How much of God's law is good?

[Ron Amnsn]

• The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; -- Psalm 19:7
• For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. -- Romans 7:22

At the end of the Feast of Tabernacles this week the Jews celebrate Simchat Torah, where they publicly express their joy and thankfulness for having the Torah (the Law of Moses). It can be quite moving to see the men dancing reverently with a Torah scroll in their arms and tears of joy on their faces.

In contrast, Christians can be heard talking of the Law of Moses as if it were a burden that a person is better off without. Why does the love of Torah seem so foreign to Christians?

By what criteria are we able to judge which parts of God's law are good, and which parts are not are not worth bothering with?

Which Scriptures could one use as a guide to determine which parts of God's Torah are good?

[John317]

We should certainly be able to use the Sermon on the Mount as well as many of Paul's epistles. Jesus showed the spirituality of the law, so that it is not necessary to see the law as a burden. The moral law was not intended to be a burden but as a blessing and as a guide to better and happier living. God never planned for it to be our Savior.

[BobRyan]

Well for starters -

1 Cor 7:19 "But what MATTERS is KEEPING the commandments of God"

Rom 3:31 "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God".

Romans 7 "The Law of God is Holy Just and Good"

Romans 2 "It is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God but it is the DOERS of the LAW that WILL BE Justified"

So the part of the Law that is no longer in effect ... hmm what does the Bible say?

in Heb 10 -- Christ puts a stop to all sacrifices and offerings.

So any feast or law that is animal-sacrifice based in it's observance (predictve laws) comes to an end.

So also the civil laws governing a theocracy which can not be put in place without a theocracy (civil penalty for Sabbath breaking for example)

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

It's a good question Ron, one that finds its explanation in the Book of Romans 8:7.

`oG

[Gerr]

Would God give His creatures a bad law? Of course ALL of them are good!!! But some of His laws were meant only for a particular time, and some like the principles 10c are meant to be eternal.

Which ones were temporary? The laws governing the typical services are the most obvious. There were laws that applied to particular circumstances and time, like the law of Levirate marriage.

Gerry

[skyblue888]

Excellent points Bob!

sky

[John317]

In 1 Cor. 9: 20-21, the Apostle Paul shows a difference between the permanent, universal law of God and the laws that God does not require. When among the Jews, Paul lived like a Jew, but when among the Gentiles, Paul lived like a gentile, yet he always remembered the moral law of God and Jesus' commands.

[skyblue888]

"Receive, I pray thee, the law from His mouth." John 22:22.

When we receive the law from Christ's mouth it imparts power, it begets a new life in Him. It is the ministry of the Spirit and of righteousness and of life. For Jesus Himself said, "The words that I [color:#3333FF]speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are life." John 6:63. They are life to all who find them and health to all their flesh! See Prov.4:20-22. "I the Lord speak righteousness." "The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness." Isa.49:19,23; Prov.8:8.

"All His commandments are righteousness." Psalm 11:72.

And "Righteousness is love and love is the light and the life of God" and "the life of God in the soul is man's only hope." Mount of Blessing, p.18; Ministry of Healing, p.115.

Engraved on stones or written with ink the law of ten commandments is still the Word of God but written merely it is a ministry of condemnation and death, yet still glorious for it leads us to Christ, to receive that same law from His mouth which then become Spirit and life to us.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

We should certainly be able to use the Sermon on the Mount as well as many of Paul's epistles. Jesus showed the spirituality of the law, so that it is not necessary to see the law as a burden. The moral law was not intended to be a burden but as a blessing and as a guide to better and happier living. God never planned for it to be our Savior.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus spoke on many themes. In one section he confirms that the written law (which has jots and tittles) should continue to be taught until heaven and earth pass away. Then he raises the bar by showing that even the oral traditions of the rabbis (signified by "You have heard that it was said..." rather than "It is written..."), which added to the written law, did not deal with the heart issues the way a true understanding of the Law should.

It's true that God never intended for the Law to be our savior, and the Old Testament shows that no one in OT times earned salvation by keeping the Law. The Torah was a guide to show what righteous living looks like. That's how we can tell that Jesus was righteous because his behavior was in line with God's instructions.

You specified the term "moral law" in your statements about the Law. Where in Scripture could a person find out what is included in "moral law" and what is not? It seems that "moral law" is man-made terminology not found in Scripture. Couldn't the same things be said about the whole Torah as what you said about "moral law"?

[John317]

The moral law is summed up in the Ten Commandments, "the great moral standard of righteousness." The Bible contains 3 kinds of laws: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law applies to all people in all places and in all time. They define sin and help us to know the difference between right and wrong. They include parts of the Torah outside of the Ten Commandments, such as Lev. 20. These laws point to universal, eternal principles.

The civil laws are those laws that applied to Israel under certain circumstances, such as when in the wilderness or when living under God's direct rulership; the ceremonial laws are those laws which foreshadowed Christ's work on the cross and point to Christ as the solution of the sin problem.

Some quotes from Ellen White may help:

Quote:

And shall anybody advocate that the Lord of the universe has no law to govern His kingdom? Is it the doctrine of Jesus Christ or of heaven that the law of God has no binding claims upon the world's inhabitants? Why, the law of ten commandments is the great moral standard of righteousness in heaven and upon earth. This great law is the foundation of all laws, to all nations, and to all families. Christ Triumphant (1999), page 59, paragraph 3

Transgression of physical law is transgression of the moral law; for God is as truly the author of physical laws as He is the author of the moral law. His law is written with His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty, which has been entrusted to man. And every misuse of any part of our organism is a violation of that law. Christ's Object Lessons (1900), page 347, 348

We have only glimmering light in regard to the exceeding breadth of the law of God.... Many of those who claim to believe the testing truths for these last days, act as though God took no note of their disrespect of, and manifest disobedience to, the principles of His holy law. The law is the expression of His will, and it is through obedience to that law that God proposes to accept the children of men as His sons and daughters.... An infinite sacrifice has been made that the moral image of God may be restored to man, through willing obedience to all the commandments of God. Exceeding great is our salvation for ample provision has been made through the righteousness of Christ, that we may be pure, entire, wanting nothing.... If man will keep God's law through faith in Christ, the treasures of heaven will be at his disposal. Sons and Daughters of God (1955), page 45, paragraph 2

[Ron Amnsn]

So the part of the Law that is no longer in effect ... hmm what does the Bible say?

in Heb 10 -- Christ puts a stop to all sacrifices and offerings.

So any feast or law that is animal-sacrifice based in it's observance (predictve laws) comes to an end.

So also the civil laws governing a theocracy which can not be put in place without a theocracy (civil penalty for Sabbath breaking for example)

I agree that we currently don't have the authority to implement some of Torah's civil laws. But do we even desire to be in a theocracy where they could be implemented?

Does the Bible actually teach the bit about any feast or law that is animal-sacrifice based coming to an end? It seems to teach the opposite. After the ascension of Jesus, the animal sacrifices continued daily at the Temple until it was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later. And Luke tells us that the believers "stayed continually at the temple, praising God." And Acts 5 says that at the Temple "the people held them in high esteem", so they apparently weren't teaching people that their animal sacrifices were pointless or offensive. If the priests who had become believers were officiating at those sacrifices it would have been the first time in earth's history that the full meaning of the sacrifices would have been understood and taught.

We know that the Old Testament Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was still valid after the death of Jesus because God chose to pour out the Holy Spirit on those who had gathered for the Feast in Jerusalem on that day. And Adventists teach that the Day of Atonement still had significance when it occurred on October 22, 1844. And speaking of Passover in 1 Cor 5:8, Paul tells the Corinthian believers, "Therefore let us celebrate the feast". Jesus also indicated to his disciples that he would eat the Passover in the future. (Luke 22:15-18).

Perhaps the author of Hebrews had something else in mind in Chapter 10. When it says, "He takes away the first in order to establish the second," the author is referring to the first and second parts of the quotation from Psalm 40, where Jesus had no need to offer sin offerings for himself (the first part) because when Jesus came he actually did God's will (the second part).

The animal sacrifices constituted part of the inheritance of the tribe of Levi which God gave them in lieu of tribal lands. Does the Bible teach that the Levites would loose that inheritance when Messiah would come?

If God actually intended to stop all animal sacrifices at the death of Jesus, wouldn't he have said so at that time, rather than waiting until several decades later to sort of insinuate it when the book of Hebrews was written? Did the priests at the Temple even get a chance to read Hebrews 10 before the Temple was destroyed? When God instructed Abraham to offer a sacrifice (Isaac) and then later wanted that sacrifice to stop, God made it very plain at the moment he wanted the sacrifice stopped. If that's how the God of Abraham deals with sacrifices that he wants stopped, then we should expect similarly clear instructions regarding the sacrifices in Torah.

In Acts 18:18 Paul starts a vow and intended to finish it in Acts 21 by going up to the Temple to offer the prescribed animal sacrifice. Shortly after that, Jesus commended Paul for his witness in Jerusalem. (Acts 23:11) So Paul didn't believe that Jesus put an end to all animal sacrifices.

We have centuries of human traditions that teach us that part of God's law has been rendered obsolete, but do we have any clear instructions to that effect in Scripture?

[John317]

[Ron Amnsn]

It's a good question Ron, one that finds its explanation in the Book of Romans 8:7.

Romans 8:7 says, "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."

I'm not sure how Paul's description of a sinful mind would answer my question.

In Ezekiel 36 it explains what will happen when God pours out his Holy Spirit:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (NIV)

From the description of the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21:20 it appears that they had experienced just that:

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law."

(And it was the Law of Moses being spoken of in that context.)

[John317]

Yes, zealous for the law, not zealous for the gospel or for Christ. They didn't yet fully grasp the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel will lead believers to conform to the will and character of God, but it doesn't lead us to sacrifice animals. Christ is our sacrifice and our passover.

The laws God writes on our hearts is the same law God wrote with His own finger on the tablets of stone. But He only writes it on our hearts if we give Him permission by daily submitting to Him and practicing what the Holy Spirit is leading us to do. For instance, if the Holy Spirit convicts me of the sin of stealing, but I refuse to confess my sins regarding stealing and instead continue to steal, it makes it impossible for the Holy Spirit to write the law on my heart or in my mind.

[Ron Amnsn]

Do you offer animal sacrifices or believe that God wants us to offer them? Do you believe you should?

[Ron Amnsn]

Would God give His creatures a bad law? Of course ALL of them are good!!! But some of His laws were meant only for a particular time, and some like the principles 10c are meant to be eternal.

Which ones were temporary? The laws governing the typical services are the most obvious. There were laws that applied to particular circumstances and time, like the law of Levirate marriage.

Okay Jerry, you have expressed a common belief about God's laws. Sounds plausible, but can you support it with Scripture? When I tried I came up short.

Specifially, which passages support the idea that parts of the Law of Moses were temporary or meant only for a particular time?

Which passages teach that the laws governing the typical services were temporary? If those laws were temporary, why do Adventists dispose of the leftover communion bread and wine in accordance with those laws?

Which passages show that the law of Levirate Marriage would be obsolete before heaven?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you offer animal sacrifices or believe that God wants us to offer them? Do you believe you should?

No, I don't offer animal sacrifices. According to the Law of Moses the only place we could offer sacrifices would be at the place God chose in Jerusalem, and then only with a priestly descendant of Aaron officiating. (There were apparently a few exceptions, such as Samuel offering sacrifices at various places and Elijah sacrificing on Mt. Carmel.)

If the Temple services are ever restored in Jerusalem, then believers could take part in the services as the early believers did in Acts.

But if you could, are you saying that you would take a lamb and offer it in sacrifice to God?

Since Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and since He has already fulfilled the type, why would anyone want to go back to the shadows and types? What could the blood of an animal do that hasn't been done long since by the blood of true Lamb?

If we were to offer animal, bloody sacrifices, wouldn't that be denying that the true Sacrifice already came and died?

I don't understand why God would be pleased with the animal sacrifice. Is that what He wants today?

What was the significance of the vail in the temple being supernaturally torn from top to bottom? (Mark 15: 38)

[Ron Amnsn]

In 1 Cor. 9: 20-21, the Apostle Paul shows a difference between the permanent, universal law of God and the laws that God does not require. When among the Jews, Paul lived like a Jew, but when among the Gentiles, Paul lived like a gentile, yet he always remembered the moral law of God and Jesus' commands.

Your interpretation of the passage assumes that in Paul's ministry he worked among distinct and separate groups. That when he was among the Gentiles he could abandon the practice of parts of Torah, but that when he changed to a Jewish group he would once again resume being Torah-observant. What missionary advantage would such wishy-washy-ness give to Paul?

According to the New Testament record, Paul's missionary endeavors were among mixed groups containing both Jews and Gentiles. His traveling companions were both Jewish and Gentile. His epistles indicate that the congregations where he worked contained both Jews and Gentiles. There were few (if any) times in Paul's ministry when he was exclusively among Jews or exclusively among Gentiles. What would have happened when a Gentile from an exclusively Gentile congregation (if such a congregation existed) traveled to visit Paul in a mixed congregation and was confronted with a Paul who was suddenly Torah-observant? (or vise versa?) Paul would be caught in the same type of hypocrisy for which he publicly rebuked Peter in Antioch. (Gal 2) How would that work for Paul in real life?

Would you respect a missionary who lived a duplicitous life? A mainstream Christian missions magazine had an article a few years ago where the author explained how he and others had been unusually successful working in Muslim countries by living a Torah-observant Christian life within Muslim dress and culture. The author expressly warned that those who try such an approach have to make it a life-long commitment because their whole ministry would be undone if one of their Muslim friends visited later in the US (even after retirement) and found them not living a Torah-observant life. The same principle would have applied in Paul's day. A Torah-observant lifestyle isn't something that can be faked part-time over an extended ministry.

I think the key to interpreting your passage is the preceding verse. "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible." (1 Cor 9:19) Then Paul specifically lists all the different groups to which he makes himself a slave.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

In 1 Cor. 9: 20-21, the Apostle Paul shows a difference between the permanent, universal law of God and the laws that God does not require. When among the Jews, Paul lived like a Jew, but when among the Gentiles, Paul lived like a gentile, yet he always remembered the moral law of God and Jesus' commands.

Your interpretation of the passage assumes that in Paul's ministry he worked among distinct and separate groups. That when he was among the Gentiles he could abandon the practice of parts of Torah, but that when he changed to a Jewish group he would once again resume being Torah-observant. What missionary advantage would such wishy-washy-ness give to Paul?

....... I think the key to interpreting your passage is the preceding verse. "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible." (1 Cor 9:19) Then Paul specifically lists all the different groups to which he makes himself a slave.

This really says it all:

19 I am not anyone's slave. But I have become a slave to everyone, so that I can win as many people as possible. 20 When I am with the Jews, I live like a Jew to win Jews. They are ruled by the Law of Moses, and I am not. But I live by the Law to win them. 21 And when I am with people who are not ruled by the Law, I forget about the Law to win them. Of course, I never really forget about the law of God. In fact, I am ruled by the law of Christ. 22 When I am with people whose faith is weak, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22

[Ron Amnsn]

But if you could, are you saying that you would take a lamb and offer it in sacrifice to God?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But if you could, are you saying that you would take a lamb and offer it in sacrifice to God?

Your question is far too practical. I'm still grappling with the concept that animal sacrifices might still be a valid aspect of worshiping God. Believing something as a concept is somewhat more comfortable than actually getting a year-old sheep ready for the altar in Jerusalem. I can't even slaughter my own chickens when they get too old to lay eggs.

If I were to offer lamb, would it be a sin offering or a fellowship offering, or one of the other offerings? Or would I just participate as an observer at the regular morning, evening sacrifices, or at one of weekly Sabbath sacrifices or at a Feast?

I don't think I would jump into things. I'd want to see what the process entailed, what kind of people were in charge, what effect the sacrifices had on the people involved and how much they were charging for perfect kosher sheep.

.... So I'm not making any predictions about whether I would actually participate in a sheep sacrifice in Jerusalem. If it's anything like the baptizing spot, it might give new insights into why Jesus cleared the Temple.

I'm also having some challenges with how you asked your question--

I didn't mean to force any particular meaning on the sacrifice. I really wanted to understand why you would you do it. What was the sacrificial system in the Old Testament all about?

God instituted it right after the Fall. Why?

Quote:

Would I offer a lamb as a sacrifice to God? That makes it sound like it would be to appease an angry or hungry god. Was Jesus offered as a sacrifice to God?

Would I offer a lamb as a sacrifice for God?

Would I offer a lamb as a sacrifice in obedience to what God instructed?

Would I offer a lamb in commemoration of what Jesus did for me?

Would I offer a sacrifice as part of completing a Nazarite vow?

How you ask the question seems to make a difference.

My answer is still a firm "I don't know." I've never even viewed a re-enactment of a biblical sacrifice.

It sounds like it's just an idea for you that you enjoy thinking about but which you will likely never do.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Since Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and since He has already fulfilled the type, why would anyone want to go back to the shadows and types? What could the blood of an animal do that hasn't been done long since by the blood of true Lamb?

... As a part of that sanctuary service, animal sacrifices probably have numerous lessons to teach that you'd only learn when you experience it. If people before the cross could learn something valuable from offering an animal sacrifice, then perhaps there's still a lesson there for us too.

What did the people learn from sacrificing animals? What insights do you believe they gained from it? What did God want them learn from it?

Why did God ask them to do it?

Have you read books about it such as The Cross and the Shadow by Stephen Haskell and With Jesus In His Sanctuary by Leslie Hardinge? There is also Practical Lessons by the Jewish SDA named F. C. Gilbert. Also The Desire of Ages by Ellen G. White. All great books on the subject.

Quote:

According to Hebrews, the blood of bull and goats never took away sins. So maybe there's something more to it. If animal blood didn't take away sin in Old Testament times, there must have been another purpose then as well. We've been told that prayer doesn't change God so much as it changes us. I'd guess that might be true of animal sacrifices as well.

No, the blood of animals never took away sins. It couldn't possibly take them away. That should not be surprising. Why couldn't it take away sins?

Yes, you are right, there was another purpose. What do you believe that purpose was?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If we were to offer animal, bloody sacrifices, wouldn't that be denying that the true Sacrifice already came and died?

I've tried to find the origin of this sentiment in Scripture, but it isn't there. I think it was probably invented during the anti-Jewish and anti-Torah days of the early Roman church. It's been around a long time, but it isn't based on Scripture.

To understand this, you have to know why God asked the people to offer sacrifices. Do you know why?

Quote:

Remember, the earliest Christian believers were continually at the Temple in Jerusalem where the animal sacrifices were still happening in all their bloodiness, both before and after Pentecost. If participating in those sacrifices somehow constituted denial of the Messiah, the believers would have gone away from the only place on earth where those sacrifices were happening, but they didn't leave the Temple even though they would be counted among the participants at the regular morning and evening sacrifices offered on behalf of the people of Israel.

What evidence do you have that the Christians, particularly the Gentile Christians, were regularly offering animal sacrifices in the Temple? What evidence that it was part of the New Covenant or that leaders of the early church expected Christians to offer blood sacrifices? (I mean besides the incident in Acts 21.)

[Ron Amnsn]

This really says it all:

19 I am not anyone's slave. But I have become a slave to everyone, so that I can win as many people as possible. 20 When I am with the Jews, I live like a Jew to win Jews. They are ruled by the Law of Moses, and I am not. But I live by the Law to win them. 21 And when I am with people who are not ruled by the Law, I forget about the Law to win them. Of course, I never really forget about the law of God. In fact, I am ruled by the law of Christ. 22 When I am with people whose faith is weak, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22

While we're playing with paraphrases, let's update this one a few centuries to see how it goes.

From Paul, an SDA Conference evangelist, to all the Adventists in Chicago.

"I'm not anyone's slave But I have become a slave to everyone so that I can win as many people as possible. When I am with the Historic Adventists, I live like a Historic Adventist to win the Historic Adventists. They are ruled by the writings of Ellen White, and I am not. But I live by the writings of Ellen White to win them. And when I am with former Adventists who are not ruled by the writings of Ellen White, I forget about the writings of Ellen White to win them. Of course I never really forget about the writings of Ellen White. In fact I am ruled by the Prophetic Spirit. When I am with Catholics, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can." (1 Correspondence 9:19-22)

Would this sort of hypocrisy win anyone? How would this letter be received by the Historic Adventists in Chicago? How would it be viewed by the former Adventists?

Would it be wise to send such a letter to a congregation, like the one at Corinth, that had a mixed population and where Paul's enemies were challenging his authority? Wouldn't Paul's enemies LOVE to get hold of a letter like this?

If Paul sent a letter like this to Corinth, Paul wouldn't have had the slightest chance of convincing the congregation in Jerusalem that he actually lived according to Torah. James and the elders would have been deluded to even think it might be possible.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

.....If we were to offer animal, bloody sacrifices, wouldn't that be denying that the true Sacrifice already came and died?

I've tried to find the origin of this sentiment in Scripture, but it isn't there.

Study Hebrews 7 closely. What is involved in the New Priesthood that is spoken of there?

What does it mean to you that the book of Hebrews (9) and Revelation (11:19) both speak of the sanctuary as being now in heaven where Christ serves as our High Priest?

Do you find anything in the NT indicating that sacrificing animals was to continue after the death of Christ?

Are sacrifices part of the New Covenant?

Quote:

When the Israelites offered the Passover lambs after they arrived in the Promised Land, did those sacrifices somehow deny the reality of their escape from Egypt? No, they commemorated the escape from Egypt.

Yes. Why? What was Passover a symbol of, besides deliverance from Egypt? Isn't Jesus called our Passover?

Quote:

When we rest on Sabbath, do we somehow deny the reality of God resting on the 7th day of Creation? No, we commemorate it.

Yes, God commanded us to to keep the Sabbath holy and to remember that God is our creator. It doesn't deny the reality because it is a memorial of something that happened in the past, besides being a pointer to the ultimate salvation-rest in heaven and on the new earth.

Quote:

Before the cross, animal sacrifices pointed forward to the death of Messiah. After the cross the animal sacrifices served as reenactments commemorating the death of Jesus.

Yes, they certainly did point the sinner forward to the time when the Messiah would come and give His life for us.

Where do you find anything in the New Testament that shows Gentile believers are to continue animals sacrifices?

Quote:

Before the cross, Passover commemorated the exodus from Egypt and pointed forward to the death of Messiah (and possibly to the second exodus). After the cross, Passover commemorated both the freedom from Egypt and the sacrifice of Jesus which provides us with freedom from the power of sin, and Passover continues to point forward to the time when the Passover will be celebrated with Jesus in the Kingdom and we will be freed from the effects of sin.

Do you celebrate the Passover?

Quote:

Do you suppose that sacrifices today would be bloodier than they were when God first taught Adam and Eve how to slaughter a lamb? If God's law is good, then animal sacrifices must have been good as well (even though they are bloody), when they are offered with a sincere heart in obedience to the instructions God gave.

But do you believe that God wants you and me to do it today?

Of course there was something good about them. What was it? Wasn't it because of the faith the people showed, and the lesson about sin that they learned?

They showed their faith in the coming Savior who would shed His blood for them, and they learned that without shedding of blood, there was no forgiveness. They learned that salvation cost God dearly. They learned what sin did and what sin was.

Quote:

Jesus became a human for the purpose of becoming a sacrifice. Perhaps that's why God created sheep as well.

Do you think when He created the animals, God did it with sin in His plans?

Originally Posted By: John317

I don't understand why God would be pleased with the animal sacrifice. Is that what He wants today?

Quote:

That's something you'll have to ask God. He instituted the sacrifices well before the time of Moses.

Do you believe that God wants us to sacrifice animals today? Do you know the answer based on Scripture?