Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him?

[_Rick_C]

Danny (Mort),

Good post, bro!

1. The relation to ancient Jewish ritual sacrifices is clear.

2. Jesus willingly offers Himself as the sacrificial lamb to appease God and provide atonement on behalf of mankind. The picture here is of a feudal serf who has offended the honor of a feudal Lord. The son of the feudal Lord (and thus an equal in the stratified feudal system) steps in and satisfies the offense on behalf of the serf, thus restoring the Father's honor.

1. I agree. In my debate with the guy at Beliefnet, I maintained that sacrifice was known and understood by all ancient peoples, the people of the NT Era (Jews and Gentiles), and continues today. As an aside; in a study of the Druids, I learned that human sacrifice still happened in parts of remote (non-Christian, pagan) Ireland till about 800 years ago. In a book "The Life and Death of A Druid Prince" by Anne Ross and Don Robbins, they go into details about a "bog man" found in England who was ritually sacrificed to the gods at about 60AD in the wake of Roman invasion. This man was aristocratic and probably actually "lived" for the express purpose of becoming a sacrifice, if it was needed. Human sacrifice happened in "the West" not so very long ago; something we tend to forget.

We find the idea of human sacrifice repugnant---and rightly so---as there is no need for any blood (animal or human) sacrifice today. But in our collective unconscious, I think we all understand what it means or meant. But for some, it may be their modernist mentality finds the idea "brutal" (as with my debating colleague at Beliefnet).

Perhaps human sacrifice is best understood intuitively? I feel I understand that Jesus was God's human sacrifice, which is exactly how I "read" John 3:16. God actually did what he had only commanded Abraham to do (sacrifice Isaac). I believe any first century Jew who read John 3:16 would have immediately seen the "Abraham connection" and this is what John intended to convey.

My friend at Beliefnet couldn't seem to comprehend my "primitive, barbaric" view of a God who required a substitutional sacrifice and provided it Himself by sending His Own Son.

I can't fully explain how I understand this. It's intuitive. Yet my debating partner insisted my view of a God who would require such a sacrifice was barbaric, "pagan," and even evil! (and he went to a Vineyard church)! Nothing I could say could make him see things any differently. (Btw, I believe "intuition" to be an actual theological tool, so to speak. I really do)!

Had Christianity not reached my ancestors (mostly Celtic) and the "civilized world"; we would possibly still be offering sacrifices, even human ones. But modern "civility" doesn't take away from an intuitive understanding of what sacrifice is and always has been, imo. Not for me, anyway.

Put another way, if God had not sent his Son...I would still be a Druid....

2. The "feudal Lord and serf" motif is similar to the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53. Quite alike, if you think about it.
gtg to church,
Rick

[AVoice]

Hey Mort,

I am glad you posted the various views of the Atonement of Christ. I agree, there seems to be elements in most of them that fits the biblical testimony.

The ransom theory (in this form) is not IMO, the right one. It seems to make Satan the benefactor of Christ's death. The cross was in part, a judgement upon Satan, not a ransom. But the term "ransom" is applied in the Word to His death. So in what sense was His death a "ransom" and to whom was the price paid? IMO, the idea of "ransom" seems to come from the 'kinsman redeemer' (goel) motif we see in the OT. This is an issue worth discussing some time because I think what is taught in (if at all) churches today is lacking regarding Jesus role as our Redeemer. I actually hold the view that we could consider Jesus' role as Kinsmen Redeemer as a sort of 4th office following Prophet, Priest and King..
As our Redeemer, He was both willing and able (sinless) to release (pay the ransom to the Laws demands) and "purchase" us from the bondage of sin and death, (taking captivity captive)... Ok I am rambling a bit... But in short, He was a lawful substitute. His sacrifice "satisfied" the demands of the Law . One in the place of another, ie. Vicarious Atonement.

Good topic to explore....
Blessings,
Bob

[_Paidion]

Rick:

We find the idea of human sacrifice repugnant---and rightly so---as there is no need for any blood (animal or human) sacrifice today

It's not human sacrifice per se that I find repugnant. Indeed I admire people who give their lives to save the lives of others. And that is precisely what Jesus did.

What I find repugnant is the heathen human sacrifices which were offered to their gods to appease their wrath in order that those who offered them would not be harmed. Jesus sacrifice was not in any way of that order. Christ's supreme sacrifice of Himself was not to appease the wrath of an angry God so that He wouldn't send us to hell (au contraire Jonathan Edwards). Christ's sacrifice was the means of enabling us to overcome sin (as per many Scriptures).

[AVoice]

Hello Paidion,

I do not like long posts. I am more of a "Readers Digest" kind of reader.
I have begun to read your essay however. It appears what you believe the Atonement of Christ portrays is more of an Example of righteous living. If that is all the Atonement means, then I would agree with you.

Now I want to make clear to you, I do not think Jesus sacrifice was in any way like the pagan's attempts at mollifying their "angry gods". I do believe Jesus sacrifice involves the payment of a debt to God we cannot possibly pay ourselves without suffering eternal seperation from Him.

As for God not being pleased with "sacrifice and offering", as the citation from Hebrews states, the Law requried them under the Old Covenant. But what was it that God was displeased with regarding their sacrifices? Consider one example:

Is 65: 1-7 NASB

" I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for me. I permited Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, Here am I here am I, to a nation which did not call on My Name.
I have spread out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts, A people who continually provoke Me to My face; offering sacrifices in gardens and burning insence on bricks, Who sit among the graves and spend the night in secret places, Who eat swines flesh And the broth of unclean meat is in their pots. Who say, Keep to yourself, do not come near me, For I am holier than you "!
These are smoke in My nostrils, a fire that burns all day. Behold, it is written before Me, I will not keep silent, but I will repay: I will even repay into their bosum, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their
fathers together", says the LORD.

Any cursory reading of Leviticus reveals how particular God was about the sacrifices, i.e., where, when, how etc, even the attitude of hearts were to be "right".. Yet Israel "mingeled" with the customs of the other nations their sacrifices. It all became nothing more than empty worthless ritual. The sense of their "holiness" was lost.
The was no 'rightness of heart or practice" as God required under the Law.
The Covenant was forever broken and was to be replaced with a New one, with better promises through a Single-Once-for-All-Sacrifice.
Jesus sacrifice did please God. He did by His death avert the eternal penalty of death and seperation from God due us. Otherwise, Pauls statement in Romans 8 makes no sense; There is therefore now no condemnation for those are in Christ Jesus".. Condemnation has to do with violating the law and being punished under it.
The Cross my friend, was a bloody mess! Cruel and inhumane. But remember Jesus volunteered.

[_Paidion]

Traveler:

I do not like long posts. I am more of a "Reders Digest" kind of reader.
I have begun to read your essay however. It appears what you believe the Atonement of Christ portrays is more of an Example of righteous living. If that is all the Atonement means, then I would agree with you.

Nowhere in my booklet do I suggest that Christ's sacrifice is only an example. You seem to think this to be the only alternative to your concept of a vicarious sacrifice. I have stated many times and with scriptures to back it up, that His sacrifice was for the purpose of delivering us from our self-life, and enabling us to live righteously.

1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore [withstood] 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.

Now I want to make clear to you, I do not think Jesus sacrifice was in any way like the pagan's attempts at mollifying their "angry gods".

I'm glad to know that. However, it doesn't seem too much different from "satisfying" God by paying Him a debt. I have pretty much the same difficulty with both concepts.

Furthermore some of the Bible translations make Christ's hilasmos a "propitiation". Dictionaries define "propitiate" as "to conciliate and offended power", to appease. One dictionary gives as an example: "to propitiate the gods with a sacrifice."

The NASB uses the word "propitiation" in the following scriptures:

Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [hilastārion] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed...

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation[hilaskomai] for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation[hilasmos] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for[hislasmos] our sins.

The NKJV translates these words as "atonement", while the RSV translates them as "expiation". These words are synonyms, and in their verbal form mean "to make amends or reparation." Perhaps this concept is similar to your "paying the debt that is owed" to God.

Now the interesting fact about these words, is that the root word "hilaskomai", a verb, is translated as "be merciful" in Luke 18:13.

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

THIS is the meaning of the word! "being merciful" or "showing mercy".
Let's see what this does to Hebrews 2:17.

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to show mercy concerning[hilaskomai] the sins of the people.

Besides this the word "hilastārion" is translated in Hebrews 9:5, not as "propitiation" --- not as "expiation" --- not as "atonement" --- but as "mercy seat"!

... above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

What was the "mercy seat"? It was a means of mercy.

Let's see what Romans 3:25 looks like, when "hilastārion" is translated that way:

...[Christ] whom God put forth as a means of mercy [hilastārion] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed...

And what a mercy it is for Christ to have died to deliver us from sin! --- deliver us so that we would not continue in sin, but forsake it --- not to "cover" it ---- not to "pay a price" for it, but to "do away" with it.

... He appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:26

What a better way Christ provided! We are delivered from our sins!
They are not merely "passed over" as in the old covenant.

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

As for God not being pleased with "sacrifice and offering", as the citation from Hebrews states, the Law requried them under the Old Covenant. But what was it that God was dipleased with regarding their sacrifices?

This is another big topic. I'll try to show in my next post that God never desired or required appeasing sacrifices. When he led the Israelites out of Egypt, He didn't require sacrifices. Because the Israelites insisted on making sacrifices, God then told them how to do it.

It was a concession on God's part, similar to His concession concerning their demand for a King. "You wouldn't have me to rule over you," lamented God. But when they insisted, God gave in, but showed them whom they were to choose. He warned them, however, that they would get into trouble because of it.

[_Rick_C]

Paidion wrote:

1. It's not human sacrifice per se that I find repugnant. Indeed I admire people who give their lives to save the lives of others. And that is precisely what Jesus did.

2. What I find repugnant is the heathen human sacrifices which were offered to their gods to appease their wrath in order that those who offered them would not be harmed. Jesus sacrifice was not in any way of that order.

3. Christ's supreme sacrifice of Himself was not to appease the wrath of an angry God so that He wouldn't send us to hell (au contraire Jonathan Edwards).

4. Christ's sacrifice was the means of enabling us to overcome sin (as per many Scriptures).

1. A ritualistic human sacrifice is not the same thing as a person who "sacrifices their lives for others" (in war or for some other altruistic or noble cause). I agree Jesus can be said to have lived a "sacrificial lifestyle" to the point of death for us -- even as an example for us -- but this only a part of the complete theological picture.

2. (Of course; human sacrifices are repugnant to us today). Deities have always required the appeasement of their wrath: it is how they are. But do you think the God of the Bible does not have this demanding quality and is unlike all other deities in this regard? (it sounds like you do).

What does this verse mean? (since you say Jesus' death has nothing to do with appeasing God's wrath)? 1 Thess 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. It seems to me Jesus did more than just live an exemplary, sacrificial lifestyle; that his death also saves us from God's wrath: And I don't see how this verse could possibly mean anything else.

3. ("Eternal punishment" vs. annihilationism is a side topic (Edwards or not). The second death won't be a happy thing for anyone who dies it, regardless of which view is true).

Do you believe Jesus' death appeased the wrath of God? If not: What does this verse mean? Ro 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

4. Yes, but once again; this is not the complete picture. That is, if you are "limiting" the death of Jesus to ONLY "enable us to overcome sin" (become better or more holy people)? Btw, you're sounding more & more like Schleirermacher as we go along, Don (which isn't necessarily a bad thing altogether...I mean, I'm part "liberal" myself).....
Rick

[_Rick_C]

I'd like an answer from you both, if possible.

Now I want to make clear to you, I do not think Jesus sacrifice was in any way like the pagan's attempts at mollifying their "angry gods".

Then Don replied:
I'm glad to know that. However, it doesn't seem too much different from "satisfying" God by paying Him a debt. I have pretty much the same difficulty with both concepts.

from Online Etymology Dictionary, Mollify:
c.1386 (implied in mollification), "to soften (a substance)," from O.Fr. mollifier, from L. mollificare "make soft, mollify" from mollificus "softening," from L. mollis "soft" + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Transf. sense of "soften in temper, appease, pacify" is recorded from c.1412.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in your opinions, the God of the Bible is somehow different from other deities? in that He does not get angry? and doesn't need have his temper softened or pacified (made peaceful)? or needs to be appeased?

The God of the Bible gets angry. He demands someone make payment and take an accounting for sins (either we pay for them ourselves or Someone else has: Jesus).

Don,
On that other thread you asked about Schleierermacher and I just posted about that. You are more "liberal" than I realized in that you seem to reject both (vicarious) substitutionary and penal atonement. (Who knew? Not I). These have been rejected in liberal theology since the "Old School" days (of Schlierermacher's time). Btw, Schleiermacher would see you as rather fundamentalist. (If I'm not mistaken, he believed Jesus had a sinful nature and had to overcome it with "God-consciousness"). So you haven't gone all the way off the scale, lol (I'm sort of "liberal" too...but not on this particular theological topic---I'm a "fundy")! Anyways.

And what a mercy it is for Christ to have died to deliver us from sin! --- deliver us so that we would not continue in sin, but forsake it --- not to "cover" it ---- not to "pay a price" for it, but to "do away" with it.

... He appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:26

What a better way Christ provided! We are delivered from our sins!
They are not merely "passed over" as in the old covenant.

First, none of the texts you cited disprove vicarious substitutionary or penal atonement. Once more, since you disbelieve that Christ paid the price for our sins (which I believe the Bible teaches)...I think you're only seeing a part of the picture. This verse doesn't directly speak about redemption or appeasement of God's wrath against sin; the absence thereof doesn't prove -- or disprove -- anything about these doctrines.

And, yes: Christ died that we might be delivered from being in the bondage of (or to) sin, Amen! But Hebrews 9:26 does not indicate that sin is something we cannot do or are completely delivered from, as we are still able to do it. "Sin" here is a "power" (as similarly in Romans 7) which no longer has total control over us. Sin and death will not be totally removed from this world till He comes back. The sense of Hebrews 9:26 is eschatological, "at the end of the ages." So sin has, indeed, been done away with in an "already/ not yet" eschatological way by the first appearing (coming) and work of Christ. But sin hasn't been wiped out in the world. It's been wiped from our record, no doubt, Praise God! ...but sin as a power and our enemy exists in this world.

Bob,
I'd especially like for you to explain how the God of the Bible is different from any other deity on anger (and/or wrath). The wrath of God, imo, is His natural response to sin. In what way can the Holy God not be really inflamed by it?

I agree that the pagan gods were often so humanly fickle, passive-aggressive, and even lustful. Our God, who is transcendent over them all, none the less has anthropomorphic ("human like") characteristics or attributes. When it comes to holiness and justice; none can compare to Him. His wrath and vengance is terrible and righteous and good!

Please comment:

Hebrews 10 (NASB)
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2 Thess 1
3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, 4 so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, 5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,[a] because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Pe 3
1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Now the interesting fact about these words, is that the root word "hilaskomai", a verb, is translated as "be merciful" in Luke 18:13.

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

THIS is the meaning of the word! "being merciful" or "showing mercy".

But doesn't the word translated "mercy" have within it the meaning of action on behalf of another? And this action could be God internalizing the punishment we deserve, and continue to deserve?

[AVoice]

Hello Paidion,

You seem to be "stuck" on the notion that Christ's Atonement does not "satisfy" or "pay" to God on our behalf what we owe Him, which is our very lives btw!

What may I ask is your understanding of God's justice in matters of His Law? Why was the penalty of death required under the Law for what (to our western sensitivities) would seem harsh or even unjust?

I do not believe the Word teaches that our salvation is merely limited to being delivered from sin. The Greek verb tenses you've described in the translations doesn't change anything either. The whole idea of mercy, or of God being "mercy-seated" toward the sinner always has the Law in view. I don't think this is merely because God "needed to be appeased" in any sort of human meaning we may attach to it, but rather to teach us in a "human way" the severity of our sin and how it separated us from Him and His love. Jesus obediantly followed His Fathers will in every detail. He came not only to "take away sin" but also to give us His Life (which saves us). The Law could not impart life. Sin has to do with the Law and always had a penalty attached. He "satisfied" God in this way and became the infinate Vicarious Sacrifice because He perfectly lived it, IMO. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world....

Our Peace in Jesus,
Bob

[_Rick_C]

Bob (or anyone else),

If my posts are too long and detailed; I don't know how to reply "shorter." If less things were posted about at-a-time, I could do better....
Anyway, I hope y'all can reply.
Rick