Sacrifices not needed
- Thread starter blackSand
- Start date
>>>Sacrifices were only for unintentional sins as penalty for doing small unintentional sin only.
Example: you cought speeding on the freeway, officer will issue a citation for you as penalty for committing a violation.
You shot someone and he got killed, there is no citation there is a arrest, court, jury and jail time.
Can you imagine a poor man who can’t offer to sacrifice an animal for his sin? Is this justice a rich man can atone for his son but poor can’t!!!
God never command animals or human blood to atone for sins.
Perhaps.
But why wasn't faith and repentance enough to cover those sins?
Hello my dear friend.
Derf
Well-known member
[Lev 5:7 KJV] And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
[Lev 5:11 KJV] But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.
And then:
[Lev 5:13 KJV] And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and [the remnant] shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.
In none of the cases does the instruction say the man can make an atonement for himself, but "the priest shall make an atonement for him", and that atonement will certainly be effective "it shall be forgiven him".
It's interesting that the priest actually shares in the sin offering--he eats part of it, and the other part is burnt. Sounds like both priest and God share the offering. Since Jesus became the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, it makes sense that He and God the Father share the offering, and the Leviticus passage prefigured it for them.
musterion
Well-known member
You sure about that?
Yes it was .
This is exactly what David did .Repent, and it was enough for God to forgive him, no blood needed.
Jeremiah 7:22
Derf
Well-known member
David still died.
musterion
Well-known member
Not quite. The Law had no sacrifice for adultery so David rightly deserved death but...no David, no Christ.
musterion
Well-known member
Context is your friend, or should be, but you ignored it.
I'm talking about those "unintentional" sins you say the sacrifices were for.
Why was there a sacrifice commanded for them if faith and belief were enough to cover them?
It must have been gut-wrenching for David to watch others being put to death for murder and adultery per the law, knowing that he was as guilty as they.
Yep.
And if it had not been for the death and resurrection of Christ, he would still be captive to the grave.
Derf
Well-known member
And gut-wrenching for David to watch as his son did to him on the rooftop what David did in secret:
[2Sa 16:22 KJV] So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
Yeppers.
I would think it made David's butt clench to be commanded to cast a stone at one that did the same as he did.
Gives another perspective to "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
Who could actually be worthy to stone another for murder or adultery since all have sinned and fall short?