What was the purpose of sacrifice? And history backwards.

As usual, I don't have any real intellectual prowess on the subject. I'm just an average joe Christian, trying to work it all out.

So, I have always wondered about the animal sacrifices God demanded in the Law. The interesting thing is that even though God demanded it and gave specific and detailed instructions about it, and in Exodus 29, for example, it says burnt sacrifices were a "pleasing aroma" to the Lord, it says in other places (Psalms 40:6 for example) that God did not desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, even abhorred them.

I wonder if this is a case where we should look at the Bible backwards. Watch it from end to beginning...kinda like that movie "otnemeM"...where things only make sense in light of things that happened in the past. Would we ("we" being the collective Jews and Gentiles of the day that followed Christ) have recognized Jesus' purpose and the priceless value of His life and death, if we hadn't been performing ritual sacrifice for all those generations?

Maybe God wanted us to be in the practice of sacrificing, so that when the day of Jesus came, we would recognize the amazing freedom gained from no longer being required to perform sacrifices.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the Gospel has been lost in the changes of culture. I mean, look at it this way...imagine with me for a moment...if for as long as we could remember, God had required us to sacrifice a brand-spankin' new, top-o-the-line, flawless Mercedes to Him at least once every year, as penance for our sins.

For some of us, it would be our computer, complete with 21" LCD monitor, 250 GB hard drive, and multi-layer DVD burner. For some of us it might be once-in-a-lifetime front-row U2 seats. For others it would be our designer wardrobe. You get the point. It's not just the cost, it's the loss.

What would it mean to us to suddenly no longer have to do that?

And then, what if God said that He wasn't just going to provide all mankind with the Mercedes-of-all-Mercedes, one big bugger of a sacrifice once-and-for-all; but that He was going to sacrifice His Flesh-and-Blood, His Son, instead? How would we feel? But then God said that He wasn't going to sacrifice His Son by His own hand, but that He was going to have mankind do it so that we would REALLY get the point.

We believe that God requires our death if we sin, because we cannot be in relationship with Him if we are imperfect. He is holy, we are not. W cannot enter into His presence if we are unholy. Obviously God did not design this arrangement, but because of the wiles of satan, we are subject to it. And obviously God does not want to have to kill us when we sin. (No one would live to be old enough to procreate, for one thing.) So He allowed/required us to sacrifice something in our place...substitutionary atonement.

Sidenote: I still don't get the whole God-creates-satan, satan-turns-evil, God-casts-satan-from-His-presence, God-creates-man, satan-tempts-man, man-sins, SO...God-creates-plan-of-redemption bizness. It seems to me like if God knows everything in advance...wouldn't it just have been easier to not create satan in the first place, and therefore God would not have to crucify His Son in order to reconcile man to Himself? But who am I? God is God and I am not!

So anyhow...this plan was put into motion before the time of Abraham. So let's look there for a moment...God changed Abram's name, then asked him to make sacrifices. What if God had said,

"Oh, yeah, I forgot...I told you to make sacrifices to Me, didn't I? OK, well, here's my One and Only Son...just sacrifice Him on this here altar, and all will be well for all mankind",

do you think it would have meant much to Abraham? What I mean is, Abraham would have said,

"Cool, yeah I'll do that. Works for me."

and then gone about his business, not really giving it a second thought. I mean, after all, it wasn't his son, right?

Instead, God thought about the situation, and then He made a point. He said to Abraham: (my paraphrase)

"I would normally have to kill you because you are a sinner. Instead, I'm going to accept a sacrifice in your place. Why don't you just sacrifice your beloved son so I can forgive your sins? Oh, you don't want to sacrifice your son? Oh, well, I guess I can understand that, after all, I have a Son, too. In that case, here, I'll provide you with a ram...that will work, too."

And Abraham was so thoroughly relieved that he didn't have to kill his son, and so awed that God Himself provided the substitution, that he would decide to follow God anywhere for the rest of his life. And the rest is history...

Now, you'll have to forgive my terribly modern interpretation of that scenario. I don't necessarily believe this event was literal, but like I said, I'm just working it all out for myself and letting you into my thought process.

I wonder sometimes if God wrote history backwards. He wondered how to make us realize the inherent value of the sacrifice of His Son. He decided that centuries (millennia?) of ritual animal sacrifice (which was expensive, not to mention disgusting) ought to make us appreciate it when we no longer have to do that.

"Wow! I get to be reconciled to God? I get to enter into His presence anytime I want? No priest? No scapegoat? I don't have to slit the throats of helpless animals anymore? I don't have to figure out how to get my hands on an unblemished animal when everyone else is doing the same? Wow! That's AWESOME!"

I wonder how much of that awe is lost on us in modern generations. Do we really, I mean REALLY value the ritual violence Jesus saved us from? I mean, aside from the obvious end result...our reconciliation to God...do we ever really stop to look at the practical reality of Christ's crucifixion?

Not only did He set us free from the power of evil...but He set us free from the price we would normally pay for evil's influence in our life.