What does the New Testament say about animal sacrifice?

Verse 4. "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The impossibility of the benefit results from the inadequacy of the work. Animal sacrifice, as an atonement for human sin, is both unequal and untrue. There was nothing acceptable to the God of judgment in the blood of beasts. The human obedience of which He had been defrauded could not be compensated in the life of a creature by nature incapable of knowing His will. The pouring out in death of such a life was therefore of no power to redeem from sin. God had no controversy with the beasts that perish. The law of His commandments had been enjoined upon His people. Its curse could never fall, in their stead, on an unconscious animal that never knew the voice of truth.

"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The repetition of the offering only proved that the question of sins was not yet settled. Like a great debt owed, it was never reduced by the paying of the interest year by year. Each year thus only brought to remembrance the fact that sins had not yet actually been taken away. The blood of animals could not possibly accomplish such a result.

It is not that the law sacrifices did not perfect anyone as to the conscience, but that they could not. Their very repetition showed this. Could they have availed to cleanse the conscience, so that the offerer got complete relief as to the whole question of sin, they would have ceased to be offered; inasmuch as we never go on doing what is done. In point of fact their effect was in just the opposite direction. Instead of removing sins from the conscience as no longer to be remembered, they were formally brought to remembrance at least once every year. The blood of sacrificial animals had no efficacy to take away sins. The thing was impossible, as verse 4 says.

The Willing Sacrifice. But where could that sacrifice be found, if earth could not provide it? The blood of one born in sin could not be accepted. That were to insult a holy God. To give one's firstborn for one's transgressions, the fruit of one's body for the sin of one's soul (Micah 6:7), might seem to a heathen likely to mollify an offended deity of his conception, but could not meet the holiness and righteousness of the one true God. Was this harsh dealing with His creatures on the part of the Divine Being? He had proclaimed centuries before our Epistle was written the inefficacy of animal sacrifices; but had indicated in that same revelation that a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him would one day be offered, offered up too, and accepted. To the Book of Psalms, so often referred to by the Apostle, are we again turned. That book which foretold Christ's birth, His death, His ascension, and His priesthood, foretold also the sacrifice of Himself. True the quotation now made might take some of the readers by surprise. The importance and precision of it some might never have taken up. When, however, attention was called to it, and the words of the Old Testament quoted, what could a sober Israelite do but admit its teaching, and, if exercised in his conscience, inquire about the trite sacrifice therein indicated?

And from Him who was the sacrifice he could learn; for we are privileged by the Spirit of prophecy to hear what He, when coming into the world, said to God. God's purpose, the Lord's readiness to carry that out, and at the great cost to Himself, are referred to in that Psalm. Before His birth the Virgin learnt that her child, the Messiah, would sit on David's throne, and reign for ever and ever (Luke 1:31-35); but no word was then dropped by the angel to indicate His sacrificial death, though that was foreknown, and long ago foretold. That of which Mary at His birth was ignorant, He well knew, and, as we here learn, spoke of it to God. But more. His language teaches us two important truths. 1st, His words, "I am come to do Thy will," indicate surely that He existed before His incarnation; and 2nd, what is also quoted — "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me; in burnt offerings [or perhaps, whole burnt offerings] and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am come" (in the volume of the book it is written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God" — is a plain intimation that the sacrificial ritual ordained of God by Moses would have to give place to a sacrifice acceptable to God and efficacious for men. To that these words of the Psalm looked forward. So as in Psalm 110 there was indicated a change in the priesthood, in Psalm 40 there is announced that there would be a complete change in the law of sacrifice. And as the former Psalm (Ps. 110) spoke of a priesthood that would abide — "Thou art a Priest for ever" — this latter Psalm (Ps. 40) speaks of a sacrifice that would need no repetition, as it is said (Heb. 10:9-10), "He takes away the first, that He may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." He died once. He could not die again. Once was sufficient. And now, whilst Israel under the law could boast of the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer availing for the purifying of the flesh (Heb. 9:13), we learn, and the Hebrews could say, that by the will of God believers are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. This was and is a complete and permanent sanctification. Again we may ask, Could Judaism provide anything to surpass or even to equal it?

The One Offering. — New indeed might be the thought to many that one sacrifice was enough instead of many. Solomon on the altar at Gibeon had offered a thousand burnt offerings. Before the ark, as it made its way into the Temple, they sacrificed sheep and oxen that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. At the dedication of the Temple he offered peace offerings to the number of two and twenty thousand oxen and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. Our author, however, directs attention in the Epistle to but one sacrifice, which far outweighed in value all that had ever been offered on Bezaleel's altar, or on that made by Solomon for the Temple. Daily might there be seen by any one visiting the Temple courts how the Levitical service was being carried on. Each day the priest was found at his post at the altar ministering there, but only to repeat the same service at the altar on the next day, or on the next recurring occasion for which that sacrifice was enjoined. But all was in vain as regards the taking away of sins. Daily offering. Then there was no cessation of devotedness of service at the altar. The same sacrifices. Then they failed not from any non-observance of the ritual. Wherein then was their inefficacy? It was inherent in them. For the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sins (10:4). How this is kept before the reader! Gifts and sacrifices, we read, were being offered, which could never make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience (9:9). Again: "They can never with those sacrifices, which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect" (10:1). And again: "Offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins" (10:11).

It is summed up in verse 4 in the words, "take away sins". The blood of bulls and goats could not do this, but the work of Christ has. So we read in verse 5, "Wherefore (or, seeing that is so) when He cometh into the world He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me". He came to do what other sacrifices could not do, and took a body that the question of sins might be settled for ever.

Remark, however, first of all, that the sense of guilt, when under conviction of sin, troubles the conscience. It is the conscience that bears the burden of sin when the soul is awakened; and an uneasy, a bad conscience often condemns the soul as distinctly as the word of God. Remembering this, the statements in the above-mentioned chapter will at once be understood. The first point then to be noticed is, that the worshippers under the old dispensation were never made perfect as to the conscience, that they never obtained the priceless blessing of "no more conscience of sins." (vv. 1, 2.) This is shown in a twofold way. The fact that sacrifices were continually offered proved it, because "in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year." (v. 3.) The worshipper might indeed feel, in a certain measure, that the sins he had already committed were removed; but no sooner had his sacrifice been offered, than he began to sin again, and every fresh sin needed another sacrifice. He was therefore never free from guilt before God or in his own conscience. Then we are also told that it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. God passed over the sins of His people, because these sacrifices shadowed forth that of Christ; but they had no virtue to purge the conscience, though they might have sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. (Heb. 9:13.) The burden of sin was thus never wholly removed from the conscience of a Jewish saint.

Once more, we may note the contrast stated in Hebrews 10:1-4. In those sacrifices there was a remembrance of sins made every year, for it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. What happened was that in His forbearance God "passed over" (the words placed in the margin against Romans 3:25) the sins that were committed before Christ died. Hence the word used so frequently in the Old Testament is "atonement," the literal meaning of which is "covering." In the New Testament that word does not occur — Romans 5:11 being a mistranslation. The rather, we read in Hebrews 10:18, that, "where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin." The word for "remission" means "a sending away," and not merely a covering. So in the Old Testament we find a provisional covering of sin in the forbearance of God, awaiting the complete sending away of sin, which was only accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ.

On the other hand, a sacrifice once offered up for sins, which needs no repetition, speaks as loudly of the sinner's want having been met. Under Judaism then that never could be; "for it is not possible," adds the Apostle, "that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." And no other sacrifices were enjoined on the Day of Atonement. What then did those sacrifices effect? They recalled to the people's remembrance their sins each year. They taught that only by sacrifice could those sins be rightly dealt with. They typified in measure the sacrifice that could deal with them; but proclaimed by their repetition, as long as that was done by Divine consent, that the true sacrifice was still to be provided, and still to be offered up. We have said in measure, because animal sacrifices could never really avail, nor fully foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ.

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in these sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." But that which the blood of bulls could never do, the blood of Jesus has for ever done. This makes all the difference. All the blood that ever flowed around Israel's altars — the millions of sacrifices, offered according to the requirements of the Mosaic ritual — could not blot out one stain from the conscience, or justify a sin-hating God in receiving a sinner to Himself. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." "Wherefore when he comes into the world he says, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God … By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once." Mark the contrast. God had no pleasure in the endless round of sacrifices under the law. They did not please Him. They left wholly unaccomplished that which He had in His loving heart to do for His people, namely, to rid them completely of sin's heavy load, and bring them to Himself, in perfect peace of conscience and liberty of heart. This, Jesus, by the one offering of His blessed body, did. He did the will of God; and, blessed for ever be His name, He has not to do His work over again. We may refuse to believe that the work is done — refuse to commit our souls to its efficacy — to enter into the rest which it is calculated to impart — to enjoy the holy liberty of spirit which it is fitted to yield; but there stands the work in its own imperishable virtue; and there, too, stand the Spirit's arguments respecting that work, in their own unanswerable force and clearness; and neither Satan's dark suggestions, nor our own unbelieving reasonings can ever touch either the one or the other. They may, and alas! they do, most sadly interfere with our soul's enjoyment of the truth; but the truth itself remains ever the same.

The New Testament does not leave a shadow of doubt on the divine purpose of the passing shadows of the Old: the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin; but, instead thereof, Christ came, had a body prepared Him to do God's will: "by the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). "Christ being come an high-priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:11-15). Now here the doctrine of the Jewish sacrifices is clearly applied to Christ's death: He offers Himself to God. By means of death there is the redemption of transgressions; conscience is purged by this offering. "Nor yet," adds the apostle, "that he should offer himself often … for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (Heb. 9:25-28).