Board index ‹ Jesus

[Explorer]

How is it considered a sacrifice if God knew he would raise himself from the dead. To me, if you sacrifice something, it is gone, no getting it back. The fact that God already knew that he was going to raise himself from the dead, implies that there was no real sacrifice.

A similar analogy would be, I would not be "donating" money if I knew the person I donated it to was going to give it back in 3 days. It would be a loan...

The impermanence of the situation voids the justification of calling it a "sacrifice".

[SES]

Sacrifice doesn't mean, in the OT, a loss but a covering.

Christ’s atoning death must be seen against the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Before Christ’s atoning death it was necessary for sacrifices to be regularly offered to compensate for the sins that had been committed. These sacrifices were necessary, not to work a reformation in the sinner nor to deter the sinner or others from committing further sin, but to atone for the sin, which inherently deserved punishment. There had been offense against God’s law and hence against God himself, and this had to be set right.

The ‬Hebrew ‬word ‬most ‬commonly ‬used ‬in ‬the ‬Old ‬Testament ‬for ‬the ‬various ‬types ‬of ‬atonement literally means “‬to cover.‭” ‬One was delivered from punishment by the interposing of something between one’s sin and God. God then saw the atoning sacrifice rather than the sin. The covering of the sin meant that the penalty no longer had to be exacted from the sinner.

Simply put, a sacrifice was offered as a substitute for the sinner. It bore the sinner’s guilt.

So, Jesus Christ's sacrifice was that of standing in our stead, in our place, so God's wrath would be upon him and not us. So sacrifice is not about loss, is is about us being "covered".

[jimwalton]

Resurrection didn't nullify the sacrifice. Flogging and crucifixion were horrific tortures. Flogging is said to have been an unparalleled brutality. Texts report that often bones or entrails were hanging out by the end of flogging. Many reputedly died from the flogging and never made it to the crucifixion. Crucifixion, on top of that—unspeakable. You think this was not a sacrifice? Would you volunteer for it if it was so insignificant (even if you'd be OK three days later)?

A soldier goes into battle and gets killed. He sacrificed his life for his country. But let's say they medivac his body out of there, work on him in the chopper and get his heart beating again, get him into surgery and fix him, then he didn't make a sacrifice for his country, he just lost some time?

Theologically the difference is that the point of sacrifice is the gift and the dedication, not the perpetual cessation. While sacrifice was often to the death (rather than just "to the pain"), it was not always the case. There were grain sacrifices, and sacrifices where a goat was sent into the desert, for example. Because Jesus sacrificed his life and took it up again in 3 days doesn't mean the sacrifice was neither real nor illegitimate for the purpose at hand.

[Explorer]

> Resurrection didn't nullify the sacrifice. Flogging and crucifixion were horrific tortures. Flogging is said to have been an unparalleled brutality. Texts report that often bones or entrails were hanging out by the end of flogging. Many reputedly died from the flogging and never made it to the crucifixion. Crucifixion, on top of that—unspeakable. You think this was not a sacrifice? Would you volunteer for it if it was so insignificant (even if you'd be OK three days later)?

No I don't, and highlighting things like "often" bones and entrails were hanging out doesn't actually give credence to the notion. Unless you can actually demonstrate that was they case for Jesus. There are many examples from a wide variety of different cult or religious beliefs where their adherents go into a "frenzied" self-flagellation with whips that often have spikes or blades on the end.

I am sure there would be many religious fanatics (particular those that you see doing self-flagellation) that would volunteer themselves as a symbol for their religion if they were told of resurrection 3 days later. People have died for their beliefs before.

> A soldier goes into battle and gets killed. He sacrificed his life for his country. But let's say they medivac his body out of there, work on him in the chopper and get his heart beating again, get him into surgery and fix him, then he didn't make a sacrifice for his country, he just lost some time?

There is a difference between going to war with the potential (likelihood) of dying and the chance of not dying. It would be fair to say that most soldiers who went to war, did not go because they wanted to die, if they could choose, they wouldn't die. But how many would be "okay" to go if the promise of being raised from the dead 3 days later? In that case indeed it is time sacrificed.

> Theologically the difference is that the point of sacrifice is the gift and the dedication, not the perpetual cessation. While sacrifice was often to the death (rather than just "to the pain"), it was not always the case.

Not true, before the Jesus saga, regular permanent animal sacrifices (sacrificial lamb) were done in order to atone for sin, these were usually burnt. None of these (as far as we know) came back from the dead, so indeed it was a clear-cut sacrifice.

I am saying that calling the Jesus "sacrifice" is not really a sacrifice because the point of it, as basically all Christians I know would say, "he gave his only son for your sins" but really now? He came back 3 days later and on top of that, God (and thus Jesus) already KNEW that was going to happen, so tell me where the sacrifice is again? Feeling terrible pain for an afternoon? (Children with cancer would argue against that) or losing 3 days?

[jimwalton]

The problem is that you are regarding the sacrifice from an emotional standpoint, but theologically the sacrifice is the fulfillment of a legal obligation. Sin created an imbalance (a debit) that had to be righted. Jesus' payment (his death on the cross) deposited a credit that balanced the ledgers. The sacrifice was inherent in the blood shed and in Jesus dead, not in the agony or the duration. Atonement was achieved based on several truths:

- The blood of an innocent was shed as a substitution. Theologically the sins of the world were placed on him so that he represented them positionally. He became the sinner, and his death was vicarious.
- Jesus died on the cross. It legally fit the requirements of sacrifice. The time spent in the grave and the subsequent resurrection don't nullify the reality of actual vicarious death with the sins of the world on him.

You're getting tied up in the physical and emotional aspects and missing the legal and theological aspects of Jesus' death.

Suppose I owe you $500. I give it to you on Friday. Debt is paid, right? Suppose then on Sunday you choose to give it back to me. Debt is still paid. I met my obligation, you accepted it. What happens 48 hours later doesn't negate the legitimacy of the transaction. You can argue all you want about "Well, it wasn't much of a hardship for you. You got the money back 48 hours later." So what? I fulfilled my legal obligation, end of story.