Animal Sacrifice

One of the more peculiar aspects of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the animal sacrifice. It should remind modern dwellers that the roots of their ethical belief system date back to Bronze Age superstition and absurd myth. Most importantly, animal sacrifice has not been discredited by these religions. In Christianity it has simply been superseded by Christ's sacrifice and made obsolete.

Judaism never really gave up the concept of animal sacrifices although many of the biblical prophets seemed to object to the practice. However; the priestly class of Jews believed they were commanded in the Torah to make their sacrifices, and make them in only a specific place designated by God (Deut. 12:4-6). In ancient Israel that place was the Temple. Once the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 there was no longer a place acceptable to God for animal sacrifices. Presumably if the Temple is rebuilt cattle and sheep will once again find Jerusalem a very deadly city.

The concept of an animal sacrifice makes very little sense in the modern world for the simple reason that it is nonsensical by its very nature. The only way an animal sacrifice makes any sense is if the animal's carcass is allowed to rot on the alter after its death. In this way something is truly being sacrificed by the animal's owner. The shepherd was supposed to take his first born, purest (and presumably best) animal and offer it to God. This is a sacrifice: Giving something and not getting anything in return. However; after the ritual slaughter and the draining of the blood, the meat was given back to the owner so he and his family and friends could enjoy a great dinner and kabobs the follow week. The only one really doing any sacrificing was the animal itself, giving up its life with nothing in return. For the Jews, the Temple was just a sophisticated Kosher deli.

Christianity's departure from Judaism on this matter has two possible explanations. The first, as noted earlier, is that Christ's death was the sacrifice given by God and no further sacrifices are necessary. The second explanation has more far reaching implications. When Jesus entered the Temple in the last days of his life it is recorded in the Gospels that he overturned the tables of the money changers and made a general ruckus. He was obviously displeased with the activities taking place on the Temple grounds. However; what these money changers were actually doing was selling animals for sacrifice. Since it was impractical to bring a sheep 200 miles to be slaughtered the Temple authorities had a workable alternative. One could purchase an animal on the premises from their stock of "pure" animals. The currency exchange business facilitated the buying and selling of these animals. If Jesus found this offensive, he must have disapproved of the process of animal sacrifice. It is certainly not recorded in any of the Gospels that Jesus brought his own lamb with him so he must have given up on the whole concept. If this was the case it would have made Jesus a very dangerous man to the Jewish authorities. Only Priests could offer sacrifices for redemption. Without this mediation the people would be separated from God. It is understandable that they would object to an idea that removed a huge component of their power. A direct parallel to this can be found in the Buddhist separation from Hinduism. Buddhists denounced animal sacrifices, believing that killing sentient creatures was in direct opposition to their concept of the spiritual world. This put them in direct opposition to the powers of the Brahman priestly class. Persecution of the Buddhists soon followed.

As recently as 1993 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right of people to offer animal sacrifices and the practice continues among certain religious sects such as Santeria, which was the focus of the court case. If ever the was an example of how primitive and absurd these bronze age religious faiths are, offering to kill an animal in order to please and worship God seems to be the one.