Showing posts with label sacrifice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sacrifice. Show all posts
Sunday, March 05, 2006
VA Weekly: Why Jesus' Death is a Sacrifice
Vox Apologia is trying a weekly series where apologists field questions from skeptics. The first one up for March 6 is about what constitutes a sacrifice. This week's skeptic takes the line that Jesus, being God and knowing he would be raised again, would not be as affected as other people by being tortured to death. This is a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes a sacrifice. The animals in the Old Testament sacrificial system did not suffer much at all; they simply died. Sacrifice does not necessarily involve pain; it involves death. As I've discussed elsewhere, Jesus' suffering is redemptive. But suffering is not necessary for something to be classified as a sacrifice.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Sacrifice: death and redemption
"People are saved by faith, not by whether someone made a sacrifice for them."
"Why is sacrifice necessary? Doesn't God simply forgive whom he pleases?"
Those are thoughts about how we are redeemed that I have heard often enough. I think we as Christians have not given much thought to sacrifice in the ancient sense of the word, the sense in which something is killed as part of a religious ritual. We might mention that type of sacrifice in order to point out that we don't do that anymore. After all, how much thought should we give the old Temple sacrificial system when the Temple no longer stands and the final sacrifice -- God's own sacrifice, once, for all has been made. I have also heard the old sacrificial system denigrated as a barbaric scheme meant to appease a vengeful, bloodthirsty God. Because the topic can be embarrassing or awkward (though I think that it does not deserve to be), we do not often take a deep and steady look at it. The reason I pursue it is that it helps us understand Christ's sacrifice and our sacrifice.
In the ancient sacrifices, a man's sin might be atoned for by the death of an animal. If you picture this as only a transaction or an exchange, it makes little sense. As an exchange it is not only unfair to the victim, it also does nothing for the wrongdoer except some would say in a legal sense, if the laws were set up in such a way, but that is an artificial and arbitrary connection.
The sacrifices were a graphic reminder that sin necessarily brings death. Destruction and corruption are a basic part of what sin is, and death necessarily follows. We know that it is not the sacrificial victim but we ourselves who have deserved death. The sinner has no part in a sacrifice if the victim dies but the sinner remains hard-hearted and unchanged. We have a part in a sacrifice when we desire that our sin should die. We participate in the sacrifice by putting to death the part of ourselves that deserves to die, putting to death the wrong thoughts and desires, the corruption in our lives. The revulsion we feel towards the blood and death of the sacrfice, this revulsion is rightly directed to the sin. We die with the sacrifice; we participate by dying to sin ourselves. When we participate in the sacrifice in this way, it transforms us and purifies us. Forgiveness alone does not make us fit to be in the presence of God. The sin in us must die.
We remember Christ's sacrifice for us, the victim in our place. We also put to death our own sins and die with him. Death, then, is turned upside down; in Christ's death and resurrection, its destruction of evil restores us to newness of life.
"Why is sacrifice necessary? Doesn't God simply forgive whom he pleases?"
Those are thoughts about how we are redeemed that I have heard often enough. I think we as Christians have not given much thought to sacrifice in the ancient sense of the word, the sense in which something is killed as part of a religious ritual. We might mention that type of sacrifice in order to point out that we don't do that anymore. After all, how much thought should we give the old Temple sacrificial system when the Temple no longer stands and the final sacrifice -- God's own sacrifice, once, for all has been made. I have also heard the old sacrificial system denigrated as a barbaric scheme meant to appease a vengeful, bloodthirsty God. Because the topic can be embarrassing or awkward (though I think that it does not deserve to be), we do not often take a deep and steady look at it. The reason I pursue it is that it helps us understand Christ's sacrifice and our sacrifice.
In the ancient sacrifices, a man's sin might be atoned for by the death of an animal. If you picture this as only a transaction or an exchange, it makes little sense. As an exchange it is not only unfair to the victim, it also does nothing for the wrongdoer except some would say in a legal sense, if the laws were set up in such a way, but that is an artificial and arbitrary connection.
The sacrifices were a graphic reminder that sin necessarily brings death. Destruction and corruption are a basic part of what sin is, and death necessarily follows. We know that it is not the sacrificial victim but we ourselves who have deserved death. The sinner has no part in a sacrifice if the victim dies but the sinner remains hard-hearted and unchanged. We have a part in a sacrifice when we desire that our sin should die. We participate in the sacrifice by putting to death the part of ourselves that deserves to die, putting to death the wrong thoughts and desires, the corruption in our lives. The revulsion we feel towards the blood and death of the sacrfice, this revulsion is rightly directed to the sin. We die with the sacrifice; we participate by dying to sin ourselves. When we participate in the sacrifice in this way, it transforms us and purifies us. Forgiveness alone does not make us fit to be in the presence of God. The sin in us must die.
We remember Christ's sacrifice for us, the victim in our place. We also put to death our own sins and die with him. Death, then, is turned upside down; in Christ's death and resurrection, its destruction of evil restores us to newness of life.
Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him. (2 Timothy 2:11)More is planned for a future post about how we are united with Christ's sacrifice not only in his death, but also in his resurrection.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Forgiveness and sacrifices offered for the unaware
The question sometimes comes up, "What became of all the people who lived before Jesus, or who died never having heard of Jesus?" Unfortunately, the Bible never records someone addressing that exact question. Because of that, peoples' answers typically depend on their view of God. The points I will mention here provide insight into ancient views on sacrifice on behalf of the unaware.
Are the Gentiles before the time of Christ sent to hell by default?
It is a commonplace of internet debates that one particular theological school will claim that Gentiles in ancient times were universally consigned to hell. The exception amongst the ancient peoples were the Jews, who had a covenant with God providing for sacrifices for their atonement. But how did the ancient Jews understand the covenant sacrifices? The ancient Jews understood themselves to be offering sacrifices on behalf of all nations, not just Israel. During the Feast of Tabernacles, on 7 successive days a number of bulls were sacrificed (13 one day, 12 the next, and so on) until a total of 70 bulls were sacrificed (Numbers 29:12-34). According to Jewish tradition, these 70 bulls were sacrificed for the 70 nations listed in the table of nations (see Genesis 10). On the eighth day, one final bull was sacrificed, the only time during that feast that a single bull was sacrificed alone. According to tradition, this one bull sacrificed alone was for the unique nation of Israel.
Here are some comments from the Talmud:
This argument is suggestive but will remain inconclusive because it is based on the tradition of those offering the sacrifices, not directly in the command of the sacrifice itself. But it does give grounds to notice: the idea that all those pagans and idolaters were automatically lost was not the ancient understanding of God's people. The ancient Jewish understanding is very much in keeping with what Paul said to the Athenians about their idolatry: "In the past, God overlooked such ignorance" (Acts 17:30). As I've mentioned before, ignorance was never presented as some guaranteed ticked to heaven, but the Torah did record that sins committed in ignorance are easily forgiven, while sins of rebellion were only forgiven with both sacrifice and repentance.
Sacrifice offered without knowledge of the beneficiaries
There are also ancient records of sacrifices offered without the knowledge of those for whom they were offered. In the offerings mentioned in the Talmud, discussed in the previous section, the pagan nations were unaware of both the sins and the sacrifices on their behalf. The book of Job also records that Job offered sacrifices for his grown children just in case they had sinned (Job 1:5). The inter-testamental literature also records sacrifice being offered to atone for those already dead (2 Maccabees 13:38-46), not as a regular practice but as a noble thought.
Again, the endorsements here of sacrifice for those unaware are more suggestive than conclusive. No Christian is required to accept the Talmud as binding or authoritative, though it is a worthwhile insight into Old Testament thoughts and theology of sacrifice. Many Christians do not accept 2 Maccabees as an authority based on the witness of Jerome that the ancient church did not view it as suitable for establishing church dogma (see Jerome's prologue to the three books of Solomon where he comments on the church's valuation of various books). Even those who do not regard it as suitable for church dogma may still find it an interesting witness to the theology and spirituality of Jews in the Second Temple era. The book of Job is likewise not a plain endorsement since it records sacrifice under a non-established system of sacrifice in a context where no covenant is present, though here the practice is clearly recognized in an authoritative text.
Conclusion
These texts do not bind someone to agree that sacrifice for the unaware is effective. But it does show that someone who assumes that the ignorant are condemned, and further assumes that the ignorant cannot benefit from sacrifice on their behalf, is going against the ancient understanding.
Writing this post it was tempting to try to "decide on my own answer"; a reader might think something similar. But the topic is not mine to decide. The matter of someone's final judgment, of their atonement before God, is in Christ's hands. What is mine to do is to proclaim repentance and forgiveness in his name, and to trust him.
Are the Gentiles before the time of Christ sent to hell by default?
It is a commonplace of internet debates that one particular theological school will claim that Gentiles in ancient times were universally consigned to hell. The exception amongst the ancient peoples were the Jews, who had a covenant with God providing for sacrifices for their atonement. But how did the ancient Jews understand the covenant sacrifices? The ancient Jews understood themselves to be offering sacrifices on behalf of all nations, not just Israel. During the Feast of Tabernacles, on 7 successive days a number of bulls were sacrificed (13 one day, 12 the next, and so on) until a total of 70 bulls were sacrificed (Numbers 29:12-34). According to Jewish tradition, these 70 bulls were sacrificed for the 70 nations listed in the table of nations (see Genesis 10). On the eighth day, one final bull was sacrificed, the only time during that feast that a single bull was sacrificed alone. According to tradition, this one bull sacrificed alone was for the unique nation of Israel.
Here are some comments from the Talmud:
R. Eleazar stated, To what do those seventy bullocks correspond? To the seventy nations. To what does the single bullock correspond? To the unique nation. (b. Sukkah 55b)In the same section R. Yohannan followed up by saying
Woe to the idolaters, for they had a loss and do not know what they have lost. When the Temple was in existence the altar atoned for them, but now who shall atone for them?The nation of Israel understood that their offerings atoned for the idolaters as part of their call as a priestly nation, part of the call that through Abraham's offspring all nations should be blessed.
This argument is suggestive but will remain inconclusive because it is based on the tradition of those offering the sacrifices, not directly in the command of the sacrifice itself. But it does give grounds to notice: the idea that all those pagans and idolaters were automatically lost was not the ancient understanding of God's people. The ancient Jewish understanding is very much in keeping with what Paul said to the Athenians about their idolatry: "In the past, God overlooked such ignorance" (Acts 17:30). As I've mentioned before, ignorance was never presented as some guaranteed ticked to heaven, but the Torah did record that sins committed in ignorance are easily forgiven, while sins of rebellion were only forgiven with both sacrifice and repentance.
Sacrifice offered without knowledge of the beneficiaries
There are also ancient records of sacrifices offered without the knowledge of those for whom they were offered. In the offerings mentioned in the Talmud, discussed in the previous section, the pagan nations were unaware of both the sins and the sacrifices on their behalf. The book of Job also records that Job offered sacrifices for his grown children just in case they had sinned (Job 1:5). The inter-testamental literature also records sacrifice being offered to atone for those already dead (2 Maccabees 13:38-46), not as a regular practice but as a noble thought.
Again, the endorsements here of sacrifice for those unaware are more suggestive than conclusive. No Christian is required to accept the Talmud as binding or authoritative, though it is a worthwhile insight into Old Testament thoughts and theology of sacrifice. Many Christians do not accept 2 Maccabees as an authority based on the witness of Jerome that the ancient church did not view it as suitable for establishing church dogma (see Jerome's prologue to the three books of Solomon where he comments on the church's valuation of various books). Even those who do not regard it as suitable for church dogma may still find it an interesting witness to the theology and spirituality of Jews in the Second Temple era. The book of Job is likewise not a plain endorsement since it records sacrifice under a non-established system of sacrifice in a context where no covenant is present, though here the practice is clearly recognized in an authoritative text.
Conclusion
These texts do not bind someone to agree that sacrifice for the unaware is effective. But it does show that someone who assumes that the ignorant are condemned, and further assumes that the ignorant cannot benefit from sacrifice on their behalf, is going against the ancient understanding.
Writing this post it was tempting to try to "decide on my own answer"; a reader might think something similar. But the topic is not mine to decide. The matter of someone's final judgment, of their atonement before God, is in Christ's hands. What is mine to do is to proclaim repentance and forgiveness in his name, and to trust him.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Forgiveness, Sacrifice, and Christ
Previously we looked at repentance and forgiveness. But if there is repentance for forgiveness, then where does Christ fit in?
Background: Covenant at Sinai
In the covenant that God made for Israel at Sinai, God ordained that a sacrifice could atone for sin. A brief word is necessary about sacrifice and atonement. Jewish theology holds that an unrepentant person's sin is not atoned for even if the appointed sacrifice is offered for it. Some have argued that all intentional, wilfull sins are unforgiven since, according to the Torah, typical offerings only atoned for unknowing or unintended sins. But this argument has been contested by others who note that, in contrast to the appointed sacrifices for unintentional sins, the Day of Atonement atoned for even deliberate sin and rebellion. But, the scholars of the Torah insisted, there was an important point to be made about sins of rebellion: the sacrifice was only effective for the repentant, not for those who still continued in the same state of rebellion which spawned their particular sins. Which is to say, if a sin had been committed while in a state of rebellion, then it was considered forgiven in a state of penitence, but not in a state of continued rebellion.
How were God's chosen people sure of his forgiveness? After all, God has mercy on whom he pleases and hardens whom he pleases, so what guarantee was there of God's mercy? The guarantee was God-given. God bound himself to mercy, to forgiveness -- he made a binding covenant by which people could be sure they were forgiven because of his own word, his own promise. But he did it in a way that never let people forget that life is forfeit for sin, a way that never belittled the seriousness of sin or allowed people to imagine it was a small thing. In the sacrifice the people were invited to die to their wickedness, rebellion, and sin so that they did not die in their souls or continue to cause death around them.
New Covenant
Jesus' words over the cup at his last supper, "This is the blood of the covenant", were a deliberate echo of Moses' words at Sinai, "This is the blood of the covenant the LORD has made with you" (Exodus 24:8). With Jesus' words, the blood of the covenant was no longer the blood of a sacrificial animal. It was now the ultimate sacrifice: Christ. God bound himself to forgiveness and mercy publicly, for all nations, for all times. If people could never forget the horror of sin when a sheep or other animal died to atone for them, how much more could we not forget the horror of sin when Christ died for us. If people could be sure of God's word and promise of forgiveness when an animal died, how much more when Christ proclaimed his sacrifice, and has us proclaim his death until he comes. If an animal sacrifice reminded people to die to their rebellion or face that judgment themselves, Christ's death and resurrection goes beyond that. In it, we are also reminded to die to our rebellion -- and be raised to new life. We are joined with Christ. While in death he takes our place, he is more for us than only a substitute; we are joined to him in his death and resurrection. Our being united with him in his death becomes our death to sin; our being united with him in his resurrection becomes our hope of eternal life. Therefore this participation in Christ's death and resurrection effects our own transformation from sinners into sons of God. Again, Christ in justice has paid the price of death due for our sins; still he is more for us than even the penalty to be paid. In being united with his death and resurrection, we are drawn into the very nature of God, which is love and eternal life.
The Talmud has an interesting if unintentional historical note on Jesus' institution of a new covenant, for those interested.
Conclusion
Next in the series on sin and forgiveness: sacrifice on behalf of those who are unaware of the sacrifice.
Background: Covenant at Sinai
In the covenant that God made for Israel at Sinai, God ordained that a sacrifice could atone for sin. A brief word is necessary about sacrifice and atonement. Jewish theology holds that an unrepentant person's sin is not atoned for even if the appointed sacrifice is offered for it. Some have argued that all intentional, wilfull sins are unforgiven since, according to the Torah, typical offerings only atoned for unknowing or unintended sins. But this argument has been contested by others who note that, in contrast to the appointed sacrifices for unintentional sins, the Day of Atonement atoned for even deliberate sin and rebellion. But, the scholars of the Torah insisted, there was an important point to be made about sins of rebellion: the sacrifice was only effective for the repentant, not for those who still continued in the same state of rebellion which spawned their particular sins. Which is to say, if a sin had been committed while in a state of rebellion, then it was considered forgiven in a state of penitence, but not in a state of continued rebellion.
How were God's chosen people sure of his forgiveness? After all, God has mercy on whom he pleases and hardens whom he pleases, so what guarantee was there of God's mercy? The guarantee was God-given. God bound himself to mercy, to forgiveness -- he made a binding covenant by which people could be sure they were forgiven because of his own word, his own promise. But he did it in a way that never let people forget that life is forfeit for sin, a way that never belittled the seriousness of sin or allowed people to imagine it was a small thing. In the sacrifice the people were invited to die to their wickedness, rebellion, and sin so that they did not die in their souls or continue to cause death around them.
New Covenant
Jesus' words over the cup at his last supper, "This is the blood of the covenant", were a deliberate echo of Moses' words at Sinai, "This is the blood of the covenant the LORD has made with you" (Exodus 24:8). With Jesus' words, the blood of the covenant was no longer the blood of a sacrificial animal. It was now the ultimate sacrifice: Christ. God bound himself to forgiveness and mercy publicly, for all nations, for all times. If people could never forget the horror of sin when a sheep or other animal died to atone for them, how much more could we not forget the horror of sin when Christ died for us. If people could be sure of God's word and promise of forgiveness when an animal died, how much more when Christ proclaimed his sacrifice, and has us proclaim his death until he comes. If an animal sacrifice reminded people to die to their rebellion or face that judgment themselves, Christ's death and resurrection goes beyond that. In it, we are also reminded to die to our rebellion -- and be raised to new life. We are joined with Christ. While in death he takes our place, he is more for us than only a substitute; we are joined to him in his death and resurrection. Our being united with him in his death becomes our death to sin; our being united with him in his resurrection becomes our hope of eternal life. Therefore this participation in Christ's death and resurrection effects our own transformation from sinners into sons of God. Again, Christ in justice has paid the price of death due for our sins; still he is more for us than even the penalty to be paid. In being united with his death and resurrection, we are drawn into the very nature of God, which is love and eternal life.
The Talmud has an interesting if unintentional historical note on Jesus' institution of a new covenant, for those interested.
Conclusion
Next in the series on sin and forgiveness: sacrifice on behalf of those who are unaware of the sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
