# Animal sacrifices take away sins?



## arapahoepark (Jun 5, 2012)

Hey I was just reading this...what do you think? Of course AiG doesn't go either away on the denominational spectrum.
Contradictions: Did Animal Sacrifices Remove Sin? - Answers in Genesis

It says that animal sacrifices couldn't take away sins, only cover them, I have heard this before but, on this site I don't think that's the concensus.


----------



## dudley (Jun 5, 2012)

Amen Joshua! I am in complete agreement with you. Only Christ takes away sin and if any here deny that then they are not Reformed Protestants or Christian.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 5, 2012)

ok. I was just asking because I have seen it posted that sins are imputed to the animal and therefore a shadow to Christ's imputation.


----------



## Nebrexan (Jun 5, 2012)

Hebrews 10:11 came to mind when I read the subject.
[BIBLE]Hebrews 10:11[/BIBLE]


----------



## py3ak (Jun 5, 2012)

Of course animal sacrifices do not take away sins, as has been pointed out. They functioned as shadows and could serve for _ritual purification_, but not for the cleansing of the heart. They were, in other words, good types of the spiritual atonement made by Christ and a means for the faith of the OT saints to apprehend him; but all they accomplished was a ceremonial atonement.



> For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


 - Hebrews 9:13,14


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 5, 2012)

Ah!
Thanks for your help and clarification!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 5, 2012)

The sacrifices of Leviticus (chs.1-6) state variously, "...thus the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

But these sorts of statements cannot be read as if they had 1) no correlation to heart-repentance; and 2) no connection between a sign and thing signified.

Truly, the OT commentary on the intrinsic value of these sacrifices is given by Jeremiah, see ch.7:4,9-10, cf. vv22-23. There, the prophet makes it plain that vain offerings were worthless in God's sight. There was no pagan "appeasement" of the divinity by sacrifices, a precise keeping of the ritual, which guaranteed the Lord's interest in perpetuating them (and so, he would surely destroy the invaders). This was not his commandment for them, in bringing them out of Egypt.

The sacrifices had become abominable to God, the people bringing them were unrepentant, and their sins would not be forgiven on the basis of them. See also Is.1:13-14.


Nor could the sacrifices themselves satisfy for sin, and this was well understood; or else the words of Micah become nonsense: Mic 6:7, "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" In other words, even the bringers of the authorized offerings had to realize that this sacrifice was not equal to the enormity of the crime or the depravity of the sinner. Be they never so multiplied or extreme, by themselves they did not avail.

So David recognized, Ps.51:16-17, "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." And again, Ps.40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." So taught Samuel, "Has the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams."

Hence, it is the preacher's observation, Heb.10:4, to the effect that it should be well-known that the blood of bulls and goats could not atone for human sin in any strictly propitiatory way. Only a spotless Lamb of another, better sort would do. 1Jn.3:5, "You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin."


The sacrifices of Israel _were atoning_ insofar as they were offered with a view toward the mission of Messiah, however that oblation should come to pass (as the OT waited for it in obscurity). The sins of believers were forgiven, as they worshiped in faith, hoping in the substance of which the offerings themselves were only shadows. Their sins were forgiven, then, not on the basis of the animal sacrifices, but on the basis of Christ's sacrifice, united to those signs by faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 6, 2012)

There were many gross transgressions for which no typological animal sacrifice was provided. See e.g. Numbers 15. The shadowy system couldn't cope with certain presumptious sins, because it was only an inferior shadow of Christ Himself and His sacrifice.

All true believers had a faith that looked through and beyond the Mosaic sacrifices, but a faith that was assisted by them.

In these cases of presumptious sin - when the system was working properly - if the offence was proven by two or three witnesses who were willing executioners, execution by the witnesses and congregation would result, or a ransom would have to be paid in lieu of execution.

In the case of e.g. David's adultery and murder, and Manasseh's murders, there was no animal sacrifice that could ceremonially-speaking cover their sins. But they found forgiveness in Christ anyway. They also happened, for various reasons, to avoid the death penalty being carried out on themselves.

For example, Fairbairn says this on p 284 of the second volume of his "Typology of Scripture" on "The Sin-Offering" in a note:


> 5 There was undoubtedly a rigour in the Old Testament regarding presumptious sins, which is not found in the new. The greater manifestaion of grace in the latter called for a difference, though still it is only a difference in degree: for here also there is a hardened impenitence which is practically beyond the reach of mercy - a phase of sin for which there is no forgiveness, as the following passages show: Matt xii 31; Heb x 26-29; I Tim i.20; I John v 16, etc. Now, however the range and compass of mercy has become greater.


----------

