Since this blog has a newly created MDiv, a old testament historian, a fiction reader, and a JAG lawyer, I thought that this would be a good forum to ask a question concerning God's apparent sacrifice and foreknowledge.
I have heard it said repeatedly that God the Father sacrificed his son Christ on our behalf so that he might redeem his creation. This is pretty much standard theology, in fact, it was preach from my pulpit just this past week (good job by the way Jamie). But was this really a sacrifice? I may be hung up on the definition of the word and let me just throw out what dictionary.com says about it so that we may have a common ground:
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner.
*I left out the ones that were repetitive or non-applicable.
The whole idea of a sacrifice is that the item (or person) is destroyed to gain a certain condition. But how is this applicable when we talk about something that can not be destroyed? Was God sacrificing the Son, or was he simply lending him out for a time? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle the work Christ did for us, but I do question the sacrificial nature of what he did. For me, what he did was not sacrifice himself but that he ended sacrifice all together. Since the object was not destroyed (and Christ rose from the dead) his sacrifice is still working and good (like a coupon that doesn't expire). So as much as I understand when people talk about Christ sacrifice, shouldn't we be using another word to describe it since there was/is never any doubt as to the anti-finality of the action?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The usage of the term as described in definition 3 (or 6) isn't helpful in this case and probably confuses the issue. God the Father sent God the Son to be an atonement sacrifice for his people. Not a trade piece.
What you bring up about the definition or sacrifice is key to this kind of issue. If we don't know what Biblical sacrifices are all about and which sacrifices are be referenced and how, it can get confusing fast.
Along with this, another thing that might be confusing is your use of "destroy." Atoning sacrifice is about death, not destruction. And Christ really did die. The resurrection does not compromise his dying.
I stop here in case there are objections, additions, or clarifications that need to be made.
MC,
Man FV is nothing compared to this. I can hear the rumors now..."Did you hear the Churnocks deny the sacrificial nature of Christ?"
"The whole idea of a sacrifice is that the item (or person) is destroyed to gain a certain condition."
I'm not sure about this initial premise, though. The word "sacrifice" in it's OT usage is most frequently associated with the "Peace Offering" (see, for example, Lev. 3). The focus of the Peace Offering wasn't the destruction of the animal but the consumption of the animal by both God (who got the "best" parts--fat, kidneys, all that) and the worshipper and priests (who ate the meat). A "sacrifice" then was a shared meal--kind of a proto-communion meal, as it were. The sacrifice itself was transformed into "food" for either God (via the fire of the altar) or man. George makes a great point about death vs. destruction, for "if a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (Jn 12:24). Death (and resurrection) is the means of kingdom growth.
Perhaps this does open up some insights into the importance of the Eucharist, though. Jesus is clear in John 6 that we must eat and drink Him--this was only possible in type prior to His death. Once for all, however (as Hebrews 10 says), Jesus offered "for all time a single sacrifice for sins", allowing us to have life in His Body and Blood, "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" (Jn 6:55).
FWIW. I'm anxious to hear more from George.
A related post dealing with the word offering as opposed to sacrifice, but interesting:
http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/a-wrong-word-here-a-inappropriate-term-there/trackback/
"Was God sacrificing the Son, or was he simply lending him out for a time?"
Also, I'm not sure how this works out in terms of orthodox Trinitarianism. I don't know if it helps in figuring out your dilemma, but aren't the scriptures pretty clear that the Second Person offered himself? The Father sent the Son, but the Son offered Himself. Just thinking out loud . . .
"For me, what he did was not sacrifice himself but that he ended sacrifice all together."
OK, one more point and I'll shut up. I don't think it is necessarily correct to say that he *ended* sacrifice; perhaps it would be better to say that he made it possible for us to offer *ourselves* as living sacrifices. The shadowy ritual has been transformed, to be sure, and even *fulfilled*, but only so that we can participate all the more gloriously in union with Him.
thanks guys (except Jed). Not sure what to do with this idea/topic. I still don't think 'Christ sacrifice' is the best term to use, but I can't back that up with any profound statements. And maybe that is the problem with throwing terms like that around.
Feel free to keep dissecting my post, but I don't know how much I can add...
I think you are doing just fine, Jeff.
I may have some other thoughts to throw out there later. I'm still thinking through a few things.
ha.
Murph,
care to elaborate?
George's post is good.
Churnock - I'm pretty sure you're going to hell. Good luck with all that. btw, I'll be at Faith this weekend.
hell no. not on this blog.
Post a Comment