BillR at Holy Apostles

There are a lot of plurals in these scriptures--many, us all, my people. I can easily see these passages being the foundation for John's assertion that Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. But I wonder. His sacrifice is universal to all who believe--no question about that. But what about those who don't? I'd say it's available to all, but that it isn't accepted by all. If true, His atonement is not universal as some don't accept it. But it's universally available. On the other hand, His atonement is perfect for God, the Father. In that sense, His atonement is universal as the Father's holy character is infinitely satisfied by the sacrifice. This allows all who accept it to find peace with the Father; the relationship is reestablished for all who believe. It's in this sense that His sacrifice is universal. I can't say his work is wasted on some people. It's not wasted on anyone who believes, or who will believe. For those who won't, well...God help them. God has done everything His holy character can do to enable His creatures to have as close a relationship with Him as possible in this world. His holy nature will not force His creatures to love Him, even though He sacrificed in an enormous way for them to come into His presence. I'd say it's very sad, yes. But not wasted. I am a sinner like anyone who reads this. I wandered far from Him in my past. I kept good company with the prodigal. During that time, others could easily have said Jesus' sacrifice was wasted on the likes of me. Actually, they still could--all fall short. But thank God He doesn't think this way. There is no waste in what Jesus accomplished. There is only sadness that "all" don't see what He did...but the day is coming when we/they will see clearly. There will be no confusion on that day.

From Leviticus, the basic elements involved in a sacrifice for sin are: Confession of the sin. Atonement cannot begin without naming the sin.Giving up an animal that is as close to unblemished as you can get. Obviously, this represents a physical sacrifice for the sinner; such an animal would surely have been very valuable.Interestingly, the laying on of hands...in this case on the animal's head. One post mentioned this was to identify the sinner's sin with the animal. It certainly personalized the sacrifice as the sinner must have felt the emotions of the animal--fear, no doubt--and may have somehow gotten in touch with the event on a very emotional level.Then the slaying of the animal, by slitting its throat. Other posts for other questions have addressed the point that an agricultural community likely found this less repulsive than most of us would now. Yet given the sinner had given voice to the sin, felt the animal's fear, and now kills it a fairly violent way must have been an experience that was upseting even to an experienced shepherd. I think this part clearly could draw the sinner into what was taking place much more viscerally than a simple verbal confession. Then the blood is collected for use at the altar by a priest. You can't help but visualize just how bloody that altar must have been! And the smell! This sacrifice at a place as large as the temple must have been an overwhelming experience. Alas, as in all things, we become accustomed to things. Perhaps for the Jews, this practice was just another day at the office. Imagining it from here, though, it seems it would have a very large impression on one.The fat portions were removed by the priest, and burned on the altar. That must have been another bloody affair. Then the burning of the fat, though it may have been akin to the smell of barbeque, must have been overwhelming and constant! This way of dealing with our sins just seems so huge to me! This form of sacrifice/confession is very far removed from our corporate confession of sin, and it incorporates elements of our private confessions as well. Looking back, it seems it would have been a great deterrent to sin. I'd say there is really nothing that can keep us from sinning.The priests could then eat the meat in the case of a sin offering. Burnt offerings consumed all the meat. For peace and fellowship offerings, a family might share the meat as a meal. For the sin offering, though, it seems like there is only so much meat the priests could eat. Once satisfied, it would seem there would be a lot of meat wasted. One wonders what they did with it all.

Animal sacrifice may be repugnant to modern people because many of us are so removed from killing anything. But, there are hunters and farmers among us who, judging from some of the posts, don't find the killing of animals as repulsive. In their cases, it's just part of the game (hunting or ranching). Some posts mention that we've come to look as animals as pets and as movie characters. That also makes it harder to conceive of killing an animal for any reason at least for some of us. Others are right to point out that we who don't kill animals for sport or profit (or necessity) are hypocritical to some degree if we eat meat bought from supermarkets and then decry their killing (or sacrifice, presumably). This is all good stuff; but I wonder if we aren't missing the point of the question. It asks why animal sacrifice is repulsive, not animal killing. Another way to answer this question may be that modern people find animal sacrifice repulsive because we don't want to deal with the repulsiveness of the depth of our sin. One of the posts mentions that for the early Jews, and perhaps other cultures, the sinner had to do the killing. And the animal killed was not used--it was burned up completely, wasted for any use. Think about this for a moment. Even for those who now kill animals for sport or for business, an animal sacrifice means you do the killing with no normal reward. That is, you don't keep what you kill and consume or sell it. Instead, you kill for no reason other than to atone for your sin. If you don't like killing, the situation is only worse. My answer is modern people don't like animal sacrifice because they think it is a very primitive and pointless exercise that we, as modern people, have outgrown. I think it reflects how callous we are to sin, and how we seriously underestimate how repugnant our sin is to a Holy God. I might even venture that the repulsiveness we may experience reflects how God looks at sin. And perhaps that was why He demanded it; to show us tangibly how repulsive our sins are to Him. That is, by going through the actual sacrifice, the sinner may have been repulsed, but was at least diminished by the waste of the experience. And that is what sin really is--repulsive and wasteful. As for the city/farming distinction, it likely plays a role today, making the thought of actually killing animals more repulsive for city dwellers. Yet I still think farmers, ranchers, and hunters would find animal sacrifice to be wasteful--not something they would want to do even though it may not be as repulsive to them as it is for a city dweller.

What's odd to me in all the posts I've read, and a quick Internet search, is the lack of a non-circular definition of anger. There are entries that define anger as a state of being angry. Wikipedia defines anger as "subjectively experienced as an aroused state of antagonism toward someone or something perceived to be the source of an aversive event." This is a good description, but it doesn't really define anger. The entry goes on to assert that anger is an emotion, but it is aroused presumably by something in this description. What really is anger? What causes it? And how does it differ from other emotions such as fear or hatred? To me, it comes about when expectations aren't met...an "aversive event" perhaps. If one is used to things being a certain way, and expects that way to continue, one's initial reaction to things not being that way is certainly not happiness, nor love, nor curiosity. (The latter does arise if one is "studying" something; but if one is just going about things, unmet expectations usually irritate one. That irritation is a mild form of anger.) What then can one say about anger in response to sin? Sin is missing the mark, a mark one presumably wants to hit. If you are aiming at something, you likely want to hit it. That is, you want things to happen so that you achieve what you want, moving away a bit from the notion of aim, and miss, and target. You want a future event to conform to your desire--you want your expectation met. You want things to be the way you want them to be. Anger appears to be our response to that future event not turning out as we would like it to. The degree of our anger, I'd say, is a function of how badly we wanted that event to turn out the way we desire. As a human, I not only have to deal with the fact I won't get what I wanted, but also with the fact that I can't control events to get what I wanted. "Control" may be the operative word here. What I'm describing, likely imperfectly, is a vary basic human reaction springing from not getting what we want. Or getting what we don't want, which is just another way to say it. So, why is it an appropriate response to sin, the sin we understand from a Christian worldview? It is entirely appropriate if you love God; then, you see it for what I think sin really is--our desire to be "as gods," "doing what is right in our own eyes," that is doing our own thing without a thought for God and His Holiness. It is an affront to our Creator, the only one who really should have His way. But what if you don't love God? Then I'd guess it is only appropriate to be angy with sin because you're harmed by it in some way, in some way that you didn't expect. We have laws to live by, secular laws to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior with penalties for non-compliance. These laws enable most everyone to be angry about those who break the laws we expect everyone to live by. (To me, this helps explain why there's no honor among thieves. They really shouldn't expect it, and shouldn't be angry when someone steals something from them.) OK, so what about capricious anger or uncontrolled anger, and how it differs (if at all) from anger that brings justice? Capricious is defined as something that is "determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason". Given my assertion on the root of anger, I'm not sure there is such a thing as capricious anger. Perhaps one can be so moved by so many things that don't turn out as he would have them that a more steady-state sort of "background" anger leads to outbursts over what others would consider to be small things. This could be seen as whimsical, perhaps; arbitrary may be a better word. Uncontrolled anger is another thing. It seems to me to be descriptive of such an emotionally overwhelming state that reason is simply shut down. It suggests something unquenchable as well, as if the angry one flails about until they are out of energy. Until then, best to just stay out of the way. Anger that brings about justice is confusing to me. One definition of justice is "the ideal, morally correct state of things and persons". If you want a morally correct state of things, it seems that anger could only produce fear that could in turn produce changes in behavior that could lead to the correct state. It could also produce rebellion if there is disagreement on just what the "correct" state is. (I have a problem with the definiton; it looks like Eden to me, something we can dream about but that none of us have experienced. So how can we have it, in that we wouldn't know it if we did?) Regardless of all this, I do see that capricious or uncontrolled anger is less desirable than anger that brings about justice. If anger can bring us closer to that correct state, it is far more preferable than arbitrary outbursts or primitive rage.

How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? John refers to Jesus as the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". The Jews used sheep and goats in animal sacrifices. And, goats in particular were cast out of the camps as "scapegoats" after a priest placed all the sins of the camp on the goat. The goat in effect took the sins of the camp away. John knew this, and saw Jesus as what he was--the one who could take away not just the sins of the Jews, but those of the whole world. How was the comprehensiveness of the "sin of the world" so radical a concept? The Jews were an exclusive people for the most part. Forgiveness of sins through sin offerings was restricted to those who sacrificed, namely the Jews. A sacrifice that took away the whole sins of the world had to be revolutionary to them, though I didn't see that until just now. One of the other posters mentioned this was the first sign that Jesus came to save all, not just the Jews. That's a very good point.