Many people, especially in the West where literal blood sacrifices are no longer done at large, find it difficult to understand Christ's sacrificial death for sins. "Why did Jesus have to die?" "Couldn't God just forgive us without without a sacrifice?" "Does it mean I can do anything without being in trouble with God?" This is by no means an easy issue to cover, as there are several factors to consider, but in the end we will better understand the significance of the Atonement, that it was reasonable, and that it was necessary for anyone to be reconciled to God.
There is no more logical place to start then at the beginning-- and I mean the very beginning: Genesis chapter 2, the Garden of Eden. Those familiar with the story will recall the details: Adam and Eve were created without sin and put in the Garden. The garden included two fruit trees of importance: the Tree of Live and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God warned them, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17. Yet, as predictable as any other story with such foreshadowing, the first couple eat of this fruit anyways, marking the death of their spiritual relationship with God and bringing about their eventual physical death.1 From this, we extrapolate the first important point in our inquiry: the consequence of sin (literally disobedience to God) is ultimately death. This includes literal death, but at a figurative level there is also a spiritual breach between mankind and God. The New Testament also supports this, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23.
Then, an age or so later, the Torah (Law) was given to the Israelites through Moses. If you are not familiar with the Law, it is essentially the first 5 books of the Bible. In several parts of the law, there was guidelines to how sacrifices were to be made, including but not only animal sacrifices, what meats could be eaten, and how to prepare such meats. Many of these sacrifices were indeed for atonement of the people, and were necessary for salvation in Ancient Judaism, although exceptions were given for constricting circumstances. (E.g., all sacrifices had to be done at the tabernacle or later the Temple; however, when the Jewish people were dragged away into exile, they did not have access to either. Repentant prayer was sufficient during such times, though the people were expected to return to the Temple practices once they returned.) There is one section from the Torah, in particular, which we are interested in:
"'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'" Leviticus 17:10-12.This passage indicates why animal sacrifice was so important to the Jewish practices. The blood of a given creature symbolizes the life of that creature. The people were expected to not eat blood because of this significance. Recall our earlier premise that sin brings about death, and this death included a division between the sinner and God. Now, if the blood of an animal is effectively it's life, what conclusion can we draw? That in order for the spiritual death to be undone, it must be atoned for (literally, cleansed or covered over) by life. Just like one does not become clean by washing oneself in mud, but only in clean water, so does one who is effectively dead only become "alive again" except by the lifeblood of another creature. This facilitated the reconciliation between the Jew and God, without requiring one to shed one's own blood (which, if done purposefully, was distasteful both to God and the Jewish community). Suddenly, we start seeing the significance of the bloodied cross on which Jesus Christ died.
With this background in mind, we start to see the answer to our second question, "Couldn't God just forgive us without without a sacrifice?" God couldn't just overlook sin, as some would suppose, and forgive out of His generosity. This is due to the fact that sin is not just a personal issue between a person and God, but it is also a legal issue between a person and God's sovereign decrees. (This confusion may have emerged due the influence of modern Evangelicalism, which heavily emphasizes one's "personal relationship" to God and tends to diminish the legal or moral aspects of the relationship.) Let's say I were to punch another man in the chops: he could legally have me arrested for assault. Now, it could be that in between then and my arraignment(sp?), this person forgives me; however, it would only be personal forgiveness, while my legal guilt would remain. (However, since God is not only the offended party but also the lawgiver, it makes no sense for Him to forgive personally without granting some sort of legal pardon.)
Let's say I was in the that case, where I was still in legal peril. It would be legally unjust for me to be guilty, yet I remain unpunished. Hence, the legal inequity must be righted. Now for the sake of the analogy, let's say my punishment was a hefty fine. The man I punched may go the extra step and not only forgive me, but he may also pay for the fine out of his own money. This, in essence, is what atonement does. Granted, this kind of "punishment by proxy" is not encouraged by our legal system; one ought to remember that human legal systems are not without their flaws, and if indeed the God of the Bible exists, His justice system would trump any we could formulate, by virtue of His unlimited wisdom and omnipotence.
However, the Old Testament sacrificial system was not without problems. The sacrifices simply didn't bring about the holiness God desired in His people. David had the right idea of what God really wanted: Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required. ... I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart." Psalm 40:6, 8. What was important was in the person's "heart"-- one's attitude was more important to God than the "aroma" of burning flesh and sprinkled blood. The writer of Hebrews elaborates:
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Hebrews 10:1-4.While the Law fulfilled it's purpose in its own historical context, something more was needed.
This is where Jesus Christ comes in. Jesus stated, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." John 3:14-15. Here we see an indisputable statement about the purpose behind the atonement. The allusion is to where God cursed the Israelites by sending poisonous snakes into the Israelite camp (Num. 21:5-9). The people pleaded for the snakes to be removed from them, but instead God had Moses raise a bronze snake on a pole. If anyone was bitten by a snake, they could look to the bronze snake and be saved from death. Likewise Christ will be lifted up (figuratively pointing to his death, as more clearly shown in John 12:32-34). The point here is that Christ went to the cross so that anyone-- any person whatsoever-- who look to Him in faith for salvation would be saved.
Peter stated, referring to Jesus, He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 1 Peter 2:24. Whereas the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away sins, Jesus actually does. Not only are the sins of the believer covered over, they are taken away so we may live a life which is righteous and pleasing to God. Indeed, there is now only one sacrifice necessary for atonement of sins once and for all (Heb. 7:25-27). The Hebrews writer went on,
By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:10-14.
Indeed, even the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible, as it is often called) shows awareness that the old covenant was inadequate and a new one with its own sacrifice was needed. In Is. 53, which defies to be interpreted in any other way than a prophecy of Christ, we see, Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. Isaiah 53:4-6.
But, if the above is true, then the last question, "Does it mean I can do anything without being in trouble with God?" has already found an answer. it is not enough, under the Christian paradigm, to simply cover over sins so that one needs a sacrifice next year. No, we've established that sin is not only covered, it is taken away. There is not one passage in the New Testament which implies that it is unimportant to repent and change in thought and deed. Rather, it is expected, as a Christian is sanctified further, to "die" to past sins and be holy and blameless. It isn't expected for salvation, of course, but rather it is the expected result of a saved life.
Thus, we find that, after a survey from the beginning of the Bible to near the end, we find very persuasive answers to our questions. At the very least, the strongest objections against the Christian view of the atonement are effectively defanged. I think that some will read this and walk away with a better understanding of Christianity.
Published: Array
1. Didn't the passage say they would surely day that very day? First off, God banished them from eating of the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22-23). This was essentially a death sentence, as without access to the fruit of this tree, Adam and Eve would eventually die. J.P. Holding notes, "It has been noted that the literal Hebrew says, 'Dying you shall die,' which does indicate a 'progressive' death." However, it is worth noting that Holding finds the case more persuasive that this refers to a "spiritual" death rather than a physical one. For more info, see:
Holding, J.P. "Jeremiah 7:22 and Skeptical Chauvinism." Tektonics Apologetics Ministries. June 10, 2004. <http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_JER722.html#fig>
|
|
|
|