What the Bible Really SayWhat the Bible Really Says
Archive of Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers From All-Creatures.org

Our subjects cover: animals, religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.

By Ella - 23 Oct 2009


This is certainly a different concept on the sacrificial system of the OT! I had not heard it before, but it comes across as a way to promote the concept of animal rights in the current culture. (I don't think you need to do that to show the progression of human compassion.) You try to make the Bible say what it doesn't say.

The abhorrence God had against the butchering of animals had to do with Israel's hypocrisy in carrying on these sacrifices while they sinned against the poor. Read the context. Yes, there were human sacrifices by the pagans and that is one reason they were destroyed. They had little care for human life and were cruel and wicked beyond our comprehension.

But this was not to be for Israel. The story of Abraham and his son was a parable of God being willing to sacrifice His son. Abraham was portraying a type of Christ.

And though the animal sacrifices were no doubt overdone beyond food for the Levites, the whole sanctuary service was a sandbox story of the way of salvation--Christ would die for our sins. Every object in the sanctuary was symbolic of Christ. When Christ was born two birds were brought as a sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. In the story of Cain and Able, God accepted the lamb from Able and turned down the fruit brought by Cain. Again this is symbolic--Christ is always described as the Lamb of God.

At the very beginning this must have been known. God asked for a Lamb, but Cain wanted to give the works of his hands. (a parable of giving what God wants vs. our works). Maybe we can see this in the Sabbath commandment (asked by God) being replaced by something human tradition came up with (Sunday from the pagan sun worship with the rationalization it was to commemorate the resurrection). Anyway it's an interesting parable.

Humans were given permission to eat meat after the flood story for numerous reasons. Today those reasons are no longer valid--we have many other sources of food; we are not so active physically; it was not God's original plan and will not be in the future ("nothing will destroy in my holy kingdom"). God's people are to grow spiritually and in compassion over time to come closer to the Eden ideal and reflect Jesus' love.

It is plain that this idea you have presented may be more palatable to some, but it definitely is not biblical.

Animal sacrifices should have stopped at the crucifixion, when the Bible says the veil of the temple was rent. This is because the True sacrifice had been made for all humanity.

Go on to comments:
Return to: What the Bible Really Say
Return to: Discussion Table of Contents