The Atonement Part 63--Moot Court (j)

This session of the moot court concludes the refutation of claim #7 by examining its remaining three sub-claims. 

Sub-claim #4 states, “God has demanded blood sacrifice from all men in all eras.”  This claim is the product of biblical illiteracy.  Only in the Mosaic era does God demand blood sacrifice.  When blood sacrifices occur in other eras, they are either free-will offerings (such as Noah’s sacrifice upon exiting the ark) or are offered up punitively (such as the burnt offerings offered up by Job’s three friends). 

Sub-claim #5 states, “God enjoys blood sacrifice.”  This is also wrong.  What God finds sweet smelling is not the spilled blood or the burning carcass, but rather the obedience of the one making the offering.  This is clear in the words of the Prophet Samuel as recorded in 1 Sam 15:22 (“To obey is better than sacrifice”).  This is also the opinion of the Church Fathers Athanasius and Irenaeus.

Sub-claim #6 states, “Blood sacrifice is an atonement transaction,” a claim based on Lv 17:11 and Heb 9:22.  The Atonement School leans upon these two verses as proof that animals served as proxies for human beings in the Old Testament and that the New Testament sacrifice is also a punishment by proxy.  In reality, these two passages are examples of the literary device of hyperbole.  If these two passages are to be read in their woodenly literal sense, then the Bible contradicts itself because the Old Testament abounds with non-bloody sacrifices that make atonement (including sacrifices enumerated in the Book of Leviticus).  This lecture unearths no fewer than nine instances of non-bloody atonement, rendering sub-claim #6 completely incredible. 
Run time: 25:41; Posted: 2/28/15