God did not sacrifice animals!
God did not institute animal sacrifice.
Mankind intsituded human and animal sacrifices but blame it on God.
From: The Geneva Bible of 1599. We went back to this Bible to show how the footnotes and commentary of old has had a long-lasting influence on theology.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God 1make coats of skins, and clothed them.
3:21 1 Or, gave them knowledge to make themselves coats.
The Greek and Hebrew word for coat means tunic, under-garment, robe or coat.
The Greek and Hebrew word for skins means the skin of men or the hide of animals.
The Greek and Hebrew word for clothed them means to dress, wear, put on, clothing, be clothed.
The Bible does not say in Genesis 3:21 nor any verse near it that God killed animals.
Here are three possibilities, and we are not saying these are factual. They are only presented to show that there are other ways to cover people than to kill animals. 1:God could have taught them how to sheer a goat, make thread, and weave cloth. 2:God could have altered the real skin covering of mankind and made it tough like animal skin. 3:God could have made garments from animals who shed their skins. Each of these are as feasible as saying that God killed animals, thereby instituting the ritual of sacrifice.
However, for centuries, for some reason theologians and bible scholars have added the story about God sacrificing animals to make skin coats.
Why is this so? It falls directly in the model of Satan’s deception method as revealed a few verses earlier. 3:4 Then the aserpent said to the woman, Ye shall not 1,2die at all, 3:5 But God doth know that when ye shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, 1knowing good and evil.
3:3 1 In doubting of God’s threatenings she yielded to Satan.
3:4 1 This is Satan’s chiefest subtlety, to cause us not to fear God’s threatenings.
2 Hebrew, die the death.
When we as mankind diminish God’s power by interpreting verse 21 as though God couldn’t create coats, and God had to resort to human means to make coats, then we are being as Satan. We are falling right into the model of Satan that God just revealed. Satan casts doubt and then congers up an alternative, a lie. It’s called deception, and we are a part of it when we repeat it.
The story goes like this. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
21. God made coats of skins—taught them to make these for themselves. This implies the institution of animal sacrifice, which was undoubtedly of divine appointment, and instruction in the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, through faith in a Redeemer (Heb 9:22).
The main problem with this is that it sets up a paradigm that God is the originator of sacrifice.
Moving to Genesis 4:3-5
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought an 1oblation unto the Lord of the fruit of the ground. 4 And Abel also himself brought of the firstfruits of his sheep, and of the fat of them, and the Lord had respect unto aAbel, and to his offering, 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had no 1regard: wherefore Cain was exceedingly wroth and his countenance fell down.
4:3 1 This declareth that the father instructed his children in the knowledge of God, and also how God gave them sacrifices to signify their salvation, albeit they were destitute of the sacrament of the tree of life.
4:5 1 Because he was an hypocrite, and offered only for an outward show without sincerity of heart.
Our notes: An oblation is simply a gift. When a child picks dandelions and brings them to mommy it is an oblation, a gift. The child quickly recognizes that dandelions do not retain their beauty. The child sees fresh tulips from the flower garden and brings some to mommy, but mommy is not pleased, and the child’s countenance falls.
On to what Able brought. It doesn’t say that it was an oblation, a gift nor a sacrifice. It simply says he brought a firstfruit (a lamb) of the fat (being fed by mom’s milk-fat). We need to simply leave this verse alone right here and not add any story about sacrifice, blood, or atonement, least we fall into the trap of Satan (that of deception)
On a side note, these verses indicate that God retained a physical presence which Cane and Able had access to, which is more important than the story of sacrifice.
In the Youngs Literal Translation (1862) it says, “3 And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jahovah; and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of the flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present, 5 and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.”
It doesn’t say that the lamb was killed. It doesn’t say that God was pleased or displeased. The focus here is that Cain was displeased with God’s response, was displeased with God, a display of a sinful nature that God warned him about. The problem is that we get our minds caught up in the setup and fail to look at the real meaning, that sin must be controlled. The gifts aren’t the focus – the sin that results is the focus.
Moving to Genesis 4:8-15 (Geneva Bible)
8 Then Cain spake unto Abel his brother. And bwhen they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 9 Then the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? Who answered, I cannot tell. 1Am I my brother’s keeper? 10 Again he said, What hast thou done? The 1voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me, from the earth. 11 Now therefore thou art cursed 1from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thine hand. 12 When thou shalt till the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a 1vagabond and a runagate shalt thou be in the earth. 13 Then Cain said to the Lord, 1,2My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast cast me out this day from 1the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid, and shall be a vagabond, and a runagate in the earth, and whosoever findeth me shall slay me. 15 Then the Lord said unto him, Doubtless whosoever slayeth Cain, he shall be 1punished seven fold. And the Lord set a 2mark upon Cain, lest any man finding him, should kill him.
4:9 1 This is the nature of the reprobate when they are reproved of their hypocrisy, even to neglect God and despite him. 4:10 1 God revengeth the wrongs of his Saints, though none complain: for the iniquity itself crieth for vengeance. 4:11 1 The earth shall be a witness against thee, which mercifully received that blood which thou most cruelly sheddest. 4:12 1 Thou shalt never have rest: for thine heart shall be in continual fear and care. 4:13 1 He burdeneth God as a cruel judge because he did punish him so sharply. 2 Or, my sin is greater than can be pardoned. 4:14 1 Hebrew, from off the face of. 4:15 1 Not for the love he bare to Cain, but to suppress murder.
I hope you can see that God took upon himself the responsibility for the lifeblood of Able. God did not kill Cain, nor did he make Cain offer an atoning substitutionary sacrifice. To top that God put a price on Cain, a protection – should someone slay him the penalty would be 7 fold. The consequences would be seven times more than the consequences that Cain suffered. However they would not include death because Cain was not put to death.
Continuing on to the next incident where it is popular to say God instituted sacrifice, to Genesis 8:20-21.
20 Then Noah 1built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings upon the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a 1,2savor of rest, and the Lord said in his heart, I will henceforth curse the ground no more for man’s cause: for the bimagination of man’s heart is evil, even from his youth: neither will I smite anymore all things living, as I have done.
8:20 1 For sacrifices which were as an exercise of their faith, whereby they used to give thanks to God for his benefits. 8:21 1 Or, sweet savor. 2 That is, thereby he showeth himself appeased and his anger to rest.
What is a clean beast? We don’t know. All we know is that there are clean and unclean. What is a sacrifice? At this point in the Bible all we know is it is something that was desirable – a clean animal and a rare animal – only seven existed. If you were making a trek with three pack animals and you ran out of food for yourself and your pack animals, and one of your pack animals had no burden to carry, then you might sacrifice that animal. If you had three pair of shoes but your neighbor had none you might sacrifice a pair of shoes to your neighbor. If you were in a boat for a year and were very hungry and there was no more grain you might sacrifice an animal to eat. And you would most certainly give thanks to the Lord for delivering you through the flood.
Now, as to the sweet savor – many bibles reinterpret it to “pleasing to the Lord.” That is mans corruption of the bible. God doesn’t say that it was pleasing. In fact God is displeased – 21 “the imagination of man’s heart is evil, even from his youth…” Even then God is patient with mankind, and repentant, “neither will I smite anymore all things living, as I have done.”
By the way – nowhere does God command Noah to offer sacrifices. There are simply no instructions. Sacrifices are mans doing.
Yes, there are instructions to Abraham to bring animal offerings but there are no instructions to kill them or to cut them up. God’s response to Abraham for doing so is severe. Abraham goes into a deep trance and has frightening visions. Afterward, God burns up the sacrifice, then later commands Abraham in the ritual of circumcision. As if to say, if you are going to cut flesh then let it be your own.
Now there are some apparent instructions to the Levites for animal sacrifices. But keep this in mind. It is as if God is saying, if you are going to persist in sacrificial practices they will be by my rules.
Who made a sacrifice of Jesus? It was not God. Did God know that man would make a sacrifice of Jesus? Yes.
Note: The Geneva Bible was one of the most used bibles of the 1500’s ans 1600’s bringing Reformation and the Protestant movement. However we need to remember that the world was coming out of the dark ages and there were many lingering dark ideologies to contend with which made their way into the commentary.
It is time Christianity came out of Rome, out of Reformation, out of England, in order to participate with all the people of earth. We must put away barbaric ideas.
Additionally the following which was posted June 23, 2015.
Does God really say He killed an animal to cloth Adam and Eve? This questions sounds like something the serpent would say. But in this case it is a truly valid question, because God did not say he killed an animal. Mankind says that. Commentaries say that. The Bible does not say that.
The Bible says clearly, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin and clothed them.” He made coats of skin, coatings of our own skin, the skin we are clothed with to this day.
There is a very good article supporting this position at www.essene.com/HumaneReligion/AfterTheFall
AFTER THE FALL: GENESIS 3:21
In their effort to justify the slaughter of animals, there are those who point to Genesis 3:21 as a vindication of the kind of cruelty that serves its own interests without regard for the pain and suffering of any other creature.
This verse of scripture says “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin and clothed them.” And even though the Bible does not mention animals in this context, scholars have been all too willing to speculate that God killed animals, and then skinned them, in order to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve.
But in a previous verse of scripture (Genesis 3:7), the Bible records that after they had fallen into sin, and become aware of their nakedness, the man and woman “sewed fig leaves together” to cover themselves. If it were true that God slaughtered innocent animals in order to do the same thing, it would make Adam and Eve kinder, more sensitive, and less violent than the Creator of the universe. It would also make God the world’s first recorded killer.
Of course the verse of scripture that tells about the Lord providing Adam and Eve with coats of skin has nothing to do with killing any creature. The Bible is filled with analogy, hyperbole, metaphor and simile and, in most instances, scholars are quick to point out such things. In the book of Job, for example, the term “skin of my teeth” is explained as meaning a narrow escape: “I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.” (Job 19:20.) And in the same book, Job exclaims that it is God who has “clothed me with skin and flesh.” (Job 10:11.) In this instance, no one makes the claim that God killed animals to clothe Job. It is obvious that the phrase means that man was clothed–covered–with skin as a protective covering, just as all animals are clothed with skin.
But when the same expression is used about Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3:21, no one bothers to explain this. And no one points out the context in which it appears. This verse of scripture immediately precedes the account of the man and woman having to leave Eden, forever. Henceforth they would live in a harsh and unyielding environment which would reflect the low estate to which they had fallen. The land in which they were going to live would bring forth “thorns and thistles” instead of the lush bounty of the Garden. And they would suffer the ill effects of a harsh climate in which they would eat their bread “in the sweat of their face.”
Previously, they had lived a paradisiacal existence for which their bodies were well-suited. But now their survival demanded a tougher, hardier, kind of body. One that could withstand the rigors of an inhospitable environment. They needed, literally, to develop a “thicker skin.” So just before they left Eden, the necessary adaptation was made. And the Bible explains this by saying that God clothed the man and woman with coats of skin. That thicker skin covered what had been a more delicate and sensitive organism.
But little attention has been given to this exegesis of the narrative. Mostly by default, scholars have allowed the unsubstantiated, popular interpretation of the event to prevail. The interpretation that arbitrarily brings the slaughter of animals into the story. They have allowed this because they, like most people, think animals are expendable. They, too, have been taught to believe that all other creatures exist for human consumption, decoration, or experimentation. And they believe that God allows– and even encourages–this abuse of other species.
Consequently, there is little concern that the popular interpretation of Genesis 3:21 is incorrect. And there is virtually no concern that it is also blasphemous: it attributes to God the cruelty and insensitivity that characterizes a fallen human race. It also contradicts the revelation of Jesus Christ who told us that the God of the universe is concerned about the fate of all creatures–even the smallest sparrow.
End of reprint.