The Shedding of Blood – 10: Conclusions and Implications for gospel preachers

Posted: February 28, 2013 by J in Bible, Theology
Tags: ,


This comparative study has examined sacrificial practices in the ANE world which is the setting of the OT story. It has tried to paint of picture of the cultural background and instincts, regarding blood sacrifice, which are the context in which the Torah laws must be read and understood. We have limited ourselves for the time being to examining the evidence provided by the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

We have seen enough to further confirm our thesis, explaining the extreme length and detail of the Torah sacrifice-laws. We asked at the start, if sacrifice ultimately turned out to not be central to Yahweh’s concerns for Israel, why did it receive such extensive treatment in the Mosaic law? One possible solution was that the massive size of the sacrificial code reflects the difficulty of dealing with the topic, rather than its intrinsic importance.

We have discovered that there was indeed an inherent difficulty in this area which made it problematic to regulate and control: the opposing tradition of human sacrifice ran deep in ANE culture. It surrounded the Hebrews on all sides. The challenge was not in persuading Israel to sacrifice. We cannot say that the Torah ‘reveals’ the  practice to Israel: sacrifice was part of the Hebrews’ common cultural heritage. The challenge was not in instituting animal sacrifice: this also was widespread. The difficulty was in replacing human sacrifice with animal. And this was the Torah’s particular contribution, a distinctive feature of Yahweh-worship. While other gods at times required the blood of firstborn sons, the practice ‘never entered the mind’ of Israel’s God.

The massive length of this legislation in the Torah, then, should probably not be taken to indicate the importance of sacrifice as such in Yahweh’s intentions for Israel. It does not function to give great weight to the practice, for sacrifice already had an important place in the life of the Hebrews.

Rather its length is more likely a reflection of the difficulty of regulating existing sacrificial practices. Yahweh’s unique legislation would not be received easily by the community of Israel. Great emphasis and repetition was needed to achieve such a radical change, and to preserve it once established. Many layers of protection and control were required, to wean the Hebrews off and keep them off the traditional practice of human sacrifice which was so firmly rooted in their cultural world. We have seen how many of the law’s provisions, including priesthood and tabernacle, were explicitly aimed at this goal. There were other practices associated with pagan deities which were also difficult to eradicate: divination and spirit-mediums etc. But human sacrifice was the worst, the one most in the cross-hairs of the Mosaic legislation.


If this is so, then the Mosaic Law will need to be read in a slightly different light. It is true that the Torah upholds the problem of sin and the need for atonement. As the writer to the Hebrews says, ‘without the shedding of blood there is no release from sins’. But this was scarcely a new idea, or unique to Israel’s religion. Everyone in the ANE would have said the same. The Torah sacrificial system confirms this sense, widespread in ancient society, that blood atonement was needed to restore balance and order to the world. But this is not the Torah’s unique contribution. The new thing, the radical and world-changing thing which it introduces and codifies, is the replacement of human sacrifice by animal sacrifice. No longer must men destroy their children in the name of God. Israel had been set free from the clutches of the dark gods, and come into the life-giving hands of Yahweh.

This suggests that when we employ the Torah sacrificial laws in our account of the gospel of Jesus, we should speak of it in this light. How would this emphasis fit into our gospel story, how would it affect what we said about the cross of Jesus? Those are questions for another paper.

  1. Alan Wood says:

    I’ve been really enjoying these posts, Jonathan. Thank you.

    Thank you for saying at the end, ‘It is true that the Torah upholds the problem of sin and the need for atonement.’ It doesn’t present these as new ideas – but it both assumes them (as widespread in the ANE) and presents them (through, for example, Gen 3 or Gen 22). So they are still part of the overall message.

    I think I’d want to say that substitutionary atonement is the big message of the Torah’s sacrificial laws. Back then, I think, there was a continuous identity in a man and his descendants. E.g. ‘Abraham, you will become great’ is not just about his individual life. Likewise and Israel is both a man’s name and a nation’s name. Job’s having descendants again is something like his equivalent to our resurrection hope.

    Richard Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period) has a page or two on this as an exegetical concept (sorry, can’t find it on my bookshelf right now). I think he calls it ”corporate solidarity”. [These aren’t the verses he uses, but: in a surgical age, no one doubts the logic of Mark 9:43 — it’s Hebrews 7:9-10 that messes with our heads.]

    In order to become great in/as my descendants, I might have to sacrifice the first one, the first and best part of me. It is not that the sacrifice stands in for me – he is me. He shares my past/sin and my future hope.

    But Yahweh provides a substitute. A ram, a lamb, the blood of bulls and goats, and finally his own Son, all stand in for me.

    And it’s not just substitution that is the important issue, it is God’s gracious provision. Yahweh provides a substitute.

    And that reveals to us not so much the mechanism of atonement as the quality of this God whom we worship – “being in very nature God, he did not consider Godhead to consist in taking” (one possible way of reading Philippians 2, though I’m not entirely sold).

    To sum up, ‘Yahweh provides a SUBSTITUTE, Yahweh PROVIDES a substitute. And, YAHWEH provides a substitute.’ That’s wot I reckon. Need to think some more. Again, thanks.

    • Jonathan says:

      Great comment, Alan, thanks. Lots to consider here. Your suggestion about corporate identity I’m sure is relevant. But I haven’t thought much about it. I too need to think some more. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s