Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Sound Faith / Not Worth Dividing For Part 2 - Atonement Questions Answered - THF Q&A With David Bercot
Watch Full Video
Question 3
The speaker says, “God didn't personally gain anything from these sacrifices” (Isaiah 1:11) and rejects the idea that God “thirsts for blood”; what does this imply about God’s relationship to violence and ritual, and how should it shape the way Christians speak about “blood” and “payment” in worship and evangelism?
Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
He is arguing that God is not pleased by violence or ritual blood itself, and sacrifices were not for God’s enjoyment or need but for human benefit—reminder, instruction, and foreshadowing Christ. Therefore Christians should speak of “blood” less as a payment demanded by God and more as the cleansing power God provides in Christ.

Support from Transcript:
  • He quotes Isaiah 1:11 where God says he has “had enough” and “do[es] not delight in the blood of bulls… or goats,” concluding God “didn’t personally gain anything.”
  • He warns against imagining God received “appeasement or vicarious enjoyment” from animal sacrifices.
  • He says OT blood “did not take away anyone’s sins” and cites Hebrews 10:4: “not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.”
  • He explicitly states: “So we don't have a God who thirsts for blood.”
  • He reframes blood language: “In reality, the only blood that cleanses from sin is the blood of Jesus Christ.”
  • He rejects payment/ledger framing: Christ’s blood “doesn't change the ledgers of heaven… Rather, Christ's blood cleanses us.”
Discussion Follow-ups When you say “Jesus paid it all,” do you mean a legal transaction or real cleansing? How might evangelism sound different if the emphasis is healing/cleansing rather than appeasement/payment?
Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Previous All Questions Next