Has anyone ever wondered at the seemingly arbitrariness of the whole sacrificial system regarding expiation for sins? Now, it seems logical to me that once a sin is committed some sort of 'makeup' needs to be made. But what I have trouble with sometimes is thinking of the following facts that seem incongruous:
A man sins. And that sin offends God -- despite the fact that it was not against God personally. God is love. And yet, that same God of love requires that an animal, a creature completely lacking sentience, needs to be slaughtered, put through unimaginable pain and anguish and have its life snuffed out, in order to make up for the sin. Does this strike anyone else as kinda arbitrary? I mean, why pain and bloodshed to make up for a sin? Granted, its' an animal - but it still feels pain. And what did it do to deserve that kind of treatment? Furthermore, with Christianity, we have God reincarnating as His only Son, and having to die on a Cross to become the perfect sacrifice for all of our sins. Doesn't that seem kind of arbitrary as well? I mean, this is the God of the Universe - the definer of reality. Why does He have to become Man in order to die a bloody, horrible death on a cross. And how does that make up for sin, exactly? I mean, cause and effect, it just doesn't seem to add up in my head. If I take a book off a shelf, the way to replace it is to put it back on the shelf. If I take a book, and then to replace it I decide to inflate a balloon and sing the Happy Days theme song -- this remedy would obviously be a totally incongruous action. And for some reason, I just get the same feeling when I think about sacrifice atoning for sin - whether it be animals in the Old testament, or Christ in the New Testament.
----
Anyway, I'd be really curious to hear people's take on this... :-)
I disagree with this. I think sin is against God personally. As I said a couple of threads back, sin is, at its very essence, the claim that humanity knows better than God what to do with itself. A holy God takes that personally.
And yet, that same God of love requires that an animal, a creature completely lacking sentience, needs to be slaughtered, put through unimaginable pain and anguish and have its life snuffed out, in order to make up for the sin.
The wages of sin is death. The ultimate result of sin (both spiritually and materially) is death. The death of the animal is in place of the death of the offerer of the sacrifice. Still thinkin on the rest...
Actually, P2BA, the rules for ritual slaughter in Temple times are the same rules still used today in kosher slaughterhouses. The shochet uses a perfectly sharp blade and makes one deep, clean stroke across the throat that severs the carotid arteries. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible. Also, while the animals were sacrificed, the meat was not wasted. These were animals that were going to be eaten anyway! So no unnecessary pain or suffering was done to the animals.
As for why this was done. Fundamentalists will say that this is simply what God decreed. Modernists will say that the Jews copied the sacrifice techniques from other middle eastern cultures. Obviously, animal sacrifice was known to Abraham. Jethro, a priest of Midian, instructed Moses on how to offer sacrifice. I think the underlying principle was giving something of value back to God. Back then, livestock was the most precious commodity. If you upset your wife, you might bring her flowers or chocolates. The Israelites offered up what they had of value to God as a symbol of repentence.
Remember also animal sacrafice did not take away sin they just covered it for a year. But God said that Jesus's sacrafice takes it away as if it never happens, and he will remember it no more. This is God's plan. Who are we to question it, and say we have a better way:)
Becky
Perhaps in our human minds we minimize sin, but in God's view sin is just as heinous as the sacrifices that cover them? If God is just, the penalty would fit the crime, no? He may see the crime in a different light than we do...