Completely Done Is Not Redone

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the Law.  They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.  For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”  (Heb 8:4-5)

So if the priesthood according to the Law also came to an end, and the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek offered sacrifice and made further sacrifices unnecessary, why do the priests of the New Covenant perform the sacramental liturgy?  It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer.  Rather we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice.  The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, “Do this in remembrance of me,” so that we should recall with insight the type of the sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor, and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come.

Theodoret of Cyrus, “The Epistle to the Hebrews”

Lamb of God So Pure and Spotless, Lamb of God for Sinners Slain

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.  For the law appoints men sin their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.  (Heb 7:27-28)

He mentioned two things which those granted the priesthood did not have: they made the sacred offerings unceasingly, and sacrificed for themselves, being also in their own persons sinners in being human.  People subject to sin do not enjoy such confidence in making offerings.  He, on the other hand, does neither—the one because he has no part in sin, and the other because the one sacrifice is adequate for salvation.  While they offered other sacrifices, he offered his own body, being priest and victim in his own person, and as God receiving the gift along with the Father and the Spirit.

Theodoret of Cyrus, “The Epistle to the Hebrews”

Perfect Sacrifices Require a Perfect Lamb and Priest: God Provided Both

On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
    a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
    of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

And he will swallow up on this mountain
    the covering that is cast over all peoples,
    the veil that is spread over all nations.

He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
    and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
    for the Lord has spoken.

It will be said on that day,
    “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
    This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
    let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”  (Isa 25:6-9)

This was the reason he likened not Christ the Lord to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Christ the Lord: one was a type of the other, and the other the realization of the type. [Heb 6:19-20]  In respect of the priesthood, of course, Melchizedek did not imitate Christ the Lord; rather, Christ the Lord is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.  Being a priest belongs to human being, whereas accepting offerings belongs to God.  Yet by becoming incarnate, the only-begotten son of God also became our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not by aggregating to himself the position but by concealing the divine status and accepting the lowly condition for the sake of our salvation.  This is why he was called lamb, sin, curse, way, door, and many other names like that.

Theodoret of Cyrus, “The Epistle to the Hebrews”

We Have Now Been Justified by His Blood

Let us then return from that table like lions breathing fire, having become terrible to the devil; thinking on our Head, and on the love which He has shown for us.…  Our Lord says: “But I feed you with My own flesh, desiring that you all be nobly born, and holding forth to you good hopes for the future.…  I have willed to become your Brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I give out to you the flesh and the blood by which I became your kinsman.”  This blood causes the image of our King to be fresh within us, produces beauty unspeakable, permits not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it.…  This blood, if rightly taken, drives away devils, and keeps them afar off from us, while it calls to us angels and the Lord of angels.  For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and angels run together.  This blood poured forth washed clean all the world.…  This blood cleansed the secret place, and the Holy of Holies.  And if the type of it had such great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and in the midst of Egypt, when smeared on the door-posts, much more the reality.  This blood sanctified the golden altar; without it the high priest dared not enter into the secret place.  This blood consecrated priests, this in type cleansed sins.  But if it had such power in the types, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality?  This blood [of Christ] is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causes our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold.  This blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible.

John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 46.3

Christ Is the One True Atoning Sacrifice

But in fact there has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews 10:4 teaches: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.  And a little after, of the will of Christ, Heb. 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  And Isaiah interprets the Law, in order that we may know that the death of Christ is truly a satisfaction for our sins, or expiation, and that the ceremonies of the Law are not; wherefore he says, Isa. 53:10: When you shall make His soul an offering for sin, He will see His seed, etc.  For the word employed here, asham, signifies a victim for transgression; which signified in the Law that a certain Victim was to come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile God, in order that men might know that God wishes to be reconciled to us, not on account of our own righteousnesses, but on account of the merits of another, namely, of Christ.  Paul interprets the same word asham as sin, Rom. 8:3: For sin, he condemned sin, i.e., He punished sin for sin, i.e., by a Victim for sin.… Isaiah and Paul, therefore, mean that Christ became a victim, i.e., an expiation, that by His merits, and not by our own, God might be reconciled.  Therefore let this remain established in the case, namely, that the death of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.  For the Levitical propitiatory sacrifices were so called only to signify a future expiation.  On account of a certain resemblance, therefore, they were satisfactions redeeming the righteousness of the Law, lest those persons who sinned should be excluded from the commonwealth.  But after the revelation of the Gospel they had to cease.  And because they had to cease in the revelation of the Gospel, they were not truly propitiatory, since the Gospel was promised for this very reason, namely, to set forth a propitiation.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV.22-24

Let Us Offer the Well-Pleasing Sacrifice

For see, we have our victim on high, our priest on high, our sacrifice on high: let us bring such sacrifices as can be offered on that altar, no longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and fat.  All these things have been done away; and there has been brought in their stead "the reasonable service." (Rom. 12:1)  But what is "the reasonable service?"  Those through the soul; those made through the spirit.  ("God," it is said, "is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"— John 6:24); things which have no need of a body, no need of instruments, nor of special places, wherein each one is himself the priest, such as, moderation, temperance, mercy, enduring ill-treatment, long-suffering, humbleness of mind.

These sacrifices one may see in the Old Testament also, shadowed out beforehand.

Offer to God a sacrifice of righteousness (Ps. 4:5)
Offer a sacrifice of praise (Ps. 50:14)
A sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me (Ps. 50:23)
The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit (Ps. 51:17)
What does the Lord require of you (Mic. 6:8) but to hearken to Him?
Burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure in: then I said, Lo I come to do your will, O God! (Ps. 40:6-7)
To what purpose do you bring the incense from Sheba? (Jer. 6:20)
Take away from me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your viols. (Amos 5:23)
I will have mercy and not sacrifice. (Hos 6:6)

You see with what kind of "sacrifices God is well pleased." (Hos. 13:16)  You see also that already from the first the one class have given place, and these have come in their stead.  These therefore let us bring….  And as much as a man is superior to a sheep, so much is this sacrifice superior to that; for here you offer your soul as a victim.

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 11.5

Getting into Shark-Infatuated Waters

Yes, the title is skewed—and intentionally so.  You see, there are many times when I wonder if well-meaning Christians really understand what they are saying.  Many times a sentence or phrase designed as a word to honor God will come out as a malapropism.  Consider the following sentence I overheard recently.

The greatest sacrifice is a contrite and broken spirit.

The Christian who shared this did so with honorable intent, trying to convey what King David understood in his prayer of repentance (Ps 51:17) and what YHWH told through Isaiah concerning himself (Is 57:15; 66:2).  The issue, then, is not the act of sacrifice nor the spiritual attitude of repentance but the superlative "greatest."

In normal English parlance, something is greatest when it exceeds all others in some measurable capacity.  That being the case, one might expect this descriptor to be assigned for a sacrifice like Solomon gave at the dedication of the temple (1 Ki 8:62-64) or to the widow who gave two copper coins (Mark 12:41-44).  Both gave comparatively abundant amounts out of their received blessings as they were able.

A contrite and broken spirit does not have this value.  That is akin to bragging about illustrious feats of humility.  We need to understand there is nothing to give, however great its worth.  No sacrifice, regardless of size or type, is sufficient to make amends for the guilt incurred.  All the repentant person can do is confess the sin and plead for mercy against whom the transgression has been committed, God himself, who has provided the necessary sacrifice for us—Jesus, who is fully God to meet the need and fully man to bear our sin and guilt.

What is great in Jesus' sacrifice is that it is sufficient for all.  We can do nothing to make up the lack for nothing is lacking.  His work on the cross deals with my sin and that daily I can return to the font of forgiveness according to the riches of God's grace.

Our Offerings: Exaltation or Excrement?

Man-made religious systems suffer from an ever-increasing depraved sense of what the being worshiped wants or needs with regard to offerings and sacrifices.  Arnobius addressed this problem as he attacked the sacrificial practice of the pagans.  Finally, he engages them with a reversal of roles.

Lo, if dogs—for a case must be imagined, in order that things may be seen more clearly—if dogs, I say, and asses, and along with them water-wagtails, if the twittering swallows, and pigs also, having acquired some of the feelings of men, were to think and suppose that you were gods, and to propose to offer sacrifices in your honor, not of other things and substances, but of those with which they are wont to be nourished and supported, according to their natural inclination,—we ask you to say whether you would consider this an honor, or rather a most outrageous affront, when the swallows slew and consecrated flies to you, the water-wagtails ants; when the asses put hay upon your altars, and poured out libations of chaff; when the dogs placed bones, and burned human excrement* at your shrines; when, lastly, the pigs poured out before you a horrid mess, taken from their frightful hog-pools and filthy maws?

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.1

The apologist wants to help these worshipers understand that just as animals might bring something pleasing to themselves but disgusting to humankind, the pagans' reaction would be anger and revulsion.  This is only logical since the true intent of the sacrifice is to please self, not the supposed recipient who would consider the offering unpalatable and noxious.

Would you not in this case, then, be inflamed with rage that your greatness was treated with contumely, and account it an atrocious wrong that you were greeted with filth?  But, you reply, you honor the gods with the carcasses of bulls, and by the slaughter of other living creatures.  And in what respect does this differ from that, since these sacrifices, also, if they are not yet, will nevertheless soon be, dung, and will become rotten after a very short time has passed?  Finally, cease to place fire upon† your altars, then indeed you will see that consecrated flesh of bulls, with which you magnify the honor of the gods, swelling and heaving with worms, tainting and corrupting the atmosphere, and infecting the neighboring districts with unwholesome smells.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.2

If the gods to whom this supposed feast of meats and foods turned the tables and insisted the worshiper eat first, the truth of the slop and refuse offered would be manifest as the worshiper runs for cover and repents for daring to be so careless.

Now, if the gods were to enjoin you to turn these things your own account, to prepare luncheons and dinners from them‡ in the usual way; you would flee to a distance, and, execrating the smell, would beg pardon from the gods, and bind yourselves by oath never again to offer such sacrifices to them.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.3

How has the Lord's people fared in this regard?  Before giving the Law, God made definite statements concerning sacrifices.§  Then on Sinai, he specified exacting requirements to Moses in the Levitical code for offerings to be considered acceptable.  Failure to adhere could and did have devastating results as in the fate of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2).  Even seemingly minor infractions tangentially related incurred God's discipline (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chr 13:9-10) in order to reinforce that God's things are to be regarded as holy.  After these strict and striking examples, the elect maintained proper reverence for a certain amount of time, though the fervor waned.  The latent sin nature worked and worshipers grew lax and began to divert from what they had been taught.  Eventually, apathy set in.  The people either sought after other gods or approached the true God with unsuitable sacrifices.

God exposes the hypocrisy shown by the latter who know the truth but are apathetic.  Through the prophet Malachi (1:6-8) he speaks:

A son honors his father, and a servant his master.  If then I am a father, where is my honor?  And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name.  But you say, “How have we despised your name?”  By offering polluted food upon my altar.  But you say, “How have we polluted you?”  By saying that the Lord’s table may be despised.  When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil?  And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts.”

Someone will remark, “Surely Christians do a better job of this.  We have the abiding Holy Spirit.”  Such is not the case.  Notable examples of Christians acting in unholy ways have resulted in death and sickness (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 11:29-20; 1 John 5:16).  The lack of similar instances serves more to demonstrate the Father's tender mercies than any idea of increasing levels of goodness in the elect.

Care is be exercised when seeking the Lord's presence in worshiping him.  God holds his name in high esteem.  What is practiced, whether or not planned and performed in sincerity, must accord with those things revealed about himself.  This takes humble, yet dedicated, effort, but not doing so reveals that we have no regard for who he is.  To that end I leave the final remarks—again given to Malachi (1:9-14):

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering.  For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.  But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised.  But you say, “What a weariness this is,” and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering!  Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD.  Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished.  For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.

* Compare Arnobius' satirical device to the divine commands in Exodus 29:13-14.
† Lit., “under,” i.e., under the sacrifices on your altars.
‡ I.e., from the putrefying carcasses.
§ See Job 42:8.

On Appeasing God(s)

We have next to examine the argument … that sacrifices are offered to the gods of heaven for this purpose, that they may lay aside their anger and passions, and may be restored to a calm and placid tranquility, the indignation of their fiery spirits being assuaged.  And if we remember the definition which we should always bear steadily in mind, that all agitating feelings are unknown to the gods, the consequence is, a belief that the gods are never angry; nay, rather, that no passion is further from them than that which, approaching most nearly to the spirit of wild beasts and savage creatures, agitates those who suffer it with tempestuous feelings, and brings them into danger of destruction.  For whatever is harassed by any kind of disturbance, is, it is clear, capable of suffering, and frail; that which has been subjected to suffering and frailty must be mortal; but anger harasses and destroys those who are subject to it: therefore that should be called mortal which has been made subject to the emotions of anger.  But yet we know that the gods should be never-dying, and should possess an immortal nature; and if this is clear and certain, anger has been separated far from them and from their state.  On no ground, then, is it fitting to wish to appease that in the gods above which you see cannot suit their blessed state.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 5

In this chapter Arnobius contends that because deities are impassible, they are not subject to anger—perceived to be an animalistic, self-destructive emotion—and therefore do not need sacrifices to appease them.  The reader may wonder whether he has overstepped at this point since the covenant-keeping God of the Bible is described as expressing both anger and wrath.

The pantheon Arnobius addressed had as a common characteristic a propensity for unbridled, emotional responses.  In many cases the humans interwoven in the tales had more self-control than the deity involved.  He argues that true gods will not be so capricious as those being worshiped in his world and not the quick, oft-given sacrifices to curry favor.  Stability grounded in core principles is obvious for society and should be even more so among those overseeing the created order.  A true god would be more like the Supreme, Almighty God in this manner of whom it is attested:

God is not man, that he should lie,
        or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
        Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?  (Num 23:19)

For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.  (Mal 3:6)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.  (Jas 1:17)

Since both scripture and argumentation presented here claim God's impassibility, how can Paul and the other biblical writers plainly teach plainly thus seemingly controverted need for propitiation?  An examination of anger and wrath in the Bible demonstrates how these pertain to the Godhead.

Anger
This attribute is a response based on something done or said by another and being communicable to mankind is similar to our emotion.  The difference lies in the basis and measure of anger since we tend toward sinful use and God couples it perfectly with divine patience.

And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes, and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.  (Num 11:1)

But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel.  (Jos 7:1)

And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings and used divination and omens and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.  (2 Ki 17:17)

And he burned his son as an offering and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.  (2 Ki 21:6)

Each of the above was a response to specific sins of which the Lord had given instruction and resulted in just discipline directed toward the offenders.  Even then the degree of punishment meted out, though sufficient for correction, but did not fully satisfy the extent to which the people deserved punishment as a stiff-necked people.  This is a much different attitude than was told of the pagan gods who were to have taken vengeance on whole nations for minor infractions.

Wrath
Divine wrath is different from anger in that it is

His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness.  It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil.  It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin.  It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers.¹

Wrath runs deeper and broader than anger addressing the whole of what a sinful nature does in and through the person rather a single instance.  God reserves wrath until his patience runs out when, because of great indignation against sin, he executes judgment.  Again, this is executed within the parameters of God's justice, and because the offense is beyond the measure of any being, the fullness of judgment is brought to bear on the one to whom it is due.

Propitiation
In order to avert the just execution of wrath, a sufficient sacrifice is necessary.²  Christ as that sufficient propitiation in his work on the cross (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17).  J. I. Packer explains well:

The wrath of God against us, both present and to come, has been quenched.  How was this effected?  Through the death of Christ.… The 'blood'—that is, the sacrificial death—of Jesus Christ abolished God’s anger against us, and ensured that His treatment of us for ever after would be propitious and favorable.³

The sacrifice of Jesus dealt with all righteous requirements of a holy, eternal God and was not given to influence a fickle deity but satisfy forever the greatest need of mankind.  And what of those who reject what God has so richly provided?

The wrath of God on the wicked is great.  Men deserve it.  And there is no escaping it.… Those who chose to reject the sacrifice of Christ for their sins must now be judged according to their works.  It is a terrible fate, but one which sinners richly deserve.⁴

Conclusion
Arnobius was correct to question the need to appease gods who were emotionally erratic.  The constant need for sacrifices to influence divine behavior was folly and undeserved.  In comparison, the one true God was aggrieved to an infinite degree by virtue of Adam's sin and provided himself as the only sufficient sacrifice to cover and remove sin and its effects.


¹ A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God, (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications, 1968 [Reprint]), p. 75.
² See my post on Bloody Sacrifices for more on this.
³ J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), p. 165.
⁴ Bob Deffinbaugh, The Wrath of God, accessed online at http://bible.org/seriespage/wrath-god.

Bloody Sacrifices

One of the objections laid against orthodox Christianity is the concept of a loving father sending his innocent son to suffer and die for the guilt of others.  Men make every effort to deconstruct the plain reading of scripture and restate the narrative in a way that removes the scandal of the cross.  Why?  Such a sacrifice is abhorrent.  Justice demands that the guilty should pay for his or her own transgressions.  For someone or something to die as a substitute for wrongdoing runs counter to our thinking.  Why should a living thing shed its blood for my behalf?  In the following from his work against pagans, Arnobius takes up a similar argument that bears some investigation.

And can any man persuade himself that the gods become mild as they are exhilarated by pleasures, that they long for sensual enjoyment, and, like some base creatures, are affected by agreeable sensations, and charmed and tickled for the moment by a pleasantness which soon passes away?

But the gods should be free from both passions, if we would have them to be everlasting, and freed from the weakness of mortals.  Moreover, every pleasure is, as it were, a kind of flattery of the body, and is addressed to the five well-known senses; but if the gods above feel it, they must partake also of those bodies through which there is a way to the senses, and a door by which to receive pleasures.  Lastly, what pleasure is it to take delight in the slaughter of harmless creatures, to have the ears ringing often with their piteous bellowings, to see rivers of blood, the life fleeing away with the blood, and the secret parts having been laid open, not only the intestines to protrude with the excrements, but also the heart still bounding with the life left in it, and the trembling, palpitating veins in the viscera?  We half-savage men, nay rather,—to say with more candor what it is truer and more candid to say,—we savages, whom unhappy necessity and bad habit have trained to take these as food, are sometimes moved with pity for them; we ourselves accuse and condemn ourselves when the thing is seen and looked into thoroughly, because, neglecting the law which is binding on men, we have broken through the bonds which naturally united us at the beginning.

Will any one believe that the gods, who are kind, beneficent, gentle, are delighted and filled with joy by the slaughter of cattle, if ever they fall and expire pitiably before their altars?  And there is no cause, then, for pleasure in sacrifices, as we see, nor is there a reason why they should be offered, since there is no pleasure afforded by them; and if perchance there is some, it has been shown that it cannot in any way belong to the gods.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 4

A cursory reading has the writer castigating the practice of bloody sacrifice as unnecessary since any divine being would not be given to pleasure by the slaughter of these beasts.  He argues strongly that deity is impassible and that these offerings are not compatible with that high character.  That begs the question: Does the God Arnobius confesses desire such sacrifices?  And what of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Why sacrifices?
The first step is to establish why someone would feel the need to offer a sacrifice.  There is within mankind an understanding that a gap exists between a person who is a corporeal entity and the incorporeal deity.  A gap exists either because of shortcomings or just the inadequacy of ability in communicating from one level of existence to the other.  In either case, something must bridge the chasm in order for interaction to occur.

The Bible tells us that there was originally fellowship between God and man—as much closeness in a relationship as is possible between the Creator and his creation.  This was ruined by man's disobedience, and the sin resulted in a chasm (Gen 3:17-24).  While no animal sacrifice was required, they were given from earliest times.  The earliest recorded came from Abel who gave of the flock which was accepted (Gen 4:4).

While the early sacrifices were useful in approaching God, man still lacked basic knowledge of how short he came in his attempts and what was needed to ease the situation.  Through Moses was communicated the Lord's holy character and his expectation of a holy people.  Because of the sin nature within every one of his people, God also gave stipulations for the sacrifices needed to atone for those sins, because

the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.  (Lev 17:11)

A life was required in order to deal with sin.  Since the Lord so valued human life (see Gen 1:26; 2:7) above animal life, the blood of specific livestock was offered in a prescribed manner as a substitute for the individual or nation.

Something Better
God has said in his word that there is something he desires above sacrifice.

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
        as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
        and to listen than the fat of rams.  (1 Sam 15:22)

Sacrifice and offering you have not desired,
        but you have given me an open ear.
Burnt offering and sin offering
        you have not required.
Then I said, "Behold, I have come;
        in the scroll of the book it is written of me:
I desire to do your will, O my God;
        your law is within my heart."  (Psa 40:6-8)

What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
        says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
        and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
        or of lambs, or of goats.
                                . . .
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
        remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil, learn to do good;
        seek justice, correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
        plead the widow’s cause.  (Isa 1:11, 16-17)

The sacrificial system was installed because of sin, but what God wanted more than anything else was obedience.  Continual sacrifices were a measure to cover sin for a time but never completely dealt with the issue.  Something more was required to deal with all sin forever.

Ultimate Answer
Because man had sinned, a man had to deal with the problem, but nobody was sufficient to the task.  To deal with the shortcoming, God himself stepped into this world as fully man, yet remaining fully God.  As man, he could represent us to pay the debt of his own precious blood.  As God, the sacrifice was of infinite worth and power to cover all sin.  None more were required (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 9:26; 10:10).  The bloody sacrifice that was not needed by man in the beginning or wanted by God, but given by necessity, is now completed for all time, so that if we but trust in Jesus' finished work on the cross, we might walk in newness of life as new creations in Christ.