If no man had ever sinned, no sacrifice would ever have been offered. If no sacrifice had been required no priest would ever have served. "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices" (Heb. 8:3). "Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of man in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. 5:1). The study of priesthood is inextricably interwoven with that of sacrifice. One cannot ignore the foundation and erect a proper structure. Yet he cannot spend so much time on the foundation as to neglect the remainder of the structure. Our consideration of the element of sacrifice in religion as revealed by our Father, will be limited to a necessary survey as a basis for further study of the priesthood of God.
The idea of sacrifice in religion is as universal as religion itself, and thus indicates the universality of the recognition of sin and the need for expiation of it. From what source did this universal idea spring, which pervaded the thought of the cultured and untutored, the civilized man and savage alike? We believe that this universal idea is a convincing proof of the common origin of all nations of mankind, and of the revelation of God to the original parent stock from which all men came. That religion is a universal part of man's existence is undenied; that sacrifice is an element in this universal concept must be admitted. What was its origin?
We have but two alternatives. It was either revealed to man or he arrived at the concept by a process of his own reasoning. This last is assumed by the learned skeptics, who are divided into two groups, those who affirm that the idea of sacrifice originated in superstition and is an invention of credulous men; and those who assert that it is an offspring of the natural sentiments of the heart.
To the believer in God neither of these can come as satisfactory explanations. That sacrifice was not a product of man's philosophy based upon superstition is evident from the fact that God never approves as an act of worship directed unto him, that which he designates as will-worship. He instructs as follows: "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). He condemns as of no value those things which "have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement" (Col. 2:23). But God did approve religious sacrifices offered unto him. With reference to the first such sacrifice recorded, it is stated, "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering" (Gen. 4:4). Since God never accepted as an act of devotion to himself that which originated in the superstition of men, it is obvious that the offering of sacrifice was not a product or device of superstitious ignorance.
That the idea of sacrifice did not proceed from the natural emotions and sentiments is demonstrable by the fact that no one can conceive of a connected chain of ideas by which man could arrive at the notion that slitting the throat and burning the body of an innocent animal would expiate the sin of the one who did the killing. By what inductive or deductive reasoning could man arrive at such a conclusion? Reasoning consists of the act of combining two known facts in such a manner as to produce a third and new fact, called a conclusion. What would be the established major and minor premises by which mankind universally, and in diverse circumstances, would unanimously arrive at such a conclusion? Would we not rather expect the opposite result? Would not primitive man, guided solely by reason, be more likely to feel that one who sinned and then slew an innocent victim only added to his guilt by such action?
The ancient Greek philosophers who soared to the heights of logic confessed their utter astonishment at the prevalence of animal sacrifice and freely admitted they could not account for it upon any rational grounds. They agreed that man could not by any chain of thinking conclude that the practice would be pleasing to the Deity. If then, the idea of killing an innocent victim could not be discovered by the light of nature, or arrived at by logical thought processes, and since God would not accept what originated as mere superstition, but did accept, acknowledge and approve animal sacrifices, such sacrifices must have been by revelation of the divine mind.
The universality of sacrifice can be accounted for in the fact that all nations proceeded from the sons of Noah. "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood" (Gen. 10:32). Sacrifice was taught by their common ancestor. "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Gen. 8:20). But Noah only followed the practice of his antediluvian fathers.
The institution of sacrifice is not mentioned by Moses in his account of man's history. Abel was the first man of whom it is recorded that he offered a blood sacrifice. However, there may be an intimation that God taught Adam and Eve to slay animals in sacrifice for we read that "the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21). Animals were not used for food until after the flood (Gen. 9:3), yet they were divided into clean and unclean categories before this (Gen. 7:2). That this division was based upon use in sacrifices is shown by Genesis 8:20. It is possible then that God showed Adam how to inflict death upon the animal victims and clothed the original pair with the skins of these animals. The Hebrew term for "atonement" is copher and it means "to cover." Did God cover the nakedness and shame of Adam and his wife to indicate the purpose of sacrifice or atonement?
In Hebrews 11:4, we learn that "By faith Abel offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts." There are four important facts revealed here relating to Abel's sacrifice. (1) It was offered by faith, (2) It was acceptable to God, (3) Through it he received approval as righteous, (4) God accepted his gift, thus bearing witness of his approval in the divine favor. Would God accept as an act of religious exercise, approve as righteous one who performed the act, and bear witness to such righteousness by acceptance of gifts, in a matter which he had not authorized? Is it not an undeniable principle that divine authority is always essential to any acceptable worship?
Moreover, faith is the belief of testimony. Where there is no testimony there can be no faith. If Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice by faith, he must have acted upon testimony. But only the testimony of God could define what is acceptable as worship to God. "Faith comes by hearing the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). We are forced to the conclusion that the idea of sacrifice emanated from God, and was revealed to fallen man as a means of expiation for his sin, and a propitiation of God.
Sin produces death. That which expiates sin must be that which produces life. "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 makes atonement, by reason of the life" (Lev. 17:11). For this reason, "under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22). But an inferior cannot atone for a superior, so "it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). The sacrifices of ages past were but types and shadows of the one great sacrifice, of which it is written, "But when Christ had offered for all times a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12).
It was by virtue of this sacrifice that our Lord is frequently referred to as "the lamb of God." It was not because of his patience or humility, nor because of His life. He is called a lamb in respect to His death. His example of humility and his teaching could not expiate sin. Only by the shedding of blood could this be accomplished. When John the Immerser introduced Him it was as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). In Revelation, the writer says "I saw a Lamb standing as though it had been slain" (Rev. 5:6). In Him, priest and sacrifice met as one. "As it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' (Heb. 9:26). As we study the priesthood and sacrifices of yesteryear, let us do so with but one objective, a better understanding of the priesthood and sacrifice of Him who has introduced us to "a better hope by which we draw nigh to God." The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever (Heb. 7:23,24).