posted
I've always been perplexed by the Scriptural fixation on blood. I'm sure there's a lot of scholarly treatment of this very subject, and many of you know a lot about it. So here's my question.
Could we have the wrong interpretation of the importance of blood sacrifice in scripture? For example, is the story of Abraham's faith really about Abraham? Maybe the real lesson is about his son who was obedient unto his own death. Or its about both his obedience to his father, and Abraham's obedience to God...
Another question about it, maybe the real importance of blood sacrifices is lost when the sacrificial victim isn't a willing participant. If we look at Jesus' example, for example, which for Christians forever ended the requirement of blood sacrifices for atonement, we see God providing us with the model for how these things ought to be done.
Maybe the human-equivalent (all those sacrificed lambs and calves) was just a perversion of what God really was looking for??? And in the end, not really valuable because it wasn't blood willingly sacrificed by the "victim"
Oh well.
I didn't want to pollute the thread on the temple, so I put this in its own thread.
I was trying to find a wonderful essay on Abraham and Isaac and the akeidah (binding) that I read a while back, but it's either not online or hiding from me.
Being told to sacrifice his son was one of Abraham's 10 tests, probably the most difficult. Here was a man who did his best to convince people not to worship Molech (which usually involved child sacrifices), who was promised that his offspring would be as many as the stars and the sand -- and God is asking him to sacrifice his son. Yet, he had faith, and was prepared to do as God told him. And Isaac was a willing participant.
But it was a test -- the ram was always intended to be the actual sacrifice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I was wondering "why the blood?" I liked what the site that rivka posted had to say -- at least it made some sense. I have this problem with sacrificing living animals or people.
I wonder if there wasn't a better way to remind us that our bodies are also God's than to sacrifice a ram...
Certainly human sacrifice is a bad idea too. We kind of have this problem, I think. If blood is to be sacrificed, it should not be the blood of an unwilling victim (a human victim) or an unwitting one (an animal), it seems to me. If it is either of those, the blood spilled is really just a substitute for the blood of the offeror, right? And thus it is a poor sacrifice. It didn't cost the offeror dearly? And if it did, maybe money is just as good a "sacrificial offering" if the point is to "give until it hurts."
When the shepard sacrificed part of his own flock (As Abel did), that was pleasing to God. When someone buys a goat from the temple stockyards, what's that?
Not "is it a sin" or what have you. But what meaning does it still hold? The person showed up, gave money, the animal was killed and that's that.
All that person really did is give some money. They didn't offer blood. They didn't touch it, sacrifice the animal themselves. It's not like they'd understand that link of body and soul in such a sacrifice conducted behind the curtain of religious sacrament. Would they?
Anyway, I'm thinking that God maybe never really wanted blood sacrifices and this was all a mistake.
The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was, in a way, an attempt to embarrass humans into stopping all the slaughter.
posted
Blood is life in a visual as well as actual sense. Sacrifice is all about giving up something for something greater. You value people who make sacrifices for good -- people who sacrifice time for their children, people who sacrifice their money for the poor, people who sacrifice their blood for those who need it (as with blood donations). A willingness to sacrifice is an indication of a person's depth of commitment to a thing.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dunno. What's the sacrifice of giving up something you have plenty of?
OTOH, if that animal you just spent your last pennies on could have been slaughtered and eaten to keep your hungry family nourished, that would show an enormous amount of commitment to faith.
The truth is that I struggle with the concept that "the wages of sin is death". That death is the penalty for sin. It sounds like spanking a baby with a sledgehammer. But I also observe that sin's consequence is less life. If you drink to excess regularly, do you have more or less life? If you gossip and engage in progressively small minded behavior, do you have more or less life? And that with sacrifice, the consequence is greater life. If you sacrifice your time and money and heart for the good of others, do you have more or less life?
Kinda ties back to what Jesus said about trying to keep your life will cause you to lose it, but by giving it up, you'll gain it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genesis 2:7 "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
We know today that the blood is what carries oxygen to the cells in the body. So the breath of life is indeed in the blood.
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..."
The rest of Leviticus 17:11: "and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life."
Sin = death in a spiritual sense. Blood = life in a physical sense. That's why blood is shed to pay for sin, that's what the symbol is.
The book of Hebrews says that the blood of animals could not remove sin. So why all the animal sacrifices? It was a type, a precursor of what was to come, the anti-type being the blood of Christ which *did* have the power to take away sin.
Obviously this is the cheatsheat version, if you want to appreciate the depth of meaning there you have to put in some study.
posted
See, here's the problem...what if that was written by a man (or men) with limited understanding of what God really wanted?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To sidetrack a little, Soren Kierkegaard (not unlike a 19th-century Danish Thor) has a famously thorough analysis of the Sacrifice of Isaac, and what it really meant, as far as SK thought (the book is called Fear and Trembling, so named due to the emotional response the protagonist has when considering the event discussed).
After all, when you think about it, perhaps greater than the fact that Abraham had faith in carrying out God's will, was the fact that he was correct to do so.
After all, what if someone heard God today telling him to sacrifice their child?
Of course, wags would say, he did this all to justify why he didn't marry (and in fact broke off the engagement) his fiance, which was definitely against the ethical norms of the day; that is, marrying was seen as a social rite, an ethical necessity of any adult in society.
Interestingly this all set up SK to be one of the first, and possibly the last (save, perhaps, Martin Buber) religious existentialist.
posted
Question, if people who were basically farmers instead of basically shepherds wrote the Bible, what would've been said of the two sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel, respectively.
It just seems odd that there's this subtext in that story of "sheep good,produce bad."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems odd that there's this subtext in that story of "sheep good,produce bad."
The simple answer is that God gave specific direction of what He wanted the sacrifice to be: A firstborn male lamb with no blemishes and no broken bones; simply because it was a representation of the promised Messiah.
Cain was censured for two reasons: 1. He gave a non-conforming sacrifice, thus disobeying God.
2. He gave such a sacrifice at the direction of Satan.
IMHO, #2 is much worse than #1, and is the main reason why the sacrifice was rejected.
In my mind, there was no "produce bad" subtext at all. Produce just could not fit the symbolic purpose intended for the sacrifice. The Messiah was to be the firstborn Son of God, without blemish. Such a person cannot (again IMHO) be adequately represented by a tomato, or even a pumpkin.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::See, here's the problem...what if that was written by a man (or men) with limited understanding of what God really wanted?::
Then we should be discussing that in another thread and not talking specifically about what the Bible teaches about blood. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not, you can still discuss what it says about a subject and see if it's internally consistent (which it is in this case). Whether that's what God actually wrote or not is a different question.
>>Question, if people who were basically farmers instead of basically shepherds wrote the Bible, what would've been said of the two sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel, respectively.<<
Exact same thing, if you believe it to be inspired of God. If you don't, see above.
I'm a little confused. I just posted *why* blood is required. That sin = death and blood = life, how do we get that from an anti-produce prejudice? Besides which, there were *lots* of meal-offerings in the Old Testament as well. You may not have known that. So grain was definitely used in sacrifices as well.
None of that really has anything to do with Cain and Abel, where the only issue is "Did Cain do what God said to do?" And it really has nothing to do with Abraham and Isaac either. Those questions really aren't very related to the issue of "the Bible's fixation on blood."
posted
Turin, are you accusing me of derailing my own thread?
Anyway, point taken.
By the way, I think your take on Abel's lamb being symbolic of Christ is a stretch. Certainly it might make sense to a Christian reading the Torah, but if we're going to quibble about non-obvious subtexts, I think yours trumps mine by a good margin.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:what if that was written by a man (or men) with limited understanding of what God really wanted?
Uh...it was written by men with a limited understanding of what God wants. We all have limited understanding, and must, because God is God, and men are not God. Ultimately, though, you have to decide if you think the Bible was divinely inspired and directed. If you decide No, It Wasn't, then The Bible is basically just another book.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, a lot of interpreters make a big deal over this farmer vs. shepherd thing, but I don’t think it’s supported by the text. If you read closely, it’s not that God looked with favor on the offering and therefore on Abel, it’s the other way around – God had regard for Abel and therefore looked with favor on his offering.
::sings:: Oh the farmer and the cowboy should be friends . . .
posted
jeniwren -- I'm leaving open the possibility that the book was written by men who misunderstood what God wanted them to write. That also leaves open the possibility of later generations gaining a better understanding.
Making scripture more open to reinterpretation and even revision, I suppose.
dkw...I never said this was a valid interpretation. I see it more as a subtext that does make sense in the cultural sense. I'd be surprised if the oral traditions of shepherds didn't give a nod to the superiority of their way of life or use analogies from that realm to explain things in ways that would support the modal occupation of the group.
It's sort of a twisty road back onto itself. Did God like Abel because he was a shepherd?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genesis 4, King James: 1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
I gotta admit, I'm stumped. Why was God unhappy with Cain's offering? As far as I know there was no official word at this point on just what offerings God liked.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have to agree. I don't get anywhere in there that Satan conversed with Cain. It really does seem sort of "out of the blue" that God takes a dislike to Cain. Rather arbitrary. And since the one aspect of Cain that's mentioned is that he's a tiller of the soil, the obvious conclusion is that God didn't like that about him.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, maybe I'm not understanding you right. My first thought on reading your post was (forgive me if this is too blunt) "How can you reinterpret something that wasn't written correctly in the first place?"
In other words...if the guy getting the word directly from God didn't get it right, how could we possibly do better? I'm not refuting what you're saying...I'm trying to understand better.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, maybe I'm not understanding you right. My first thought on reading your post was (forgive me if this is too blunt) "How can you reinterpret something that wasn't written correctly in the first place?"
Well...I see your point. It never occurred to me because I'm operating under the belief that all Biblical pronouncements are interpretations, so my question back would be "how can you avoid interpreting?" and "when has anyone avoided interpreting?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Cain really wasn't the nicest person before he offered his sacrifice. Just look at how he responds to God's rejection of his sacrifice. Instead of saying, "I'm sorry, I'll try to do better," he goes and kills Abel, the one who did it right. I'd say that indicates a character that isn't really all that interested in serving God, which would be, I presume, the reason God didn't accept his sacrafice in the first place.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolve, but then you are reading a lot between the lines, and applying a 21st century eye to peoples from the 4000BC, or earlier. More so than Bob, I think.
Remember, God started the rule "eye for an eye", PRECISELY because revenge tactics back then were such that you not only took an eye for an eye, but also a hand, 3 toes, an ear, and a nose, if possible. "Turn the other cheek" happened at a time when most people in the area of Israel followed eye for an eye.
So Cain's response may not have been as outlandish to the generations of the subsequent 1000-2000 years.
posted
You can't avoid interpretation. But if you assume that it is flawed to start, then all the interpretations in the world aren't going to fix it. That would be like looking through a broken window, trying to find a better angle in the hopes that that if you could just find the right one, you'll be able to see through it with perfect clarity. Instead, if the window is perfectly sound, but the picture outside is too large to see all at once, you may shift around, looking through at different angles, to get a bigger picture of the whole. Still not perfect clarity, but you see more, more clearly.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but feel that the text is flawed and the interpretations are as well. But that doesn't bother me as much as it does most people. You see, I have faith that God values the attempt and doesn't expect perfection from us. He gave us intellect and free will as gifts to be used. As long as a person is trying to use those gifts and do well, my faith tells me that God (being loving and patient) will overlook errors.
Malicious acts/thoughts or deliberately doing what you believe to be wrong...that's a different matter entirely. Just as would be the act of deliberately trying to lead someone else astray.
My view of it all is different. I think we (each of us) have a responsibility to search for the truth and use every resource we have in that search. And we must remain open to revising our conclusions precisely because everything we learn and hear and see is filtered through human understanding which is inherently flawed or limited.
In your analogy, we ARE the window and it is both too small and full of warps and bubbles.
I'm not bothered by the thought that the Bible is NOT the immutable, perfect word of God. It means, to me, that I can and should approach it with care and caution. And that it need not be a source of such overpowering TRUTH that I deny my own experience and senses.
Eventually, and over-riding everything else, is my faith that God's purpose is understandable and that we can KNOW it in detail. So, I don't think I'm supposed to follow in the absence of logic and understanding -- essentially bending my intellect to Scripture versus judging the lessons from scripture in the context of all that I can learn and know.
That doesn't mean I don't value Scripture. I just don't worship it. Which is, I think, what is required if one is of the firm belief that Scripture is the literal word of God.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...I don't worship it either. I worship the God it is about. I believe that God has his hand in it, and while there are many things about it that I find troubling, it doesn't disturb my faith, because my faith isn't based on it. It, if anything, defines my faith, supports it, and helps continue to grow it. It's the flowerpot and Miracle-Gro to the soil of my faith. Which is a metaphor I'm not sure I want to explore too fully.
Always fun talking with you about this stuff, Bob. You're very thoughtful.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob_Scopatz: ::By the way, I think your take on Abel's lamb being symbolic of Christ is a stretch.::
Aroo? I didn't say that. I said that the shedding of blood in animal sacrifices in the Old Testament is a type, and that the shedding of Christ's blood is the antitype. In a more specific case, the Passover Lamb is a type as well.
And yes, that only becomes clear from this side of the New Testament. That's why it's a not a prophecy that people were waiting to be fulfilled, it's a shadow of things to come that we go "Ohhhhh, now I get it" after all the story is told.
That's not the same is "Abel's lamb is symbolic of Christ." Bear *some* similarity to? Sure. Symbolic of? No.
::really does seem sort of "out of the blue" that God takes a dislike to Cain.::
Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain..."
Romans 10:17 "So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
So it's a logical conclusion that in order for Abel to do something by faith, he had to have been given some instruction, since faith comes by hearing.
Cain wasn't respected because his sacrifice wasn't "of faith" like Abel's was. It had *nothing* to do with prejudice against farmers. That's the first time I've ever heard anything like that. I'm not trying to be insulting, when I say that, because it's certainly *interesting*. But, no offense intended, it seems to be a theory one comes up with when one isn't very familiar with the actual texts.
And like I said, farmers were indispensable because many of the OT sacrifices were meal offerings.
I could argue that the NT is prejudiced in favor of farmers, what with feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread, and no red meat in sight. But that sort of thing is eisegesis, injecting into the text one's own ideas, something that isn't actually there. Exegesis is taking out of the text what *is* there.
posted
Isaac was a willing participant? I thought he didn't know what was going on until the last minute? The scripture reads that as he was helping prepare the sacrafice he asked his father where the animal to be killed was and his father gave him the cryptic response that "god would provide it."
[ August 23, 2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When the shepard sacrificed part of his own flock (As Abel did), that was pleasing to God. When someone buys a goat from the temple stockyards, what's that?
Not "is it a sin" or what have you. But what meaning does it still hold? The person showed up, gave money, the animal was killed and that's that.
All that person really did is give some money. They didn't offer blood. They didn't touch it, sacrifice the animal themselves. It's not like they'd understand that link of body and soul in such a sacrifice conducted behind the curtain of religious sacrament. Would they?
Actually, most people brought their own animals, when feasible. And in the case of sin offerings, the person bringing the sacrifice confessed his sins as part of the process -- which he did indeed watch. (Simply paying money to alleviate guilt was introduced much later in Jewish history. We call those rituals "fundraisers," and the main connection to the sacrifices is that there is often food involved. )
Kayin and Hevel. Err, sorry, Cain and Abel. God accepted Cain's sacrifice and not Abel's because Cain offered up "of the first of his flock and of the choicest" -- that is, he sacrificed the best of what he had; while Abel "brought an offering to God from the fruit of the ground" -- he gave inferior produce (usually explained as flax seeds).
quote: most people in the area of Israel followed eye for an eye
This is NOT LITERAL! "an eye for an eye" means one must pay the VALUE of the eye (which would be determined by lost income, and depend on the victim's profession).
posted
An interesting way to look at Abraham's sacrifice is like this. God promised that he would make Abraham's descendants into a great nation, and that he would do it through Sarah's son Isaac. Abraham knew that and he trusted that God would RESURRECT Isaac.
How's that for faith?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, I know... Though I think that much of the old testament shows a more violent (on ALL sides) set of societies than exists in, say, the modern USA.
But yes, the general problem was that someone would slight someone else, and the other would retaliate at a higher lever.
It sometimes still is a problem today. I think the reason it still is a problem is that many people are poor judges of equivalent value.
Ryan, here's an even larger marvel: having heard the promise you note, AND hearing the new decree about the sacrifice, rather than giving up on either promise as false, or Satanic, he went forward with it anyway (and nowhere does it say that Abraham presumed resurrection... I think that's a big unsupported assumption)! Even when he couldn't prove the source. THAT'S faith.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
This is NOT LITERAL! "an eye for an eye" means one must pay the VALUE of the eye (which would be determined by lost income, and depend on the victim's profession).
