the thoughts and teachings of its greatest minds—much like a Christian would want to study the perspectives of well-respected Christian scholars such as Luther or Tozer. How had the past scholars of Judaism dealt with the sacrificial contradictions?

One of Judaism’s most esteemed Jewish scholars was Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, who lived in the middle ages. He was also known as Maimonides, but is more commonly referred to as ‘Rambam’. JewFAQ.org discussed the issue this way:

“Some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism’s past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man’s primitive desires.

“Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.”[3]

In other words, Rambam concedes that Judaism inherited blood sacrifice from its idolatrous (pagan) neighbors and that the God of the Jews never intended for such rites to be included as part of His worship. This is wholly in agreement with the latter prophets.

The second century Christian writer, Clement, brings up a similar point very early in Christian history. he adds to that understanding by intimating that Jesus himself was the one ordained to correct the people’s understanding regarding sacrifice:

“When meantime Moses, that faithful and wise steward, perceived that the vice of sacrificing to idols had been deeply ingrained into the people from their association with the Egyptians, and that the root of this evil could not be extracted from them, he allowed them indeed to sacrifice, but permitted it to be done only to God, that by any means he might cut off one half of the deeply ingrained evil, leaving the other half to be corrected by another, and at a future time; by Him, namely, concerning whom he said himself, ‘A prophet shall the Lord your God raise unto you, whom ye shall hear even as myself, according to all things which he shall say to you. Whosoever shall not hear that prophet, his soul shall be cut off from his people.”[4]

Contrary to the above passage and in Moses’ defense, we should consider that according to Torah writings the elders of Israel and even some of Moses’ own family members were found to be periodically working against him; subverting his authority and even going so far as to permit and promote sacrifice and idolatry. However, the latter prophets indicate that Moses himself did not actually instruct the people to worship God via sacrifices. The Jeremiah passage we looked at previously would indicate that God’s true Law that Moses gave did NOT include any kind of sacrifices.

“I gave your ancestors no commands about burnt offerings or any other kinds of sacrifices when I brought them out of Egypt. But I did command them to obey me, so that I would be their God and they would be my people. And I told them to live the way I had commanded them, so that things would go well for them.” [7]

However, the thought that another great prophet would come along to help rid the people of this evil in their midst was undoubtedly comforting for God’s righteous children. These believers knew that the atrocities being perpetrated on God’s creation needed to be stopped, and sooner rather than later!   And indeed, the notion that God needed or even desired sacrifice was corrected by the later prophets Isaiah (Chapter 1), Jeremiah (8:8), and Ezekiel (Chapter 18). Ironically, these books have also appear to been meddled with, if the conflicting accounts one finds of “God wants sacrifice / God detests sacrifice”, sometimes only a couple of verses away from each other, are any indication. And it is a shameful blot on Israel’s history that all of these prophets were harassed and persecuted at the hand of the evil priesthood.

The First Sacrifice?

It is at this point, dear reader, that you may be tempted to start reaching for whatever support you can think of to prove that God indeed wanted sacrifice as the ultimate expression of his love and holiness. You will likely head straight back to what appears to be the very first sacrifice within the Scriptures, and proclaim that God sacrificed animals to “atone” for the sin of Adam and Eve.[5]

Here again is where our desire to support the doctrine that we know overrides our ability to see the truth and translate the Scriptures properly. Many within both Orthodox Judaism and Christianity attempt to press Genesis 3:21 into a kind of ‘sacrificial mold’ in which it does not actually belong. Keep in mind that ancient Hebrew is an incredibly simple language and is therefore many times easily susceptible to misguided and false interpretation by scholars translating it with a presumptive sectarian bias.

In discussing when animal sacrifices might have originated A. J. Fecko observes:

“There are also the renderings of the Targums. The Targums are Aramaic interpretive renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Such versions were needed when Hebrew ceased to be the daily language of the Jewish people. In Synagogue services the reading of the Scriptures was followed by a translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the populace. Targums on [the topic of Adam and Eve being clothed by animal skins] are:

P.S. Jonathan: And the Lord God made garments of glory for Adam and for his wife from the skin which the serpent had cast off (to be worn) on the skin of their flesh, instead of their (garments of) fig leaves of which they had been stripped, and he clothed them.

Onkelos: And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of honor for the skin of their flesh and He clothed them.

Neophyti: And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of glory, for the skin of their flesh, and he clothed them. This suggests another possibility. That it simply means that the garments were made for the skin of Adam and Eve.

Also, the root of the Hebrew word, “Owr”, modified only by more recent vowel points has the meaning of bare or naked, while “coat” is more literally a covering and therefore the passage might be a “cover of nakedness”. But, regardless which solution is the right one, there’s no suggestion of an animal sacrifice or killing in this passage.”[6]

If we actually read the passage more closely in its original Hebrew, we discover that God merely “clothed” Adam and Eve’s “skin”, nothing more. It is only because we want to assume that God desired sacrifice and then clothed Adam and Eve with animal “skins” that we come away with a mistaken translation of God’s Word, a misunderstanding of His Character. Indeed, we have seen the Scriptures written by the prophets where God warns us that He abhors sacrifice! If God has said He abhors sacrifice, then He is not going to be sacrificing animals to clothe Adam and Eve.

If you still feel that God taught Adam and Eve to kill/sacrifice, you need to tell me if the following scenario rings true. The Creator of all life sits down and starts to instruct Adam and Eve about how they should act after they have disobeyed and lied about it. “I’m going to give you some rules for living. Let’s start with ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ Oh well… Watch this. Have you ever seen blood? I’m really kind and loving, and because I’m so kind and loving, I want you to stab and kill an animal every time you do something that offends me. This will appease me. Then, you can be reminded of your disobedience every time you wear the clothes I will make for you out of these animal skins. Now pass the barbecue sauce, please.”

It’s utterly preposterous, isn’t it?

But what about Cain and Abel?

The story of Cain and Abel is an account that has been drummed into the fabric of our belief for millennia. We’re taught from childhood that God told Cain and Abel to offer animal sacrifices, and Cain screwed up by offering something that didn’t include blood. That’s how it is, period, end of story. Right? God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me!

The discerning reader might stop to consider that once again, the priesthood of Israel was intimately involved and ultimately benefited by the strength of the belief that “you must bring God blood sacrifices!” We’re never even allowed to ask the question; did God really require a blood sacrifice from Cain and Abel, or did he merely ask to be remembered by the bringing of offerings?

I was interested to read about an early Christian book entitled “The Conflict of Adam and Eve” that contains some Jewish legends found in early rabbinical writings. This book states that it was Cain and not Abel that brought the animal sacrifice. Apparently Cain was angry with his parents because they wanted his sister Luluwa to wed Abel instead of Cain, who wanted to marry her himself. (I Adam and Eve 76:10-12; 78:1-12)

Upon learning this, Cain

“. . .went to Eve, his mother, and beat her, and cursed her, and said to her, ’Why are you planning to take my sister to wed her to my brother?  Am I dead?” His mother, however, quieted him, and sent him to the field where he had been. Then when Adam came, she told him of what Cain had done. But Adam grieved and held his peace, and said not a word.  Then on the next morning Adam said to Cain his son, ‘Take of your sheep, young and good, and offer them up to your God; and I will speak to your brother, to make to his God an offering of corn.’ They both obeyed their father Adam, and they took their offerings, and offered them up on the mountain by the altar.” (I Adam and Eve 78:12-17)

The story continues.

“But Cain behaved haughtily towards his brother, and shoved him from the altar, and would not let him offer up his gift on the altar; but he offered his own on it, with a proud heart, full of guile, and fraud.  But as for Abel, he set up stones that were near at hand, and on that, he offered up his gift with a heart humble and free from guile.  Cain was then standing by the altar on which he had offered up his gift; and he cried to God to accept his offering; but God did not accept it from him; neither did a divine fire come down to consume his offering.  But he remained standing over against the altar, out of humor and meanness, looking towards his brother Abel, to see if God would accept his offering or not.  And Abel prayed to God to accept his offering.  Then a divine fire came down and consumed his offering.  And God smelled the sweet savor of his offering; because Abel loved Him and rejoiced in Him.  And because God was well pleased with him, He sent him an angel of light in the figure of a man who had partaken of his offering, because He had smelled the sweet savor of his offering, and they comforted Abel and strengthened his heart.  But Cain was looking on all that took place at his brother’s offering, and was angry because of it.  Then he opened his mouth and blasphemed God, because He had not accepted his offering.  But God said to Cain, ‘Why do you look sad? Be righteous, that I may accept your offering.  Not against Me have you murmured, but against yourself.’  And God said this to Cain in rebuke, and because He abhorred him and his offering.  And Cain came down from the altar, his color changed and with a sad face, and came to his father and mother and told them all that had befallen him.  And Adam grieved much because God had not accepted Cain’s offering.” (I Adam and Eve 78:18-28)

Isn’t this interesting? In this accounting, Cain is the violent brother, which jives with what we see in Torah. CAIN is the one who murders animals to offer to God, and Abel brings an offering of corn. God accepts Abel’s gift, and rejects Cain’s bloody sacrifice.

Is this version of the story true? There is no way to be sure. However, whether we like it or not, the Cain and Abel story as we have been told it only makes sense if we believe God must have blood sacrifice in order to forgive.

To the winner goes the privilege of writing history. It is an unavoidable fact that historical records are brought to us by groups of people who have certain agendas. In a society that defined itself by sacrifice, the scribes, members of the priesthood, were completely invested in showing that sacrifice was “what God required”, so it behooved them to slant the records to reflect this point of view.

There are enough Scriptures (especially by the latter prophets) that rebuke and come AGAINST sacrifice to illustrate that the belief “God told Cain and Abel to offer blood sacrifices” doesn’t ring true. Especially, if we truly believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Let me tell you a secret.

From the time I was just a little girl who loved kittens and puppies and rescued crickets who had gotten trapped in the house, I was never comfortable with this “sacrifice-demanding” side of God. I could never understand why He couldn’t just forgive me if I apologized, but instead, demanded that someone had to die because I did something wrong. Furthermore, I felt really bad because I had been told that the death of Jesus was all my fault! I knew that he had to die because of the bad things I had done, even though I hadn’t even been born at the time he died. Furthermore, every time I did a bad thing, it reminded him again of the pain he suffered on the cross.[12]

That is a lot of guilt to load onto a small, tenderhearted child!

In my heart, I really didn’t understand how we could say that “God is love”, based on that supposition. But what else did I have to go on? Christianity offers its children quite a dichotomy – we tell them that God is forgiving and compassionate, but we also expect them to believe that this same “loving” God can’t actually forgive us unless He is appeased with blood. It’s a difficult doctrinal pill to swallow, and the only way it really makes sense is if you have been taught to think that way from childhood; or, if you suspend your common-sense disbelief enough to just go along with it.

Ask yourself this question. Would you have survived the bloody sacrificial years of Judaism? Would your heart have become more tender and compassionate or more hardened and callous after murdering hundreds of animals to atone for your “sin”?

Because of the brutality of this atrocious doctrine, you would think that Christians would welcome the news that God really doesn’t want, need, or require sacrifice! But because we don’t want to believe that we have misinterpreted the Bible—and hence the Character of God—this badly, we flatly reject the notion that our interpretations could really be this biased that we cannot see God’s true Character, His true Word! So we fall back on other traditional interpretations and demand that Isaiah prophesied that Jesus would come and pay the price for our sin!”[13] The problem here is that Isaiah also prophesied against the sacrifices![14] Once again, Christianity purposely ignores the contradiction to favor its own mistaken interpretations of Isaiah’s ancient Hebrew.

Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant

Christendom typically assumes (demands) that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of a “Messianic human sacrifice of atonement” for sin. We naturally and honestly want to infer this from Luke (Acts 8:32-33) although Luke never actually states that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy. Isaiah 53 and the associated so-called “Servant Songs” of Isaiah 41-54 are typically translated by Christian scholars with a decidedly “Christian” bias that assumes the “suffering servant” is Jesus the Messiah when in fact, the balance of these passages consistently refer to “the servant” collectively as Israel. Such flip-flopping inconsistency in Christian translation and methodology is typically considered bad scholarship—but because the Servant Song” theory supports a “Christian view” of God asking for a human sacrifice, this flip-flopping of context has become accepted ‘bad scholarship’.

Interestingly, the Greek translation of Isaiah 53 within the Septuagint (also called the LXX), does not at all imply any kind of sacrifice of atonement for sin. Authors Bellinger and Farmer, two conservative Christian editors note,

“The Greek version of Isaiah 53 offers the Christian exegete considerably less support than the Hebrew versions for the doctrine of atonement from sin through Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection. … But taken in context, the LXX translators stopped short of seeing in the Servant’s actions an atoning sacrificial death…”[15]

The Jewish scholars who originally translated the Septuagint possessed the knowledge that our Father could not possibly require human sacrifice when He had consistently repudiated such a pagan practice within the Law.  Bellinger and Farmer go on to essentially conclude that the ancient translation of the Greek within the Septuagint  must be a ‘biased translation’ of the Hebrew. However, these two Christian scholars utterly fail to be concerned about the fact that their own translation of the simple Hebrew could itself be seeded with a mainstream Christian bias that is itself tampering with the Isaiah text in attempting to read more into the passage than is actually there from true Hebraic thought.

Again, in Hebraic thought, human sacrifice was a direct violation of God’s Law; God throughout the Scriptures literally and consistently condemns it. Therefore, God would not be inspiring Isaiah to be prophesying such for the atonement of sin—especially to atone for the sin of another (Ezekiel 18). The KJV, NIV and other major translations indeed deliberately mistranslate the Hebrew of Isaiah 53 and bend its context to make it indeed “sound like” someone is paying the price of another’s sin when Ezekiel 18 utterly contradicts this possibility!