Board index ‹ Jesus

[Dude]

I understand the symbolism of it wiping all sin and allowing a new way of repentance that forgoes the killing of an animal, but why exactly was it a sacrifice.

Yeah he felt a great deal of pain, but it went away and hasn’t been felt for 2 millennia. I would argue other figures in history have felt similar amounts of pain.

He bore all the sin but he still went to heaven. He died, but not only did he resurrect, he also ascended to heaven.

He did feel pain and it was an effort, but he didn’t lose anything. So why is it seen as a sacrifice?

[jimwalton]

There are a couple of points in explaining this.
First of all, in the Old Testament sacrifice doesn’t mean a loss, but rather a covering. Christ’s atoning death has to be seen against the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Before Jesus died it was necessary for sacrifices to be regularly offered to keep the temple pure. Atonement was the mechanism to retain the presence of God. These sacrifices were necessary, not to work a reformation in the sinner or to deter the sinner or others from committing further sin, but to provide a covering for the sin. There had been an offense against the covenant and against the law, and hence against God himself, and this had to be set right.

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

Secondly, it's a matter of the legal requirements. For instance, if I owed you $1000, and someone else offered to pay it for me, the debt would be paid and we could both walk away happy.

According to the Bible, Jesus's death was more like that than, say, going to prison in someone's place. Let's just suppose, for the sake of analogy (though all analogies fall short if pressed too hard), that all humans owed God a hundred trillion dollars. Each. It does no good for me to offer to cover your debt, because I don't even have the hundred billion for me let alone for you. Nobody has it that kind of money. But now somebody shows up on the scene who doesn't already owe God anything, and he just happens to have an endless supply of money in his account, enough to cover all of us. Now THAT guy can pay the debt and satisfy the legal requirements of the ledger.

So, Romans 6.23 tells us that when we separated from God (who is Life) because of our sin, death was the only and expected consequence (separation from life). Death was the wages, so to speak, for our "work". So we're all separated from God (life), and therefore "dead" in our sins. It does no good for me to say, "Hey, I'll die instead of you," because I'm already sentenced to death. It's as if 2 guys are standing at the gallows with nooses around their necks, and one says to the other, "You're free to go. I'll take this one in your place." Like that does any good.

But Jesus shows up on the scene with no sin in him, so he had never separated from Life, and never deserved to die. When he says, "I will cover for you. You're free to go. I'll take this one in your place," now that means something.

But maybe you're thinking, "Well, maybe he could do that for one person, but not for all of us." Now we have to go back to the money analogy. Legally speaking, his death was so unwarranted because he was sinless AND he was God in the flesh that his death could cover all of humanity, and liberate sinners who supposedly punishment in hell. It's what the book of Hebrews is about, as well as Isaiah 53.

Maybe another analogy will help (as far as it goes): Sometimes in ancient battles, instead of the whole army going at it all day, each army would send out a champion, winner take all. We even do this in some of our games today: winner take all. Think of it like that. One life substitutes for all.

The ancients were well acquainted with the idea of substitution like that. Kill a lamb as a substitutional sacrifice for the nation. Some kings even sacrificed their firstborn son (which was a detestable practice and abhorred by God) to appease the deity for their whole country (or city or whatever). With Jesus it is the same idea of substitution: one can count for all.

His physical death could ensure salvation in a spiritual world because his physical death was also a spiritual death: separated from God, bearing the sins of the world in his flesh, a substitution for us. Again, it's a legal and theological matter more than trying to make a direct connection between flesh and blood—soul and spirit.

So that answers the question at hand. It was a real sacrifice because it was a covering and because it fulfilled the legal requirements of the situation. Therefore the resurrection not only didn't nullify the sacrifice, it ratified it.

But don’t misunderstand and think this was no 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 people reputedly died from the flogging and never made it to the crucifixion. Crucifixion, on top of that—unspeakable. If you think this was not a sacrifice, you are seriously mistaken. Would you volunteer for it if it were so insignificant (even if you'd be OK three days later)?

Theologically the difference is that the point of sacrifice is the gift and the dedication, not the perpetual cessation of Jesus’s life. 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.

Jesus’s death fulfilled the legal obligation, and that’s the point. The covering was effected. Sin created an imbalance (a debit) that had to be righted. Jesus's payment (his death on the cross) deposited a credit that balanced the ledgers. The sacrifice was inherent in the bloodshed and in Jesus death, not in the duration of his death. Atonement was achieved based on several truths.

You're getting tied up in the physical and emotional aspects and missing the legal and theological aspects of Jesus's 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 as a gift. 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.