Why did God prevent Herod from killing baby Jesus?
If we reduce the atonement to such a primitive, isolated transaction (as I believe PS does), there is no reason why the atonement would not “work” had Jesus died death by another means.
So why the cross? Why not just let Herod slaughter Jesus as a baby? If God just needed the death of someone who didn’t owe him death, than there’s no reason to stop the death of baby Jesus.
.. if God is unable to forgive us without a blood sacrifice to cover our sin, it once again makes no sense that Jesus freely forgave people on the basis of faith alone.
Blood Sacrifices? But God Didn’t Even Like Blood Sacrifices!
God never even liked blood sacrifices!
As David recognized in the book of Psalms:
“You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.” Psalm 51:17
Here we see that, regardless of the sacrificial system prescribed by the Law of Moses, God took no delight or pleasure in sacrifices. God didn’t want them. While these sacrifices may have been a useful object lesson to the people, they were not something that he desired. In Hosea 6:6 God reminds his people of this:
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6
Furthermore, in the book of Matthew, we see Jesus confront the religious leaders and he tells them: “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:13) Thus, Jesus also affirmed that sacrifice was not something God desired.
The book of Hebrews goes on to critique the sacrificial system, arguing that it never even worked, and had absolutely no power to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4&11). The anonymous author also goes on to repeat the fact (by quoting Jesus) saying sacrifices were done according to the Law, even though God did not delight in them (Ch 10 v 8).
Europe’s Famed Bog Bodies Are Starting to Reveal Their Secrets
High-tech tools divulge new information about the mysterious and violent fates met by these corpses
.. Scholars tend to agree that Tollund Man’s killing was some kind of ritual sacrifice to the gods—perhaps a fertility offering. To the people who put him there, a bog was a special place. While most of Northern Europe lay under a thick canopy of forest, bogs did not. Half earth, half water and open to the heavens, they were borderlands to the beyond. To these people, will-o’-the-wisps—flickering ghostly lights that recede when approached—weren’t the effects of swamp gas caused by rotting vegetation. They were fairies. The thinking goes that Tollund Man’s tomb may have been meant to ensure a kind of soggy immortality for the sacrificial object.
Human Sacrifice As a Tool of Social Control
New research suggests why some cultures turned to killing their own
Anthropologists have suggested that human sacrifice gave emotional power to group values and provided a collective catharsis during crises. There were other advantages, too. The Aztecs, who sacrificed for many different reasons, also practiced cannibalism, with victims serving as a source of protein. And then there’s the “social control hypothesis,” which posits that human sacrifice served to subordinate the lower classes.
.. They categorized each culture according to whether there was human sacrifice and whether it was egalitarian
.. They categorized each culture according to whether there was human sacrifice and whether it was egalitarian
.. The researchers found that human sacrifice was widespread in Austronesia, occurring in 25% of egalitarian cultures, 37% of moderately stratified societies and a whopping 67% of highly stratified cultures.
.. It made them significantly less likely to turn in an egalitarian direction and significantly more likely to become more hierarchical. In other words, the ritualistic sacrificing of humans seems to have stabilized and deepened social inequalities.
.. Don’t cause trouble, or yours may be the heart that the gods just happen to pick as a pleasing gift at the next ceremony.