More significantly, the partial foreshadowing of Christ's oblation in
animal sacrifice set up the void in which his sacrifice could exist by revealing the distance between the earlier attempts at sacrifice and their fulfillment at Calvary.
Not exact matches
After being cooped up for a year in tiny cages, the
animals were once again
set free, except for those that were immediately
sacrificed to make God happy.
Then, because God had already shown them the «right» way, He pulled Cain up on his «non-blood» vegetable offering as not doing what is «right», as it wasn't shedding the blood of an
animal (which was essentially a type and shadow of Christ's
sacrifice, as well as being the pattern already
set by God in front of Adam and Eve in the Garden).
The firstborn
animals were to be
sacrificed to the Lord, and the firstborn males were to be
set apart for life - long service of the Lord (Ex.
So first the
animal sacrifices were
set up so we could feel better about ourselves then he presented the only
sacrifice that can save us, Christ.
No theory of the way in which vicarious
sacrifice operates to redeem mankind was explicitly
set forth; current forms of thought, such as those associated with
animal sacrifices (E.g., Hebrews, chaps.
If, for instance, you were to condemn a religion of human or
animal sacrifices by virtue of your subjective sentiments, and if all the while a deity were really there demanding such
sacrifices, you would be making a theoretical mistake by tacitly assuming that the deity must be non-existent; you would be
setting up a theology of your own as much as if you were a scholastic philosopher.