2.d. The Serpent's Lies and Murders
At the risk of sounding redundant and beating a dead horse, we will further consider what Paul says from another angle to help support the claims being made in this section. Paul says the following: "But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse" (1 Corinthians 8:8). This is understood to mean that what we eat doesn't matter to God. It won't kill you to eat it. Just be careful nobody who would take offense sees you. These are the same lies as told by the serpent in Eden.
In Genesis 2:16,17, we read an explicit command: "15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The very first test of mankind was a test of diet--eat this, not that. Mankind failed that test the first time, plunging all of creation into an abysmal, eternal darkness called death by sin. At this moment in the analysis, we can say with confidence that irregardless of what exactly was eaten, Paul's thesis is wrong! Food does commend us to God. The kingdom of God is "meats and drinks."
Continuing with our analysis, we see explicit command in Genesis 1:29 and what The Creator's will is: herbs only. GOD commands mankind to abstain from eating meat in the Garden. He prescribed a meatless diet. Remember that Paul said whoever teaches to abstain from meat is "teaching doctrines of demons." The Pharisee slithers and blasphemes. The temptation to eat what was forbidden came from the serpent, who deceived her into thinking that eating something different than already prescribed by God wouldn't kill her. But upon eating that which wasn't on the menu, she partook of death, inherited a curse, and realized what good and evil was, and died herself. Adam fell likewise. They had not known death, or murder, otherwise. To hide from God, they attempted to use vegetation to cover themselves. But as a punishment for their disobedience, God clothed them in animal skin, emphasizing the fact that they were "made to wear their guilt and shame." But where did the skin come from? The usual response is that GOD killed the animal and clothed them with the skin, "symbolizing the first sacrifice for atonement." I contend that the animal was already slaughtered by the Serpent and was being eaten by the Serpent. Recall Peter's analysis in the Homilies regarding sacrifices?
Homily 3
Chapter 18:
“But God is not pleased with the sacrifices of the law. For the sacrifices are flesh, and the offering of these is the consumption of the body and the destruction of the soul.”
Chapter 26:
“They think that they sacrifice to God those victims which He neither needs nor wishes, slaying His dumb creatures, to the torment of their souls and the defilement of their flesh.”
“For in the beginning, eating meat was not ordained; for in the Paradise of delight, there was no slaughter of animals, nor eating of flesh, but only the fruits of trees.”
In harmony with what we read in Genesis, Peter's insights reveal the impossibility of God being responsible for killing the first animal. And why would he? Allegedly for "atonement." But this isn't the essential function of sacrifice. To be sure, we should define the word "sacrifice." We find the following:
In this Psalm, we find a clear definition of acceptable sacrifice and then also an interpolation. Here, we see David mourning over his sin of fornication and murder. Hear his plea: "15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise." This reads like Psalm 50:14,15,23, does it not? In verse16 and 17 we read, "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." The Creator isn't interested in a feast of flesh-meats "sacrifice"--he is interested in the true sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, and repentance from the heart. Here we find what "burnt-offerings and sacrifices" God "will not reprove" in Psalm 50:8--the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart.
As to the "interpolation" in Psalm 51, we find verses 18 and 19 don't belong. They read as follows: "Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar." This does appear to be a positive endorsement of ritual blood sacrifice. But the reason this can't be the case is based on two facts: 1) David says just prior to these statements that God doesn't desire sacrifice or burnt offerings but rather a broken and contrite heart, and 2) at the time David pens this Psalm, the walls of Jerusalem are built, and the temple "in operation." How then could it make sense for David to ask God to build the walls in order to then accept such sacrifices? The conclusion that seems the most obvious is that these verses are later insertions and are post-exilic. This explains the obvious contradiction and disjointedness. Therefore, the true and proper ending to Psalm 51 is with the declaration that God doesn't require literal slaughtered burnt offerings of animals but rather a sincerely repentant heart.
There is further proof. Do we recall what Prophet Isaiah said in Chapter 66 verse 3? “He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.” These "sacrifices" are despised as opposed to the true sacrifices which God will not despise: a broken and contrite heart. What does Jesus say about an eye for an eye? He says, quoting Prophet Hosea, "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy not sacrifice'" (Hosea 6:6). Put another way, Jesus said, "I desire mercy, not the slaughtering of an animal for food." This echoes the message of all previous faithful Prophets (See these for more examples: Amos 4:4; 5:25-27; Ecclesiastes 5:1; Hosea 4:17-19; 6:5-8; 8:11-14; 9:4; 11:1,2; 12:11; Isaiah 1:11-16; 43:23-24; 66:1-4; Jeremiah 6:19,20; 7:21-24; John 4:21-24; 1 Samuel 15:21-23; Proverb 15:8; 17:1; 21:3,27; Psalm 4:5-6; 27:6; 40:6; 50:9-17)!
If God doesn't require ritual animal blood sacrifice, which is for food, then who does? Who would be the source of such an idea? Let's ask: Who is the first murderer and liar according to Jesus? That old devil, the serpent. What was the first lie? "If you eat this, you won't surely die." Too leading? Let's step back and ask: What were they allowed to eat? What, therefore, weren't they allowed to eat? WHAT WENT WRONG? Paul, like the Serpent, gives license to kill and eat what God has clearly forbidden, not just in Genesis 1:29 but also in Acts 15:20. Like the Serpent, Paul's license is keeping many in a state of death and rebellion.