Jesus as sacrifice, scapegoat and ransom

[Longfellow]

One of my disagreements with some Christian beliefs is that I don't think that Jesus paid a price that we owe, or took a punishment that we deserve, for our sins. I think that what we owe for our sins is repentance, and that we are forgiven as soon as we repent, or maybe even before. I have a different understanding of Bible verses that are used as reasons for thinking that Jesus paid a price or took a punishment for our sins.

Sacrifice:
In my understanding, what God wants for us when we sin, is to repent. That is not for His satisfaction, it's for our benefit. The sacrifices that He prescribed for Israel were a way for people to put their repentance into action, by giving up something to God. The point was not for the animal to suffer, to pay a price or to be punished in the place of the owner. The point was for the owner to give up something to God, to put their repentance into action, and that for their own benefit and not to satisfy God. God knows if our repentance is real or not, He doesn't need us to do anything to prove it. The sacrifice was for the person and/or the community to know that their repentance was real, and to benefit from it. I'm not sure why, but that was only for the time before Jesus, and Jesus offering Himself as a sacrifice was to make that clear. He was the final sacrifice, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Another explanation might be that the ritual sacrifices were preparing Israel for the sacrifice of Jesus.

Scapegoat:
In the scapegoat ritual, the goat was not harmed at all. The goat was not paying for any sins, and was not being punished for any sins. It was carrying the sins away from Israel. The sins were put on its head, and it was driven into the wilderness.

Ransom:
In Israel, a ransom was, and still is, something that the people of Israel give to other people, for them to release some people of Israel that they have captured and enslaved, for them to return to their life in the kingdom. In my understanding, Jesus didn't pay a ransom, He was the ransom, for us to be freed from slavery to the sinful side of our nature. That freedom is not an end in itself, it's for us to be able to enter His kingdom. The people who paid the ransom were his disciples who lost His physical presence with them, and all their hopes for Him to restore the physical kingdom of Israel. The ransom wasn't just symbolic. When His disciples embraced it, it acted in some way for all people to be able to be released from being ruled by the sinful side of our nature.

 

[Longfellow]

I also have some disagreements with the liberal side of Christianity. Here are some examples:

- I disagree with saying that Paul replaced the teachings of Jesus with teachings about Jesus. The reason for Paul not writing about the life and teachings of Jesus apart from His resurrection and His role in salvation could be because there weren’t any other misunderstandings about His life and teachings that required Paul’s attention.

- I disagree with denying the full divinity of Jesus. I don't think that He is God in any physical way, but I think that He has all the power, authority, knowledge and wisdom of God, and that in fact there is no power, authority, knowledge or wisdom of God in the world other than His. I also think that He is the begotten Son of God, not in any physical way but in His role in God's kingdom, and that He plays a role in salvation, in a way that no one else ever has or ever will.

- I disagree with saying that the teachings of Jesus in the Bible about Himself as our Lord and the Lord of God’s kingdom, did not really come from Him.

- I trust what the Bible says about the life and teachings of Jesus, and reject all stories about a “historical Jesus” that discount any part of it, which means all of those theories that I’ve ever seen or heard of.

- It might be popular on the liberal side of Christianity to think that the resurrection of Jesus was not physical. I don’t say categorically that it was or it wasn’t. All I can say is that I’m confused about it. I don’t think that believing that it was physical is one of God’s requirements for salvation, but I'm not sure that it didn't happen that way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sacrifice:
In my understanding, what God wants for us when we sin, is to repent. That is not for His satisfaction, it's for our benefit.

I would agree with that..

 

[Thomas]

Hi @Longfellow –

Below are some reflections on an admirable post.

Sacrifice:

It's a vast subject, too big to be encapsulated in cultural and cultic definitions. It speaks to something universal and fundamental to human nature, and as such is part of the mystery of life and being.

In my understanding, what God wants for us when we sin, is to repent. That is not for His satisfaction, it's for our benefit.

Agreed.

Scapegoat:

The scapegoat was one of two – one being the sacrifice, the other bears the weight of sin and is 'set free' or 'driven away'.

Ransom:

Quite like these ideas. Ransom Gk λύτρον (lytron), occurs only in Mark 10:45, and Matthew 20:28, where he follows Mark. The KJV has 'ransom' for 1 Timothy 2:6 whereas the word is ἀντίλυτρον (antilytron), which carries a more nuanced reading, in line with redemption.

When Paul speaks of redemption, Romans 3:24-26
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (KJV).

The Hart translation reads:
"... being vindicated as a gift by his grace, because of the manumission fee paid in the Anointed One, Jesus: whom God proffered on account
of faithfulness as a conciliation, in his blood, as a demonstration of his justice through the dismissal of past sins in God’s clemency—for the demonstration of his justice in the present season—that he might himself be just and that the one vindicated might be so from Jesus’s
faithfulness."

Hart notes that "Paul is employing—as he so often does—the imagery of civil law regarding the "redemption" or "manumission fee" paid to emancipate slaves. The emphasis then would seem to be not upon some extrinsic writ of exoneration for a criminal, graciously bestowed despite the criminal’s guilt, but rather upon a fee paid "free of charge," or "as a gift" or "grant" by God in Christ for an enslaved race that lacks the means to secure its own liberation (lacks, that is to say, "God's doxa, glory," but in the particular sense of an "honorable station" or "illustrious social position," as well as the resources and "magnificence" of a free, prosperous citizen of the upper classes)."

There's a lot to unpack in there – notably the idea that humanity is "an enslaved race that lacks the means to secure its own liberation", because that liberation is in the gift of God.

+++

 

[Thomas]

- I disagree with denying the full divinity of Jesus. I don't think that He is God in any physical way ...

I'm not sure what denominations teach this, if any, but it is surely a common error among Christians to assume so. The correct understanding involves technical and philosophical language, so the error is understandable.

Clearly, while Christ's person is divine, His body is flesh and blood like ours, and yet when we read the woman 'diseased with an issue of blood' in the Synoptics was healed simply by touching the hem of his garment – then all manner of assumptions will come into play.

- I trust what the Bible says about the life and teachings of Jesus, and reject all stories about a “historical Jesus” that discount any part of it, which means all of those theories that I’ve ever seen or heard of.

Yes, the 'historical Jesus' is a chimera ...

- It might be popular on the liberal side of Christianity to think that the resurrection of Jesus was not physical. I don’t say categorically that it was or it wasn’t. All I can say is that I’m confused about it. I don’t think that believing that it was physical is one of God’s requirements for salvation, but I'm not sure that it didn't happen that way.

A wise position ... or as some would say, "I don't understand it, but I believe it."

Hart argues (as does @Ahanu) that the resurrection was not of the sarx, the flesh and bones of Jesus, nor does Hart believe in the story of the empty tomb.

My own view aligns more with the French theologian Jean Borella:
"What happens is that the resurrected Body ... is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but ... it is no longer of the essence of this presence to be passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will... Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen... "
(This is implicit in Mary Magdalene's encounter at the empty tomb (John 20), and again by the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:16 – "But their eyes were held, that they should not know him.")

"He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality (whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which is extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence) ... "
(Jean Borella, 'Christian and Anti-Christian Gnosis')

 

[Longfellow]

- I disagree with denying the full divinity of Jesus. I don't think that He is God in any physical way ...

I'm not sure what denominations teach this, if any, but it is surely a common error among Christians to assume so. The correct understanding involves technical and philosophical language, so the error is understandable.

All of the mainstream churches consider the Nicene Creed, and God as three persons, as part of their beliefs. That's what defines the mainstream. I don't know of any that explicitly teach that Jesus is God in any physical way. In fact, I see no indication that any of the Bishops at Nicaea objected to saying that the essence that makes the three persons one is *not* physical. It's just that in my conversations with Christians who think that it's important to believe that Jesus is God, they are never satisfied with what that means to me, and I can't see why, if they aren't thinking of it as being physical in some way.

 

[Thomas]

All of the mainstream churches consider the Nicene Creed, and God as three persons, as part of their beliefs.

The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared:
"We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us."

But this is technical language, so error is understandable ... nor, alas, did it prevent schism.

 

[Thomas]

The trouble being, of course, while people are certain that Christ is one of three persons ... are they equally certain about the definition of 'person'?

 

[Yahweh kid]

The trouble being, of course, while people are certain that Christ is one of three persons ... are they equally certain about the definition of 'person'?

Would it be better to say God has three personalities?

Christ is one of three persons

I like the example of the egg to explain the Trinity, very simplistic.... it is probably a cliche but it gives me some understanding that one can be three... the egg is composed out of the shell, the yolk, and the egg white, without one of these parts it is not an egg anymore. A human also has three parts, the body, mind and soul. Without one of those parts we are not human anymore..... Same with God.... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.... This is characteristics of the Biblical God..... none other God as far as I know has the same and therefore cannot be the same God.

Be blessed.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Would it be better to say God has three personalities?



I like the example of the egg to explain the Trinity, very simplistic.... it is probably a cliche but it gives me some understanding that one can be three... the egg is composed out of the shell, the yolk, and the egg white, without one of these parts it is not an egg anymore. A human also has three parts, the body, mind and soul. Without one of those parts we are not human anymore..... Same with God.... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.... This is characteristics of the Biblical God..... none other God as far as I know has the same and therefore cannot be the same God.

Be blessed.

I find that there are issues with using the egg as an analogy.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God, not just parts of God, the yolk, white, and shell are parts of the whole egg.
Separation:
The parts of an egg can be separated, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable and co-equal in their being.

Equality:
Each part of the egg is not equal in quantity, but each person of the Trinity is equal in their being as God.

Function:
The different parts of an egg have distinct functions, while the three persons of the Trinity each have distinct roles within God's plan.

I prefer other analogies, like the sun (the sun, its light, and its heat), or the human person (body, soul, spirit). These analogies can help illustrate the unity and distinctness of the Trinity in a more accurate way.

 

[Yahweh kid]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God, not just parts of God, the yolk, white, and shell are parts of the whole egg.

The point is God cannot be without the Son or the Father....
I was just trying to convey the three in one concept.

I prefer other analogies, like the sun (the sun, its light, and its heat), or the human person (body, soul, spirit). These analogies can help illustrate the unity and distinctness of the Trinity in a more accurate way.

Yes, the human person analogy is probably a better example than the egg, but both works for me.. the sun is also not bad....

 

[Longfellow]

Would it be better to say God has three personalities?

I like the example of the egg to explain the Trinity, very simplistic.... it is probably a cliche but it gives me some understanding that one can be three... the egg is composed out of the shell, the yolk, and the egg white, without one of these parts it is not an egg anymore. A human also has three parts, the body, mind and soul. Without one of those parts we are not human anymore..... Same with God.... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.... This is characteristics of the Biblical God..... none other God as far as I know has the same and therefore cannot be the same God.

In my understanding, any way of explaining the Trinity as three personalities or three parts of God is false. In Trinity theology, "person" does not mean what it means in any other context. It isn't saying what the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are. It's saying what they aren't. They are not the same person. If you say that they are three personalities, that's too easily misunderstood as three personalities of the same person, which they are not.

Also in my understanding of the Bible, "the Father" is another name for God, His Son Jesus is called "God," and the Holy Spirit is called "God," and yet there is a genuine interpersonal relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus teaches His disciples practices that look like worshiping Him in ways that God has reserved for Himself. I think that it's best for us to just embrace all of that, and not try to explain how it can be possible if there is only one God. That's one reason that I object to calling the Abrahamic religions "monotheistic," because it creates a false dilemma.

I prefer other analogies, like the sun (the sun, its light, and its heat), or the human person (body, soul, spirit). These analogies can help illustrate the unity and distinctness of the Trinity in a more accurate way.

I'm thinking that all that any analogy does is help a person feel like they understand it when they really don't, and possibly interfere with understanding what God is actually saying in the Bible, from projecting that false understanding onto it.

 

[Longfellow]

The point is God cannot be without the Son or the Father....
I was just trying to convey the three in one concept.

Yes, the human person analogy is probably a better example than the egg, but both works for me.. the sun is also not bad....

What troubles me is that these analogies look to me like ways for people to comfort themselves self-deceptively in the face of a false dilemma, in ways that I think create misunderstandings between people, and possibly interfere with what the Bible can teach them and do for them.

(later) Sorry, I was forgetting my wisdom of not trying to warn people about these things, and rather to try to help build up defenses against them. Time for some meditation.

 

[Longfellow]

Ransom Gk λύτρον (lytron), occurs only in Mark 10:45, and Matthew 20:28, where he follows Mark. The KJV has 'ransom' for 1 Timothy 2:6 whereas the word is ἀντίλυτρον (antilytron), which carries a more nuanced reading, in line with redemption.

When Paul speaks of redemption, Romans 3:24-26
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (KJV).

The Hart translation reads:
"... being vindicated as a gift by his grace, because of the manumission fee paid in the Anointed One, Jesus: whom God proffered on account
of faithfulness as a conciliation, in his blood, as a demonstration of his justice through the dismissal of past sins in God’s clemency—for the demonstration of his justice in the present season—that he might himself be just and that the one vindicated might be so from Jesus’s
faithfulness."

Hart notes that "Paul is employing—as he so often does—the imagery of civil law regarding the "redemption" or "manumission fee" paid to emancipate slaves. The emphasis then would seem to be not upon some extrinsic writ of exoneration for a criminal, graciously bestowed despite the criminal’s guilt, but rather upon a fee paid "free of charge," or "as a gift" or "grant" by God in Christ for an enslaved race that lacks the means to secure its own liberation (lacks, that is to say, "God's doxa, glory," but in the particular sense of an "honorable station" or "illustrious social position," as well as the resources and "magnificence" of a free, prosperous citizen of the upper classes)."

There's a lot to unpack in there – notably the idea that humanity is "an enslaved race that lacks the means to secure its own liberation", because that liberation is in the gift of God.

Here are some examples of "redeem" in relation to ransom, with some help from Copilot.

- Leviticus 25:48 – If an Israelite sells himself into slavery to a foreigner, “he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him.”

- Exodus 6:6 – “I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.” Here, "redeem" is tied to Israel’s liberation from Egyptian slavery ...

- Jeremiah 31:11 – “For the Lord has ransomed Jacob and redeemed him from the hand of one stronger than he.”*

 

[Yahweh kid]

genuine interpersonal relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

So they are three persons... like I said originally. Trinity is difficult to explain.. I am not the sharpest pencil in the class...

What troubles me is that these analogies look to me like ways for people to comfort themselves self-deceptively in the face of a false dilemma, in ways that I think create misunderstandings between people, and possibly interfere with what the Bible can teach them and do for them.

(later) Sorry, I was forgetting my wisdom of not trying to warn people about these things, and rather to try to help build up defenses against them. Time for some meditation.

No worries, I like your input.

 

[TheLightWithin]

One of my disagreements with some Christian beliefs is that I don't think that Jesus paid a price that we owe, or took a punishment that we deserve, for our sins. I think that what we owe for our sins is repentance, and that we are forgiven as soon as we repent, or maybe even before. I have a different understanding of Bible verses that are used as reasons for thinking that Jesus paid a price or took a punishment for our sins.

Sacrifice:
In my understanding, what God wants for us when we sin, is to repent. That is not for His satisfaction, it's for our benefit. The sacrifices that He prescribed for Israel were a way for people to put their repentance into action, by giving up something to God. The point was not for the animal to suffer, to pay a price or to be punished in the place of the owner. The point was for the owner to give up something to God, to put their repentance into action, and that for their own benefit and not to satisfy God. God knows if our repentance is real or not, He doesn't need us to do anything to prove it. The sacrifice was for the person and/or the community to know that their repentance was real, and to benefit from it. I'm not sure why, but that was only for the time before Jesus, and Jesus offering Himself as a sacrifice was to make that clear. He was the final sacrifice, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Another explanation might be that the ritual sacrifices were preparing Israel for the sacrifice of Jesus.

Scapegoat:
In the scapegoat ritual, the goat was not harmed at all. The goat was not paying for any sins, and was not being punished for any sins. It was carrying the sins away from Israel. The sins were put on its head, and it was driven into the wilderness.

Ransom:
In Israel, a ransom was, and still is, something that the people of Israel give to other people, for them to release some people of Israel that they have captured and enslaved, for them to return to their life in the kingdom. In my understanding, Jesus didn't pay a ransom, He was the ransom, for us to be freed from slavery to the sinful side of our nature. That freedom is not an end in itself, it's for us to be able to enter His kingdom. The people who paid the ransom were his disciples who lost His physical presence with them, and all their hopes for Him to restore the physical kingdom of Israel. The ransom wasn't just symbolic. When His disciples embraced it, it acted in some way for all people to be able to be released from being ruled by the sinful side of our nature.

All of this is very well thought out and intriguing theology! And it makes more sense to me than many explanations of Christian theology!