God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Someone has argued with me that God's intent, desire, was for humans to offer human sacrifices as atonement for sins.

Animal sacrifices were only a substitute for what God really desired, according to the poster.

As evidence for this, they point to Abraham and the ram substitute for Isaac. But is this really true?

We find throughout Tanakh that human sacrifices were deemed idolatrous and associated with false gods, ie Molech, Leviticus 18:21, 2 Chronicles 28:3, etc.

But ironically, we find the following fascinating verses in Micah 6:6-8 regarding offering our own children, human sacrifices for atonement:

6With what shall I come before the LORD when I bow before the God on high? Should I come to Him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?

7Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

Any thoughts of human a sacrifices is repudiated with these verses. It's just plain silly.



 
Last edited:
Someone has argued with me that God's intent, desire, was for humans to offer human sacrifices as atonement for sins.
Animal sacrifices were only a substitute for what God really desired, according to the poster.
As evidence for this, they point to Abraham and the ram substitute for Isaac. But is this really true?
We find throughout Tanakh that human sacrifices were deemed idolatrous and associated with false gods, ie Molech, Leviticus 18:21, 2 Chronicles 28:3, etc.
But ironically, we find the following fascinating verses in Micah 6:6-8 regarding offering our own children, human sacrifices for atonement:
6With what shall I come before the LORD when I bow before the God on high? Should I come to Him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?
7Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
Any thoughts of human a sacrifices is repudiated with these verses. It's just plain silly

Close, but not exactly what we are saying. We are not talking about what God desires in sacrifice from humans. We are talking about what kind of sacrifice would actually accomplish atonement. Of course, human sacrifice to false gods is wrong as you rightly pointed out throughout the Tanakh. And, humans sacrificing other humans to God would likewise be sinful outside of a direct command from God, which we don't have. But, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to teach something. I know you disagree, but we see in Genesis 22 God teaching that only by the death of a man can man's sins be ultimately atoned. In Christianity, God spared Isaac and substituted a ram until God sacrificed his own son, without any blemish of sin, on the cross. Every Passover, every sin offering, every Day of Atonement pointed to this sacrifice that actually accomplished atonement once for all time. As Hebrews 10:10, 14 says "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." As a Jew, I know you disagree with this narrative, but that's our position. A position argued for by Jews in the first century AD. Disagree all you want, make your arguments. I'm not arguing for my position. I'm stating it. Hopefully this brings clarification to our position.

God Bless
 
Killing something being associated with cleansing of sins makes zero sense if there is not some corollary in the metaphor.

We could say all our lives are meant to be a "sacrifice" to God in the sense of sacrificially serving him, and the kind of human sacrifice that was banned was because the offering was insufficient.

Martyrdom is not looked down on in the OT, but considered a noble thing, and this is the ultimate sacrifice of a human life; but why doesn't martyrdom cleanse sins, and there are Rabbis who even thought that it could.

What we need to consider is not the exact kind of sacrifice being made, but how the sacrifice contains a sufficiency for removing sins, other than the easy way out of God just fiat forgiving them with no justice or payment exacted, which would make killing animals just silly and cruel.

What we need is a way to transfer our sins vicariously onto an object that would somehow have the intrinsic worth comparable to the offenses of how greatly any sin against an infinite God might be, and any other way of procuring forgiveness would devalue and cheapen holiness.
 
Close, but not exactly what we are saying. We are not talking about what God desires in sacrifice from humans. We are talking about what kind of sacrifice would actually accomplish atonement. Of course, human sacrifice to false gods is wrong as you rightly pointed out throughout the Tanakh. And, humans sacrificing other humans to God would likewise be sinful outside of a direct command from God, which we don't have. But, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to teach something. I know you disagree, but we see in Genesis 22 God teaching that only by the death of a man can man's sins be ultimately atoned. In Christianity, God spared Isaac and substituted a ram until God sacrificed his own son, without any blemish of sin, on the cross. Every Passover, every sin offering, every Day of Atonement pointed to this sacrifice that actually accomplished atonement once for all time. As Hebrews 10:10, 14 says "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." As a Jew, I know you disagree with this narrative, but that's our position. A position argued for by Jews in the first century AD. Disagree all you want, make your arguments. I'm not arguing for my position. I'm stating it. Hopefully this brings clarification to our position.

God Bless
And your position is wrong based on what I posted. You can't get away from what Malachi said. God didn't command human sacrifices. Starting from Adam.

A firstborn son would be the best sacrifice, without sin or blemish. And God through Malachi says He didn't want that.
 
Last edited:
Killing something being associated with cleansing of sins makes zero sense if there is not some corollary in the metaphor.

We could say all our lives are meant to be a "sacrifice" to God in the sense of sacrificially serving him, and the kind of human sacrifice that was banned was because the offering was insufficient.

Martyrdom is not looked down on in the OT, but considered a noble thing, and this is the ultimate sacrifice of a human life; but why doesn't martyrdom cleanse sins, and there are Rabbis who even thought that it could.

What we need to consider is not the exact kind of sacrifice being made, but how the sacrifice contains a sufficiency for removing sins, other than the easy way out of God just fiat forgiving them with no justice or payment exacted, which would make killing animals just silly and cruel.

What we need is a way to transfer our sins vicariously onto an object that would somehow have the intrinsic worth comparable to the offenses of how greatly any sin against an infinite God might be, and any other way of procuring forgiveness would devalue and cheapen holiness.
So, if animal sacrifices wasn't of intrinsic worth, why would God trick us into thinking it was?

As we see from Malachi, human sacrifices wasn't what God wanted.
 
historical events/festivals/rituals/sacrifices were symbolic/prophetic pointing to greater things
obedience to commands was a matter of Mosaic covenant fellowship unique to those of Israel at the time
 
As we see from Malachi, human sacrifices wasn't what God wanted.
Thats because none of them were perfect. Only Yeshua body was the perfect sacrifice which could atone for our sins. Animal sacrifices were done away with under the new convenant.
 
Thats because none of them were perfect.
Really? Neither was Jesus.

Only Yeshua body was the perfect sacrifice which could atone for our sins.
Really? How did he atone for theft, and the monetary payments required besides the sacrifices?

Animal sacrifices were done away with under the new convenant.
Jeremiah 33:17-26, Ezekiel 37-45, shows sacrifices, priesthood all returning with Davidic kingship. And the prince sacrificing for himself too. ;)
 
neither were animal sacrifices, right?
Obedience is better, which is why even human sacrifice, even Jesus' wasn't the answer.

8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
 
And your position is wrong based on what I posted. You can't get away from what Malachi said. God didn't command human sacrifices. Starting from Adam.

I don't see how anything you said is relevant at all to anything I said. How is Malachi relevant? Did yo mean Micah as in Micah 6:6-8? Assuming you did; it talks about what is Man's reaction: "With what shall I come before the LORD...Should I come to Him with...Shall I present...what does the LORD require of you...". I didn't talk about Man's reaction at all. God offers the sacrifice, God accepts the Sacrifice, and God applies this sacrifice to his people, both the natural and those grafted in. In other words, Micah 6:6-8 isn't talking about the same thing as what we are talking about. So again, how does anything you posted show or prove I was wrong.

A firstborn son would be the best sacrifice, without sin or blemish. And God through Malachi says He didn't want that.

Yes, we are not to sacrifice our firstborns to God as Micah 6:6-8 says, but how does this prove God wouldn't sacrifice his own Son for our behalf? Do you not see it? If God's plan was to provide the sacrifice himself that would ultimately perfect for all time those who are being sanctified, why would he want us to sacrifice our firstborns also? Instead, God provided his own Passover lamb as to pardon all the firstborns. In Exodus, God demanded the lives of all firstborns. Those who sacrificed a lamb and spread it's blood on the doorposts were passed over, spared the sacrifice. We are saying, God doesn't want the blood of our firstborns because he has a better plain, the blood of his firstborn.

God Bless
 
So, if animal sacrifices wasn't of intrinsic worth, why would God trick us into thinking it was?

Didn't you say elsewhere God forgives without animal sacrifices, so why are you saying they have any worth now?!

As we see from Malachi, human sacrifices wasn't what God wanted.

One person killing another person is not the same type of sacrifice as vicarious martyrdom, although Abraham's story was meant to teach us a lot more than just obedience. They didn't put Jesus on some altar and dip his blood for God, he was punished by pagans—his sacrifice was martyrdom, and that was what he said, he was a martyr for the unrighteous. Human sacrifices were man's attempt to try to appease God, not the Divine stooping down to help man, and it is written the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this, his own right hand was the intercessor he sought to stand in the gap when no one else could.
 
Killing something being associated with cleansing of sins makes zero sense if there is not some corollary in the metaphor.

We could say all our lives are meant to be a "sacrifice" to God in the sense of sacrificially serving him, and the kind of human sacrifice that was banned was because the offering was insufficient.

Martyrdom is not looked down on in the OT, but considered a noble thing, and this is the ultimate sacrifice of a human life; but why doesn't martyrdom cleanse sins, and there are Rabbis who even thought that it could.

What we need to consider is not the exact kind of sacrifice being made, but how the sacrifice contains a sufficiency for removing sins, other than the easy way out of God just fiat forgiving them with no justice or payment exacted, which would make killing animals just silly and cruel.

What we need is a way to transfer our sins vicariously onto an object that would somehow have the intrinsic worth comparable to the offenses of how greatly any sin against an infinite God might be, and any other way of procuring forgiveness would devalue and cheapen holiness.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.(Romans 12:1) Yeshua has fulfilled all sacrifices for the atonement of sins. Yeshua was the sacrificial Lamb.
 
Didn't you say elsewhere God forgives without animal sacrifices, so why are you saying they have any worth now?!
Of course God forgives without animal sacrifices, the same way He forgives without human sacrifices.

I'm saying God required animal sacrifices only for what sins required it.

One person killing another person is not the same type of sacrifice as vicarious martyrdom, although Abraham's story was meant to teach us a lot more than just obedience.
But in the argument, if the command to kill one's son was enough to show the need for human sacrifices, then the non-command to others would weigh more not to do it. There are several examples of people personally being commanded to do things that others weren't.

They didn't put Jesus on some altar and dip his blood for God, he was punished by pagans—his sacrifice was martyrdom, and that was what he said, he was a martyr for the unrighteous.
Sorry, but if the lawful sacrifices went on the temple altar, so should have Jesus' blood, and it didn't.

Human sacrifices were man's attempt to try to appease God, not the Divine stooping down to help man, and it is written the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this, his own right hand was the intercessor he sought to stand in the gap when no one else could.
Sorry, but the divine didn't stoop down. The fact that Christianity teaches the dual-nature of Jesus shows the divine never died, bled, etc. The flesh did which wasn't God.
 
I don't see how anything you said is relevant at all to anything I said. How is Malachi relevant? Did yo mean Micah as in Micah 6:6-8? Assuming you did; it talks about what is Man's reaction: "With what shall I come before the LORD...Should I come to Him with...Shall I present...what does the LORD require of you...". I didn't talk about Man's reaction at all. God offers the sacrifice, God accepts the Sacrifice, and God applies this sacrifice to his people, both the natural and those grafted in. In other words, Micah 6:6-8 isn't talking about the same thing as what we are talking about. So again, how does anything you posted show or prove I was wrong.
Malachi 6:6-8 speaks in the context of animal and human sacrifices. Neither does God really want. It says what He expects. So yeah, you're wrong.

BTW, early on God tells us in Genesis that the murder of man requires blood. It's pretty silly to think human sacrifices is acceptable with this command from God, Genesis 9:5-6.

Yes, we are not to sacrifice our firstborns to God as Micah 6:6-8 says,
So, you admit you were wrong on this point. Good.

You've elsewhere this was the requirement, Post in thread 'Did Jesus teach he was GOD himself?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/did-jesus-teach-he-was-god-himself.1983/post-792087.

but how does this prove God wouldn't sacrifice his own Son for our behalf?
Because we imitate God, and He isn't a stumbling block. Besides a true son of God wouldn't be human, so there's no point in sacrificing someone that can't die. ;)

Do you not see it? If God's plan was to provide the sacrifice himself that would ultimately perfect for all time those who are being sanctified, why would he want us to sacrifice our firstborns also?
God isn't flesh so He can't sacrifice Himself. Again, you're going back on your original argument that God did want us to sacrifice our children. ;)

Instead, God provided his own Passover lamb as to pardon all the firstborns.
It was actual ram/lamb. You do know Jesus was redeemed as a firstborn? ;)

In Exodus, God demanded the lives of all firstborns. Those who sacrificed a lamb and spread it's blood on the doorposts were passed over, spared the sacrifice.
Do you know what that lamb represented?

We are saying, God doesn't want the blood of our firstborns because he has a better plain, the blood of his firstborn.
You can say all you want. There's zero support for this. Obedience is better than sacrifice.

All that God required-

He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

God Bless
Yep.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top