To have propitiation made for their sins, they did have to place the blame on an animal. That does not, however, indicate that the act of the sacrifice saved people; it was the understanding of why the sacrifice needed to be made that was more important. The animal simply bridges a bit of the gap. My view of the animal sacrifices is that it mattered little the physical act if your heart wasn't right--I highly doubt, for example, that Hophni and Phinehas were made right with God by their sacrifices, considering their moral corruption. And then there's the fact that there were entire periods when Israel was morally corrupt, but still went on with their rituals, and God calls such behavior in Isaiah 66:3 an abomation. So God did allow the animal to be essentially a scapegoat (not to be confused with an actual scapegoat) and be the victim for the people's sins, but that does not mean that they were made right with God.Margaret Thatcher wrote:So you're saying you could have been saved, in the Old Testament without sacrificing animals?
I think that additionally, the animal sacrifices served as an important reminder of what had to be done for the forgiveness of sins; as Hebrews 9:22 points out, under the law there was no remission of sins without bloodshed. Something that was pure and undefiled had to be slaughtered in order for sins to be ultimately paid for. The fact that they had to do this over and over again represents the burden that sin places on those affected by it, including creation. But I don't believe that they were actively justified by their works or their sacrifices; they were justified by their commitment to God. As I recall, Hebrews 11 doesn't say things like "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the prophets, and the good kings all had faith in God and they made super awesome sacrifices"; it specifically mentions that "without faith it is impossible to please him". It talks about their faith and their faith alone making them righteous. (The passage does reference Abel making a better sacrifice than Cain out of faith to God, but therein lies the tale--it was because of his faith that his sacrifice was even considered worthy in the first place.)
I think I'm understanding what you mean here--yes, God counted the sins toward the animal just as He counted all of the sins toward Christ. So yes, the sins were forgiven through the sacrifice, just as they were forgiven through Christ. But in both cases, it's not enough that your sins have been forgiven; you have to be active in that forgiveness and develop a personal relationship with God. That's what I mean when I say "sacrifices save no one"--it's not that there was nothing at all to the sacrifices; what I mean when I say that is that no one was actively justified through them--it's not like, "I made a sacrifice, so I'm clean with God". It was a matter of the sins being transferred to the animal and then the Israelites actively repenting from their sins. This is applicable to us in the same manner--a non-Christian is not justified or made righteous just by the fact that Jesus died; they have to actively begin to develop a trusting relationship with God.Margaret Thatcher wrote:Why did Christ have to die as a sacrifice to bear all the sin? If it was just to line up symbolically with the sacrifices of the Old Testament then it seems silly if there's nothing deeper to the OT sacrifices.
The New Covenant, the one that declares the law--the original, God-given one--to be a burden and tells us that we have been set free in Christ--not to do whatever we want, but to obey him without the need for the excessive ritualism.Margaret Thatcher wrote:what should our code of law be based on today then?