Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

[crossfire]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

My understanding that animal sacrifice was to serve as a substitute for human sacrifice. (Abraham substituting a ram for Isaac, and those who sacrificed animals outside of the temple were to be charged with murder.)

In Leviticus 16, there were two goats who were supposed to look as close to each other as possible, because the two goats were substituted in the role of a human. Jesus was both the goat and the scapegoat, and plays both roles. And no, human sacrifice is not ok. Scapegoating people is not OK. How many people would sacrifice and scapegoat Jesus again? When will we ever learn, and when will we stop?

 

[Tumah]

I haven't read all posts. I don't know if this has been mentioned: Isaiah 53:6-7.

I hope not. That would be a profoundly useless response. You'd be trying to prove that Jesus' "sacrifice" was ok from a verse that you believe was about Jesus' "sacrifice" and that it was ok.

 

[metis]

IMO, "Jesus' sacrifice" was and is a theological construct that is pretty much impossible to take literally. First of all, human sacrifices are not allowed in either Judaism nor Christianity, thus what would have been actually sacrificed?

Again, imo, it basically was Paul telling the Church that no longer were Temple sacrifices needed, and I believe it was likely because the Church had opened its doors for Gentiles, especially the "God-Fearers". How could "one body", as Paul called the Church, operate under two different sets of rules: Jewish and Gentile? What about marriage? dining? etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

IMO, "Jesus' sacrifice" was and is a theological construct that is pretty much impossible to take literally. First of all, human sacrifices are not allowed in either Judaism nor Christianity, thus what would have been actually sacrificed?

I've often speculated that the 'logic' is similar to that seen in Numbers 35:25.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

Because God joined PETA and concverted to veganism?

Because you cannot atone, by sacrificing another person. Jesus, if we strip away everything divine, was still a human willing to die for the sins of all around him.

But I have a different theory of atonement than most. I believe Jesus's main goal was not to die for our sins at all but to break the veil btwn God and man. Jesus was born, and he died. By doing that, he became part of the mortal fabric, allowing humans to live and die, and have an afterlife. He didn't need to die on the cross, but it helped us understand what was happening.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

I suspect it’s to do with the difference between sacrificing oneself for others and sacrificing another for oneself...?

Humbly
Hermit

 

[metis]

I've often speculated that the 'logic' is similar to that seen in Numbers 35:25.

Interesting, but I'm not sure I see where the parallel is. Can you explain?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting, but I'm not sure I see where the parallel is. Can you explain?

Milgrom, in his JPS Torah Commentary - Numbers, writes:

death of the high priest The term kohen gadol, "High Priest," is found in Leviticus 21:10 and Joshua 20:6 (also 2 Kings 2:11; 22:4; Hag: 1:1,12; Zech. 3:1; Neh. 3:1). As the High Priest atones for Israel's sins through his cultic service in his lifetime (Exod. 28:36; Lev. 16:16,21), so he atones for homicide through his death. Since the blood of the slain, although spilled accidentally, cannot be avenged through the death of the slayer, it is ransomed through the death of the High Priest, which releases all homicides from their cities of refuge. That it is not the exile of the manslayer but the death of the High Priest that expiates his crime is confirmed by the Mishnah: "If, after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide, he need not go into exile." The Talmud, in turn, comments thereon: "But is it not the exile that expiates? It is not the exile that expiates, but the death of the High Priest.​

The discussion of The Blood Avenger, found at the end of Numbers in the Plaut Commentary continues the discussion of the responsibilities and privileges of the go-el in ANE societies, but the bottom line is this: only blood expiate blood-guilt. If it requires the death of the kohen gadol to expiate the guilt of the manslayer, what/whose death might be required to expiate the guilt - to atone for the sins - of humanity as a whole?

 

[metis]

Milgrom, in his JPS Torah Commentary - Numbers, writes:

death of the high priest The term kohen gadol, "High Priest," is found in Leviticus 21:10 and Joshua 20:6 (also 2 Kings 2:11; 22:4; Hag: 1:1,12; Zech. 3:1; Neh. 3:1). As the High Priest atones for Israel's sins through his cultic service in his lifetime (Exod. 28:36; Lev. 16:16,21), so he atones for homicide through his death. Since the blood of the slain, although spilled accidentally, cannot be avenged through the death of the slayer, it is ransomed through the death of the High Priest, which releases all homicides from their cities of refuge. That it is not the exile of the manslayer but the death of the High Priest that expiates his crime is confirmed by the Mishnah: "If, after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide, he need not go into exile." The Talmud, in turn, comments thereon: "But is it not the exile that expiates? It is not the exile that expiates, but the death of the High Priest.​

The discussion of The Blood Avenger, found at the end of Numbers in the Plaut Commentary continues the discussion of the responsibilities and privileges of the go-el in ANE societies, but the bottom line is this: only blood expiate blood-guilt. If it requires the death of the kohen gadol to expiate the guilt of the manslayer, what/whose death might be required to expiate the guilt - to atone for the sins - of humanity as a whole?

Thanks, as I didn't know this. I wonder if Paul maybe tapped into this?

Interesting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks, as I didn't know this. I wonder if Paul maybe tapped into this?

Interesting.

To be honest, I'm not a big Paul fan. So, for example, I've never been convinced by his claims to be a Pharisee. (I have a soft spot in my heart for Hyam Maccoby.) My guest is that the "He died for our sins" theology was born out of the Jerusalem sect while such things as the virgin birth narrative are Hellenist embellishments born in the diaspora. But, again, this is idle speculation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks, as I didn't know this. I wonder if Paul maybe tapped into this?

Interesting.

It is, isn't it?

It would clarify things for me to know why Cain isn't killed and what it implies for the release of the manslayers. Is Cain's punishment different from what happens to these manslayers? Cain in the story goes free with no high priest dying, as far as I know. I've my own operative guess on Cain's release, but it seems on the surface at odds with the release of the manslayers. Why should it help matters for the high priest to die?

***edit***
Perhaps the high priest is being held responsible for the deaths. Perhaps Abel is also sharing responsibility for Cain's actions.