Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?

But another reason is given to Israel why they should not eat blood. "The life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, no soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood" (Lev. 17:11-12). It is interesting to observe the divine wisdom in choosing the time to make revelations of God's mind. The real atonement was just as much an event of the future, when Moses communicated this additional reason to Israel, as when the Lord spake to Noah and to his sons. But Noah and his sons could not have understood what then had not been demonstrated — the full need of atonement. Israel, however, with the laws concerning sacrifices before them, and the ordinance for the day of atonement fresh in their remembrance, could understand something of what atonement implied. So this additional reason given them for not eating blood comes in in its right order just after the directions for the day of atonement.

Life belongs to God, so no one of the human race was to eat blood. The sinner, too, has forfeited his life, and can only live before God on the ground of the death of a sacrifice as a substitute. This Israel were ever to remember. But if forbidden the blood, they were reminded how that could speak to God on their behalf. The blood maketh an atonement for the soul. The blood shed, the life is given up to God, and that is precious to Him. No wonder, then, that bloodshedding formed such an essential part of the Mosaic ritual, for it spoke to God of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, given up to Him on the cross. Do any object to the truth of atonement by blood, as painting the God who teaches us of it in hideous colours, as they would term it? We would ask, if they have ever given to this chapter of Leviticus the attention which it deserves? For when we learn what blood is in God's eyes, that in which is the life of the flesh, we see why He could delight in the blood of His Son, the witness of that self surrender, even to death, which must be so precious to Him. Of three important truths, then, the prohibition to eat blood reminds us. We are creatures, and must remember it. We were by nature sinners, and are to acknowledge it. We are indebted wholly to God for atonement by blood, and are ever to own it. Hence it is all of grace that atonement could be, and has been, effected. For the words of Jehovah are these, "I have given it (the blood) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." The One to whom life belongs has given it to be poured out for our everlasting blessing.

A new feature now presents itself, for our attention is directed by God to the positive need of atonement by blood, since "it is the blood," we read, "that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11.) Hitherto, in the instances of atonement to which we have turned, we have not met with the mention of blood. Atonement in connection with governmental dealing might be effected without blood. Atonement in connection with the sinner's real position before God, whether in type or not, is only accomplished by blood. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls." Let us mark the grace here indicated — "I have given it to you." God, against whom we have sinned, provides that by which atonement for our sins can be made. He provides it, and He reveals it. Now this was something quite new; for accompanying this revelation there was a special enactment, made for Israel and the stranger who dwelt among them, against the eating of blood. Not that this was the first occasion on which God had forbidden it. For just after the flood He forbade Noah and his sons, and through them the whole human race, to eat blood, assigning as a reason, that the life of the flesh is in the blood. (Gen. 9:4.) But no penalty was then annexed to any infraction of the command. In Lev. 17: it was different. The reason for not eating blood, given by God to Noah, was not forgotten, for Moses in Lev. 17 mentions it; but another reason against it was appended, and a penalty was attached to non-compliance with the precept. Thenceforward atonement by blood was regarded as a cardinal doctrine, and the people were never to forget it.

First, then, forgiveness of sins is founded upon the death of Christ, upon His finished work. That is, changing the form of the expression, the foundation on which God is able, righteously able - able in consistency with all that He is - freely and fully to forgive the sinner, is the work of atonement, which was accomplished on Calvary. In the Old Testament it was taught in every possible way - by type and figure, by constant sacrifices ever repeated - that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission. (Heb. 9:22.) The reason was that sin had entered the world, and death by sin; and so death had passed upon all men, for that all had sinned. (Rom. 5:12.) The life of every sinner was, and is, therefore forfeited to God; and hence it is written, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27.) Mark well these two things - death, and afterwards judgment, for the sins committed during life. Such is the awful prospect before every unsaved soul. Both these things were shadowed out in the olden sacrifices. It will amazingly help the reader if he will give his earnest attention to this. Look then for a moment at what was done when a Jew brought a sacrifice for sin. First, he laid his hand upon the head of the animal about to be slain, which signified the transfer of his sin to the animal; so that the animal from that moment stood before God charged with the offerer's sin, in the place and stead of the sinner. Observe what followed. The animal was slain - death, the penalty of sin, was brought in upon it - and the blood was sprinkled (for the life is in the blood) in the appointed place before God, in token of life rendered up in answer to His claims: afterwards, passing over details, the carcase was totally consumed by fire. And what did this signify, dear reader? It told of the judgment after death; of that lake of fire in which all the unsaved, alas! will find their portion throughout eternity.

First, then, forgiveness of sins is founded upon the death of Christ, upon His finished work. That is, changing the form of the expression, the foundation on which God is able, righteously able — able in consistency with all that He is — freely and fully to forgive the sinner, is the work of atonement, which was accomplished on Calvary. In the Old Testament it was taught in every possible way — by type and figure, by constant sacrifices ever repeated — that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission. (Heb. 9:22.) The reason was that sin had entered the world, and death by sin; and so death had passed upon all men, for that all had sinned. (Rom. 5:12.) The life of every sinner was, and is, therefore forfeited to God; and hence it is written, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27.) Mark well these two things — death, and afterwards judgment, for the sins committed during life. Such is the awful prospect before every unsaved soul. Both these things were shadowed out in the olden sacrifices. It will amazingly help the reader if he will give his earnest attention to this. Look then for a moment at what was done when a Jew brought a sacrifice for sin. First, he laid his hand upon the head of the animal about to be slain, which signified the transfer of his sin to the animal; so that the animal from that moment stood before God charged with the offerer's sin, in the place and stead of the sinner. Observe what followed. The animal was slain — death, the penalty of sin, was brought in upon it — and the blood was sprinkled (for the life is in the blood) in the appointed place before God, in token of life rendered up in answer to His claims: afterwards, passing over details, the carcase was totally consumed by fire. And what did this signify, dear reader? It told of the judgment after death; of that lake of fire in which all the unsaved, alas! will find their portion throughout eternity.

As plainly it is declared in these very scriptures by what alone atonement could be made. "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). This is only the echo, somewhat emphasized, of the statement of the law itself (Lev. 17:11): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul."

No atonement, then, apart from the blood of Christ and apart from that blood shed, for the verse already quoted in Leviticus says, as to the blood, "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls." The blood in the veins of the animal destined for sacrifice accomplished nothing. It was its life, truly, but only as given upon the altar, i.e. as shed sacrificially, did it make atonement and that only in type. All hinges on the death of Christ. Not life merely, but life yielded up, atones.

But the result of these views is, to ignore, or diminish to nothing, the death of the victim. If the soul of man is to be covered by the soul of beast (strange covering for it!), then some way, in the blood sprinkled on the altar, the soul of the beast must be supposed still to survive; And to justify this, we are reminded of the expressions "living water" and "living flesh" (in distinction from cooked meat — 1 Sam. 2:15). As Oehler asks, with Kurtz's distinct approval, "Can it be surprising, then, that the fresh, steaming, and still fluid blood should be regarded as blood with life and soul in it still?" And this is sought to be maintained by the rendering of the last part of the verse — "'for the blood expiates through the soul,' — that is, in virtue of the fact that the soul is in it."

Substituting "life" for "soul," for the reasons given, there can be no objection to translating with the R.V., "For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." The blood is the life of the body, and so represents it, and he that ate blood would be therefore cut off: — not merely "fresh, steaming blood," as these views would suppose, but blood in any way. The blood poured out is thus the life poured out — the symbol of death, not of existing life.

This, then, instead of separating in meaning death and the blood, brings them together, and the whole ritual into entire agreement and simplicity. The blood means death, and, as presented to God upon the altar, atones; for the altar, according to its meaning in the Hebrew, is just "the place of sacrifice;" and thus the death is declared to be and accepted as a sacrificial death.

Let us dwell upon that for a moment, familiar truth as it is. You find constantly in this Epistle the mention of the blood of Christ. The life is in the blood and the reason why it is so constantly spoken of is because the blood shed means the life given up under the judgment of God. Righteousness demanded the judgment of sin. It was a thing which God Himself could not waive, though He might pass over for a time the sins of His people in view of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Yet if He forgave David's sin, it was on the basis of something which He foresaw would fully glorify Him. David might lay hold upon God's mercy. Abraham, and others, could lay hold by faith upon that mercy. But for every sin that God forgave in the past dispensation, He had His eye upon the precious blood of Christ, the sufficient atoning Sacrifice which would vindicate His righteousness. Therefore, when we speak of the blood of Christ, it is understood that we mean Christ's sacrifice under the wrath of God, bearing judgment for sin.

In each case the victim was slain. Death is the wages of sin, and no sentence can be pronounced as an alternative to that. This is acknowledged in our law courts. A prisoner may be sentenced to a fine, with imprisonment as an alternative. But we never hear a judge sentence a man to death, with the alternative of prison or anything else. In all its gravity the death sentence on sin stands alone. This is clearly foreshadowed here. In each case the blood of the victim was sprinkled before the Lord, though not in each case sprinkled in just the same way. The sprinkled blood testified before God that the death sentence was accomplished, and, "it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11).

Because sin is an offence against God, an insult to His supreme power and authority, therefore we require forgiveness; and forgiveness is impossible without a basis of truth when we have offended the Creator of heaven and earth. This perfectly satisfactory basis is "the precious blood of Christ." In Him "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1: 7). But "without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9: 22). God forgives because He sees perfect virtue in the blood of Christ.