Wick Stick
Well-known member
G.O.,
That's from the prophets (requoted in the gospels). The original post asked what was required in the Law. Perhaps everything in the Law was not exactly what God wanted?
Jarrod
What does God's Holy Law Demand?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
That's from the prophets (requoted in the gospels). The original post asked what was required in the Law. Perhaps everything in the Law was not exactly what God wanted?
Jarrod
genuineoriginal
New member
Perhaps everything in the Law was what God wanted, but man twisted it?
But, if you want to know what is required in the Law and not in the prophets or the New Testament, this should help:
Deuteronomy 10:12-13 12 And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, 13 To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? |
Wick Stick
Well-known member
If by twisted, you mean "added crap to it," then yeah. To cut to the chase... I increasingly see problems between:
(a) the first 4 books of the Pentateuch, and the books of history, and
(b) what the prophets, writings, and New Testament say.
E.g. God wanted animal sacrifice in Leviticus, but by Amos, he says he hates them?
Obv, that doesn't mean everything in the historical parts of the OT should be thrown out. There is much that is in agreement, but there is a real problem there of who redacted what and how much was added/subtracted/smoothed over.
It's interesting that Deuteronomy agrees with the prophets, writings, gospels and epistles, other than the rest of the law, and history.
Jarrod
genuineoriginal
New member
Jesus spent a lot of His ministry correcting the way the Pharisees twisted scripture.
Jesus was in full agreement with the Torah, but was not in agreement with how men treated it.
God instituted animal sacrifices in Leviticus because He wants people to see how horrible He thinks sin is and repent of doing it.
However, people did not have compassion for the animals that were sacrificed, and used that as an excuse to sin more instead of using animal sacrifice as motivation to stop sinning.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
So... God mistakenly thought that people would find it abhorrent, like He does? Or maybe, He foreknew that they wouldn't, but just thought that centuries of slaughter would be worth it, so He could accuse them of it later?
I'm going to operate under the assumption that the Israelites saw their neighbors offering sacrifices, and wanted the same thing. And, like in the case where they demanded a king, God let them have what they wanted, even though it wasn't the best option.
Jarrod
The animal sacrifices were for atonement. However, the atonement was polluted by hypocrisy. God doesn't care for hypocrisy.
Christ had no problem with Abel's sacrifice.
Epoisses
New member
Sacrificial offerings were acts of faith in the OT. They did not cleanse from any sin but showed that the one offering was looking forward in faith to a redeemer to come. We look backwards to a redeemer who has already come and accomplished his mission.
Right, The Old Testament was about looking forward to when Christ would arrive. Those who believed in the promise of a savior were justified by faith.
genuineoriginal
New member
That is what I believe.
That would make God unrighteous.
You seem to be ignoring the whole Cain and Abel issue.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I believe God doesn't make mistakes.
Yes it would. Do you see a problem with that? I do.
If you're referring to Jamie's post, I'm not ignoring it. It just wasn't posted until after I was offline last night.
A problem - Abel's sacrifice wasn't for atonement. Able's sacrifice was about his work, and offering tribute.jamie said:
Sacrifice for atonement wasn't until later, after which God said He hates that.
Jarrod
We don't know the reason for Abel's sacrifice, my point was that it was an animal sacrifice to which God had no objection.
But with regard to Israel: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
(Leviticus 17:11)
Ben Masada
New member
And according to Jesus himself, they had become righteous because they listened to "Moses" aka the Law. Read Luke 16:29-31.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Yes we do. It says in Genesis 4 that both Cain and Abel brought מִנְחָה - that's a tribute paid to a king. Not for atonement.
This is a given. Try to keep up... the question is, if God commanded sacrifices, why then does He say things like:
Hosea 6:6 I desired mercy, not sacrifice;
Isaiah 1:12 I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
There is a troubling dichotomy in the Old Testament.
Half the books (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Job, and all the books of OT history) are all about the priesthood and atonement and sacrifice, and nobody is justified without blood. The things written appear to be literal, and meant to be literally performed.
But in another group of books (Deuteronomy, Psalms, and all the books of prophecy), sacrifices are abhorred and not accepted and people are justified by believing. Often commands are (re?)interpreted in a way other than literally. Psalms 78, for instance, recaps all of the history of Israel, and calls it "parables."
1M1M has followed Barnabas' interpretation, holding that most of the commandments are not for literal observance, but rather meant to be interpreted.
How do you resolve the apparent conflict?
God's Truth
New member
God commanded sacrifices. HOWEVER, God did NOT like it that the people gave the sacrifices for sins BUT WERE NOT REALLY SORRY for their sins.
The sacrifices covered sin and foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice. However, for many they were not done in faith and the hypocrisy was abhorrent to God, i.e., they were rotten from a spiritual standpoint.
Epoisses
New member
Even if the sacrifices were offered in faith they still didn't do anything. We can't cleanse ourselves of sin by killing an animal.
Last edited:
God's Truth
New member
God said to sacrifice animals. The Bible says it made the people EXTERNALLY clean.
Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
God's Truth
New member
That was excellently stated.
I want to bring up the filthy rag scripture at this time since so many misunderstand.
The Jews who had to do a righteous act of giving a sin offering, but God did not like it that they would sin then give a sin offering and not really be sorry for their sins. Not being truly sorry for the sin is what made the righteous act of sacrificing animals as a filthy rag.
Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Our righteous act of FAITH in Jesus is a filthy rag if we do not OBEY HIM.
Epoisses
New member
Every word that comes out of your unbelieving mouth is a filthy rag.