Great message! Add to your thoughts the idea that every time the Israelites made a sacrifice of a bull or a ram they were destroying the very gods they worshipped in Egypt. It was iconoclasm. This made it impossible for them to return to Egypt for now the Egyptians would find them abominable having destroyed their gods. It was also punishment for worshipping the gods of the Egyptians, the punishment being the constant slaughtering of these same gods. Now they have become glorified butchers constantly covered in the blood of these false gods. It was like the Lord was rubbing their noses in it. I heard a story. Once upon a time a farmer had a dog that liked to kill his chickens. So, the farmer, one day after the dog had killed a chicken, tied the dead and bloody carcass to the dogs collar. He left the dog like this for several days. Everywhere the dog went he had this stinking, bloody carcass with him. After several days the dog was completely humiliated. So when the farmer took away carcass, the dog was so disgusted with chickens that he never did have the desire to kill chickens again. And so it should have been with Israel, that they should have been disgusted with the worship of calves and rams, but they were very hard hearted, apparently.
Grace and peace in Christ! Good exposition and it makes a lot of sense. But there are still holes in this idea that I would like to make more sense for this exposition to be solid, at least to me. So I gather that GOD used Egyptian's sacrificial system to redirect that to HIM instead of the Egyptian's numerous gods? Being an unsophisticated Gentile that we are I would understand the social justice and moral laws, but wouldn't it be better to just tell the Israelites to stop doing these sacrificial system just like telling them to stop worshipping other gods? Also, didn't Abel offer an animal sacrifice as well as Abraham as did Noah after the flood? Also, if blood sacrifice wasn't what GOD required, to whom was Jesus's blood sacrifice offered to? I've watched David Bercot's exposition about the Christus Victor, but then I found out that it's not the only belief existing back then as Polycarp had a different view about the atonement, if my recollection serves me right. These are honest questions in light of the references quoted from Justin Martyr's and Irenaeus's take on the Mosaic Law. Hoping to get some answers. I may have rehashed some of my questions that have been raised here already but perhaps I maybe rephrasing it differently. Thanks in advance.
@alkitoybinkulotah7508 I'm not sure what Jason would say to this, but here are a few thoughts. In Scripture, the blood stands for the life. When Jesus' blood was shed, the main point is that he gave his life. God used the OT sacrifices to point toward Jesus' death, not because he needed blood, but because it would prepare people to realize that their sin would require Jesus to die as a ransom to set them free. So Jesus wasn't an offering to a deity; his life was a sacrifice (something given up) on our behalf. -Lynn
Justin Martyr seems to have suffered from a similar spirit of arrogance as his Jewish opponents, to the point that he was at least borderline antisemitic. Irenaeus is far more biblical in his approach, and more humble and logical. Based on my own studies, biblical sacrifices within a covenant are gifts, not payments.
“‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the GIFT that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the GIFT or the altar that sanctifies the GIFT?” Mat. 19:18-19 “So if you are offering your GIFT at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your GIFT there before the altar and go. FIRST be reconciled to your brother, and THEN come and offer your GIFT.” Matthew 5:23-24 Atonement and sacrifices are to be understood as relational/covenantal, not legal/contractual: “Gather to Me My saints, who made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.” Psalm 50:5 Generally, the animal offered was also eaten. This was also a part of fellowship and reconciliation. The smell of barbequed meat is often referred to as a smell of sweet savor to God - he was the honorary guest to the meal. A sacrifice is only legitimate AFTER dealing with sin problems: “You will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise…THEN will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; THEN bulls will be offered on your altar.” Psalm 51:16,17,19 Also, Isaiah 1:11-18
Thank the Lord & you for a wonderful teaching!
Great message!
Thank you for this message. You are really growing in your preaching.
Thanks brother, appreciate that alot!
Great message! Add to your thoughts the idea that every time the Israelites made a sacrifice of a bull or a ram they were destroying the very gods they worshipped in Egypt. It was iconoclasm. This made it impossible for them to return to Egypt for now the Egyptians would find them abominable having destroyed their gods. It was also punishment for worshipping the gods of the Egyptians, the punishment being the constant slaughtering of these same gods. Now they have become glorified butchers constantly covered in the blood of these false gods.
It was like the Lord was rubbing their noses in it. I heard a story. Once upon a time a farmer had a dog that liked to kill his chickens. So, the farmer, one day after the dog had killed a chicken, tied the dead and bloody carcass to the dogs collar. He left the dog like this for several days. Everywhere the dog went he had this stinking, bloody carcass with him. After several days the dog was completely humiliated. So when the farmer took away carcass, the dog was so disgusted with chickens that he never did have the desire to kill chickens again. And so it should have been with Israel, that they should have been disgusted with the worship of calves and rams, but they were very hard hearted, apparently.
Good word! This idea is largely lost today it seems. We exceed the old Covenant with the law of Christ
22:44 it was not 430 in Egypt. But 430 total including Egypt. But they were not in Egypt for that long.
Grace and peace in Christ!
Good exposition and it makes a lot of sense. But there are still holes in this idea that I would like to make more sense for this exposition to be solid, at least to me. So I gather that GOD used Egyptian's sacrificial system to redirect that to HIM instead of the Egyptian's numerous gods? Being an unsophisticated Gentile that we are I would understand the social justice and moral laws, but wouldn't it be better to just tell the Israelites to stop doing these sacrificial system just like telling them to stop worshipping other gods? Also, didn't Abel offer an animal sacrifice as well as Abraham as did Noah after the flood? Also, if blood sacrifice wasn't what GOD required, to whom was Jesus's blood sacrifice offered to? I've watched David Bercot's exposition about the Christus Victor, but then I found out that it's not the only belief existing back then as Polycarp had a different view about the atonement, if my recollection serves me right. These are honest questions in light of the references quoted from Justin Martyr's and Irenaeus's take on the Mosaic Law. Hoping to get some answers.
I may have rehashed some of my questions that have been raised here already but perhaps I maybe rephrasing it differently. Thanks in advance.
@alkitoybinkulotah7508 I'm not sure what Jason would say to this, but here are a few thoughts. In Scripture, the blood stands for the life. When Jesus' blood was shed, the main point is that he gave his life. God used the OT sacrifices to point toward Jesus' death, not because he needed blood, but because it would prepare people to realize that their sin would require Jesus to die as a ransom to set them free. So Jesus wasn't an offering to a deity; his life was a sacrifice (something given up) on our behalf. -Lynn
Justin Martyr seems to have suffered from a similar spirit of arrogance as his Jewish opponents, to the point that he was at least borderline antisemitic. Irenaeus is far more biblical in his approach, and more humble and logical.
Based on my own studies, biblical sacrifices within a covenant are gifts, not payments.
“‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the GIFT that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the GIFT or the altar that sanctifies the GIFT?” Mat. 19:18-19
“So if you are offering your GIFT at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your GIFT there before the altar and go. FIRST be reconciled to your brother, and THEN come and offer your GIFT.” Matthew 5:23-24
Atonement and sacrifices are to be understood as relational/covenantal, not legal/contractual: “Gather to Me My saints, who made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.” Psalm 50:5
Generally, the animal offered was also eaten. This was also a part of fellowship and reconciliation. The smell of barbequed meat is often referred to as a smell of sweet savor to God - he was the honorary guest to the meal.
A sacrifice is only legitimate AFTER dealing with sin problems: “You will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise…THEN will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; THEN bulls will be offered on your altar.” Psalm 51:16,17,19 Also, Isaiah 1:11-18