Error in the bible: Hebrews 10:4

[slayer]

Overcomer wrote:
People in Old Testament days sacrificed animals for their sins. However, those sacrifices did not eradicate their sins. They only covered them temporarily. That meant people had to perform sacrifices over and over. And the animals sacrificed had to be unblemished.

Overcomer seems to be drawing the idea of animal sacrifices providing only temporal covering of sin, from Hebrews 10:4:

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb 10:4 NAS)

But the OT made clear that animal blood actually cleanses:

29 "And this shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls, and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you;
30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you shall be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
(Lev 16:29-30 NAS)

It is true that other parts of the OT indicate a desire to move away from the emphasis on blood atonement. But that doesn't change the fact that Leviticus 16 teaches actual cleansing and gives no sign whatsoever that the cleansing was in anyway incomplete or temporal.

So Hebrews 10 contradicts Leviticus 16.

The Hebrews author got even more wrong:

22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb 9:22 NAS)

The underlined portion is false, God took away David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba, in a context that neither expresses nor implies it was done through animal blood:

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2Sa 12:13-14 NAS)

If there is no forgiveness without shedding of blood, then God cannot take away David's sin apart from shedding of blood to atone for it.

Yes, some crazy fundies will insist god took the sin away with a view toward the yearly blood atonement, but normal people have limits to how much they will atomize fables before they finally lose interest in speculating about the nature of Cinderella's lizard-footmen.

[OnceConvinced]

The example of David there proves that God doesn't need a blood sacrifice to forgive, so clearly Jesus's death on the cross was not required. It was redundant. .

There is another scripture that says "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Rom 9:15. So in other words God will forgive if he wants to. It's not a matter of whether a sacrifice was made.

When it comes down to it, what does a blood sacrifice actually do apart from perhaps appease a blood thirsty deity? Nothing. It's simply a symbolic act. In the end it has to be God that gives the forgiveness, no matter what you do. God doesn't need a blood sacrifice. Neither did he need Jesus's sacrifice.

[bluethread]

When it comes down to it, what does a blood sacrifice actually do apart from perhaps appease a blood thirsty deity? Nothing. It's simply a symbolic act. In the end it has to be God that gives the forgiveness, no matter what you do. God doesn't need a blood sacrifice. Neither did he need Jesus's sacrifice.

If it is symbolic, which I would agree it is, then it does do something other than appease a blood thirsty deity. It serves as a symbolic reminder that sin leads to death. Also, "blood thirsty" is an improper anthropomorphism. I know of nowhere in the Scriptures where it says that Adonai drinks blood or has any use for blood. All meat whether sacrificed or eaten, and often both, is bled out and only a ceremonial portion is used in certain instances. Most of the blood is poured out on the ground. It appears that you are not talking about Torah sacrifice but forcing RCC doctrine. As with shabbat the sacrifices were given for man, not man for the sacrifices. Adonai does not need for sacrifice, man does. Now, if you truly wish to discuss what the KJV refers to as "atonement", which term are you referrng to Kippur, Kaphar or some other term? The term in Lev 16:29-30 is the more common term Kaphar, which does refer to a covering.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

Who are you, that gets to decide which bits are merely symbolic?

You started with "if," so I will too. IF it isn't symbolic, then every word after your "if" is moot.

It's sort of the entire problem with defending selective interpretation, no?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

Who are you, that gets to decide which bits are merely symbolic?

You started with "if," so I will too. IF it isn't symbolic, then every word after your "if" is moot.

It's sort of the entire problem with defending selective interpretation, no?

That is the rhetorical if. In English the word "if" is determined by context and I provided that qualification by agreeing with Once Convinced. Since OC is the one who presented the option, why aren't you protesting him? By the way, sorry that I edited the post after you posted, because those point out the difference. As I said, if you are really interested, we can look at the contexts in which these terms are used, and see if a symbolic view is correct?

[Overcomer]

You ask some good questions, slayer. Let me try to answer them for you.

First of all, the verse you quoted from Leviticus does indeed indicate that animal sacrifices had to be done regularly to atone for sins because they only did the job temporarily. The instructions note that the statute is to be a lasting or permanent one, meaning that every time the seventh month rolled around, on the tenth day of that month, they had to make the required sacrifices.

It’s important to consider the fact that the people would remain sinners and continue to sin after they made that sacrifice which means they would have to go through the ritual again. They would not stop sinning. Therefore, they had to repeat sacrifices to atone for the sins they kept committing. They may indeed have committed sins in thought, word or deed, a few minutes following the sacrifice, already starting on the need to re-do the sacrifice in the future.

The animals sacrificed represented them, but, because they were animals, they could not fully atone for people’s sins. Only a human being could do that. But it had to be a perfect human being. Only Christ was a perfect human being because he was both man and God. That's why he and he alone could atone for our sins. And once he came and atoned for them through his death and resurrection, there was no need for animal sacrifice any more.

Here’s where it gets tricky! When we talk about sin, we are talking about it in two ways. We are talking about having a sin nature and we are talking about committing sins. We are talking about the difference between being and doing. Some use a capital “S� to differentiate between them. There is Sin, referring to our ontological nature, and there is sin, referring to our actions which stem from our sin nature.

While God accepted sacrifices as temporary atonements for sins, those sacrifices did NOTHING to change people’s Sin, that is, their sin natures. That’s what Hebrews is talking about when it says that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. It’s talking about how the shedding of blood, specifically the shedding of Christ’s blood, changes our very natures. Where we were once dead in sin, we are now alive in Christ. We have been born again and are new creations in Christ.

This does not mean that we never sin again. It means we now have right-standing with God and any sins committed in future are already forgiven. This does not mean we can sin all we want. Paul addresses that in Romans 6. It means that we now have the power of the Holy Spirit to resist sin and avoid it. But learning how to do that is a process which lasts a lifetime.

Therefore, when God forgives David without him having to make a sacrifice, he is forgiving a specific sin, not his Sin (sin nature). That's why the passage is not contradicting what is written in Hebrews. And it's important to read ALL of Hebrews to get that, not just take a verse or two out of it.

And look at what makes this whole episode involving David different from the discussion of sacrifices elsewhere in Leviticus. If you read the whole story, you see that David recognizes that he has sinned against God and he confesses his sin and repents of it, re-committing himself to the Lord. This is why he does not have to sacrifice an animal for this particular sin. He has recognized it and done what he needs to do without sacrificing an animal.

In Leviticus, the sacrifices are general ones for all the sins that people have committed, whether they have recognized them as sins or not and whether they have repented or not. The instructions about them do NOT preclude God choosing to forgive an individual of a specific sin in a particular situation without a sacrifice. He made the rules. He can do what he judges best.

In reality, God would rather have had someone with a penitent heart like David than all the animal sacrifices in the world if they were made without sincere love for God or a true desire to honour him. See Sam. 1:15. King Saul is a perfect example of this.

[Danmark]

Whenever I am reminded of these sacrifices, the burnt offering and so forth, the thing that strikes me is, "How is this different from any other pagan or primitive religion, where things of value are sacrificed to appease the gods." And the answer that follows is, "It isn't any different at all."

Early man wanted to control his world and he had no expectation that a god would do something for him just because he asked. Gods after all were very powerful. They could command great storms, giant waves, volcanic eruptions; things the people had no control over. So they wanted to appease them. If a mere request might not be honored, then surely a great sacrifice would increase the chance the gods would hear their plea. The only thing added to the mix was the concept of 'sin,' a way for leaders to control the behavior of their followers. It's all just stuff and nonsense. Haven't we now at long last outgrown this?

[OnceConvinced]

When it comes down to it, what does a blood sacrifice actually do apart from perhaps appease a blood thirsty deity? Nothing. It's simply a symbolic act. In the end it has to be God that gives the forgiveness, no matter what you do. God doesn't need a blood sacrifice. Neither did he need Jesus's sacrifice.

If it is symbolic, which I would agree it is, then it does do something other than appease a blood thirsty deity. It serves as a symbolic reminder that sin leads to death.

And what exactly does that achieve and why cannot the same reminder be done in a way that does not involve the ritual slaughter of innocent animals?

Also, "blood thirsty" is an improper anthropomorphism. I know of nowhere in the Scriptures where it says that Adonai drinks blood or has any use for blood. All meat whether sacrificed or eaten, and often both, is bled out and only a ceremonial portion is used in certain instances. Most of the blood is poured out on the ground. It appears that you are not talking about Torah sacrifice but forcing RCC doctrine.

The term bloodthirsty does not mean that the person actually drinks blood.

Meaning:

having or showing a desire to kill and maim.

synonyms: murderous, homicidal, violent, sadistic, warlike, bellicose, bloody;

As with shabbat the sacrifices were given for man, not man for the sacrifices. Adonai does not need for sacrifice, man does. Now, if you truly wish to discuss what the KJV refers to as "atonement", which term are you referrng to Kippur, Kaphar or some other term? The term in Lev 16:29-30 is the more common term Kaphar, which does refer to a covering.

Men are making these sacrifices TO God, not themselves.

Exactly why does man need a sacrifice?

How, for example does Abraham offering up his son for a sacrifice benefit him, apart from gaining favours from God?

[Elijah John]

Whenever I am reminded of these sacrifices, the burnt offering and so forth, the thing that strikes me is, "How is this different from any other pagan or primitive religion, where things of value are sacrificed to appease the gods." And the answer that follows is, "It isn't any different at all."

Except for moral codes, as you indicated in the second part of your post.

While I appreciate Bluethread's unique and the thoughtful interpretation of blood being needed from man's perspective not God's, I do not agree entirely. Seems a messy reminder that not only God does not want, but that man does not need as well.

I do agree with Danmarks theory, and think that is far more likely. That blood sacrifice is a Pagan holdover vestige that the early Hebrews practiced, but outgrew with the help of the Prophets who basically stated over and over that YHVH desires "mercy and not sacrifice" in various ways and with various wordings.

And there is belief in forgiveness, but no need for blood in Rabbinic Judaism to this very day.

And John the Baptist preached bloodless atonement through the Baptism of Repentance. Jesus himself also preached bloodless atonement in various ways in the more reliable Gospels, the Synoptics. As does the instruction manual for early Christian converts, the Didache, bloodness atonement through repentance and embracing the path of righteousness.

I agree with Danmark that John is the least reliable Gospel, and mostly a theological interpretation, similar to Paul's substitutionary atonement/appeasement speculation.

And for believers in an interventionist God, is it possible that YHVH allowed the destruction of the Temple by the Romans was His way of saying "no" to blood for atonement of sin? Just something maybe, to ponder.

So, I would say that believers in Blood atonemnent have ONE valid interpretation of forgiveness, especially since they tend to give preference to the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul.

But it is not the ONLY valid interpretation of atonement in the Bible.

Personally, in cases where there is some conflict between Biblical teachings, I tend to side with the interpretation that accords most with Reason, in this case the atonement of mercy/repentance vs that of blood appeasement.

It conflicts with reason, imo, that a loving and just God would need blood in order to forgive sins. Whether animal sacrifice, or human sacrifice with Jesus.

The way I see it, is that the Father is INHERENTLY merciful (and just) by nature, and does not to be bought or appeased.

And if the metaphor of Father is taken further, what father amoung you needs to be bought or bribed by blood when your child disobeys? No good father, that I can see.

[OnceConvinced]

First of all, the verse you quoted from Leviticus does indeed indicate that animal sacrifices had to be done regularly to atone for sins because they only did the job temporarily.

How did these sacrifices atone for sin? Why is it only temporary? Assuming God made it this way, why did he make it this way? Why couldn’t he set the system up so that the sacrifice could be permanent? And why sacrifice an animal? Why could God not have selected a less barbaric means of atoning for sin? Why couldn’t say a vegetable be used as a sacrifice instead?

Also take into account that any sacrifice being made had to be made to Yahweh. If it were made to any other God, there would have been no atonement. It seems to me that the sacrifice is clearly a redundant act. In the long run the cleansing and the atoning is done by God himself and no amount of sacrifices actually do anything.

The animals sacrificed represented them, but, because they were animals, they could not fully atone for people’s sins. Only a human being could do that.

Why only a human being?

But it had to be a perfect human being.

Why a perfect human being? What difference would it really make in the long run?

Therefore, when God forgives David without him having to make a sacrifice, he is forgiving a specific sin, not his Sin (sin nature). That's why the passage is not contradicting what is written in Hebrews. And it's important to read ALL of Hebrews to get that, not just take a verse or two out of it.

And what exactly about Jesus’s sacrifice somehow miraculously changes our nature? If God ordained that should be the case, why couldn’t he have ordained some less barbaric system that could change our nature that didn’t require the brutal slaying of an innocent human? Why is a penitent heart not good enough here when it's good enough for individual sins?

And look at what makes this whole episode involving David different from the discussion of sacrifices elsewhere in Leviticus. If you read the whole story, you see that David recognizes that he has sinned against God and he confesses his sin and repents of it, re-committing himself to the Lord. This is why he does not have to sacrifice an animal for this particular sin. He has recognized it and done what he needs to do without sacrificing an animal.

So then the cruel exercise of slaughtering animals was completely unnecessary then. God forgives without the need for an animal sacrifice. So why does he then need a human sacrifice to fix up our sinful natures? Is he incapable of fixing them without the need for bloodshed?

In reality, God would rather have had someone with a penitent heart like David than all the animal sacrifices in the world if they were made without sincere love for God or a true desire to honour him. See Sam. 1:15. King Saul is a perfect example of this.

I really don't see the bible God honoring any sacrifices done without sincerity. That just doesn't line up with the rest of the bible. Hey, just look at the story of Cain and Abel. Cain's sacrifices were rejected because of the wrong attitude he had.

God could have said “Hey people, no, slaughtering of innocent animals. Just have a penitent heart�. But no, if we go by your reasoning, he set up a system of brutal slaughter for people to use as an insincere gesture to him. That really doesn't sound like the God of the bible at all. He's a "my way or the highway" type of God and if you don't like it, then tough bikkies.

To outlaw any kind of brutal slaughter to atone for sin, would have been a great way of separating himself from the other barbaric Gods by doing away with animal sacrifices. Likewise with human sacrifice. If God is God he could surely have implemented a less barbaric system. One that showed he really was a loving kind God and not a cruel barbaric one like all the others.