Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

[Rival]

The straightforward reading of the text is that God accepted the sacrifice at the time, but punished Jephthah for it later.

He let Jepthath wallow in his misery and made him an example, I hope, then punished him.

 

[Tumah]

There's also Jephthah's daughter.

Why do you think that Jephthah's action are viewed positively?

 

[Rival]

That interpretation seems like a stretch, and even your own link takes the position that the girl was killed.

I never denied she was. I'm just putting it out there.

 

[Jainarayan]

A sacrifice that comes back to life lol. What a loss.

That was actually the whole point. Only he could conquer death and show mankind the way. If you accept him as "the way, the truth and the life", you attach yourself to him and also conquer death. The Paschal Troparion of the EOC goes

"Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!"

(Gods, I can't believe how much I remember! )

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My guess would be, because Jesus wasn't fully human.

That doesn't work for most modern Christians. Trinitarians (i.e. the vast majority of Christians) hold that Jesus was fully human (as well as being fully God).

Moreover, he was specifically put on earth to be crucified. He was fulfilling his duty; therefore, he wasn't a sacrifice.

.

So Judas and Pilate were doing God's will? That creates problems, too.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's not a precedent because Isaac was never sacrificed and in context of the rest of the chapter it's pretty clear that the entire event was just meant as a test for Abraham and Isaac wasn't intended to be sacrificed.

Right.That's why I called it a near miss. Yes, it was a test. I once read that Abraham actually failed the test because instead of refusing outright to sacrifice Isaac, and show his steadfastness, he gave in. No idea if that's a true reading.

 

[Rival]

Why do you think that Jephthah's action are viewed positively?

I've noticed a line of thought from some people unfamiliar with the scriptures who seem to think that because it's written it must be good/positive/beneficial or in some way endorsed. Not saying this about any person in particular but it is something I have noticed.

 

[Tumah]

Right.That's why I called it a near miss. Yes, it was a test. I once read that Abraham actually failed the test because instead of refusing outright to sacrifice Isaac, and show his steadfastness, he gave in. No idea if that's a true reading.

Ok, but leaving out the theories, I think we both agree that the original intent (not the eventual result) wasn't to actually sacrifice a human.

 

[Tumah]

I've noticed a line of thought from some people unfamiliar with the scriptures who seem to think that because it's written it must be good/positive/beneficial or in some way endorsed. Not saying this about any person in particular but it is something I have noticed.

I don't see why anyone would think that.

 

[Rival]

I don't see why anyone would think that.

Me neither, but it sometimes happens.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok, but leaving out the theories, I think we both agree that the original intent (not the eventual result) wasn't to actually sacrifice a human.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Father Heathen]

Abraham was being put to a different kind of test. He was supposed to say no. Once Abraham showed a willingness to sacrifice Isaac, G-d never spoke to him directly again. He used only angels.

See, that actually makes far more sense. I remember being taught as a child in church that his unquestioning willingness to murder his own son was an admiral display of faith and obedience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you think that Jephthah's action are viewed positively?

Just to clarify: I meant his action of honouring his promise by sacrificing his daughter, not his action of making a foolish promise.

In the story in Judges 11, Jephthah is never condemned for keeping his promise. In fact, when his daughter, who fits the motif of a virtuous daughter, learns that he's considering not sacrificing her, she tells him that he had to do it.

Overall, I think the story was intended to communicate a moral that's something like "don't make idle promises to God, because you'll have to keep them even if it hurts." This moral doesn't work if Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (given his promise) is meant to be seen in a negative light.

The alternative, that the author is trying to comnunicate that Jephthah's daughter's sacrifice is bad, makes the overall lesson of the story all muddled: so he wasn't supposed to honour his promise? It's okay to break your word to God? That doesn't square up with the rest of the Torah, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

According to the Tanach, is it permissible to execute someone for a capital offense.

 

[Rival]

According to the Tanach, is it permissible to execute someone for a capital offense.

Capital punishment =/= human sacrifice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've noticed a line of thought from some people unfamiliar with the scriptures who seem to think that because it's written it must be good/positive/beneficial or in some way endorsed. Not saying this about any person in particular but it is something I have noticed.

What message do you take from the narrative? What moral do you think it is meant to communicate?

Here's what I think it's meant to communicate:

- don't make idle promises to God.
- honour every promise you make to God, even the ones made idly, and even if it costs the lives of those dearest to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abraham was being put to a different kind of test. He was supposed to say no. Once Abraham showed a willingness to sacrifice Isaac, G-d never spoke to him directly again. He used only angels.

In the story, Abraham is praised and rewarded for being willing to kill his son at God's command.

 

[Father Heathen]

A sacrifice that comes back to life lol. What a loss.

Right, it's like someone lending you a hundred dollars when you didn't even request it, then they return three days later to take it back. Afterwards they constantly remind you that you owe them for their generosity.

 

[Rival]

What message do you take from the narrative? What moral do you think it is meant to communicate?

Here's what I think it's meant to communicate:

- don't make idle promises to God.
- honour every promise you make to God, even the ones made idly, and even if it costs the lives of those dearest to you.

I'm not sure it's a moral narrative to start with; not having a deep understanding of the Book of Judges, I don't think I'm apt to sit here and make stuff up either. So I don't know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He let Jepthath wallow in his misery and made him an example, I hope, then punished him.

An example for having made an idle promise to God, not for having killed his daughter.