If Adam's death was Spiritual why was Jesus's death Physical?

@Daniel_Fisher, I wonder if here is a spot that Greg Boyd’s scholarship with “Crucifixion of the Warrior God” and “Cross Vision” would shed some light. In it, Boyd says that God used the imperfect perception of how He is to communicate what His greatest love is. I am still working on Packer’s “Knowing God,” and would owe you another book yet if you read the last of the 2–but if you find it interesting, you may want to read it. (not that I’m not finding Packer interesting; and I would be happy to listen to another book of your suggestion after discussion) Thanks.

Good thoughts in general, appreciated. Only one quick nitpick observation, but one I think critical…

Again, I refer back to Hebrews, and all his references as to the original law and sacrifices being offered suggest that God gave the original sacrifice system in order to eventually help us understand the Messiah. Not that God used something that, in some way, “happened” to exist in their world (how fortuitous), and decided to make use of it as it happened to make a great analogy. Rather, God specifically introduced said animal sacrifices for that very reason, to copy, reflect, or foreshadow the true and real sacrifice.

It is a bit like I try to tell people: God is called called a “Father” not because he looked down at how we developed, noticed the relationship between Fathers and sons, hit his knee and said, “wow, that’s perfect! That would be a great illustration for how I relate to people…” “Fatherhood” is not an image that originated in mankind that God found an appropriate analogy so he appropriated it… Rather, the reason human Fathers and sons even exist is that we are a copy of that original blueprint.

Similarly, it isn’t as though animal sacrifices happened to exist in this world, and then after what Jesus did, the author of Hebrews hit his knee and said, “that’s perfect, that would be a great illustration for what Jesus did.” No, rather, Jesus’ sacrifice was the “original.” The very reason animal sacrifices exist is because they were introduced as copies of that “original” (if temporally later) blueprint.

(And yes, I realize how loaded and pregnant my italicized words above are…)

The reason animal sacrifices were ever a thing is because they were introduced as copies of the one and final sacrifice… certainly is how I read Hebrews. He even uses the term “blueprint” in reference to the true sacrifice (OK, maybe he says, “pattern,”…). But point is, animal sacrifices were copied from “the” original sacrifice.

In the case of Hebrews, the timeline is backwards, so to speak, of course. But nonetheless, if all these things were always in our timeless God’s mind, it is not strange to think that his original plan entailed the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the institution of animal sacrifices were there specifically to copy that “original” blueprint.

Again, author of Hebrews says as much, that the OT sacrifices were “copied” from the heavenly/eternal pattern…

  • They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the blueprint pattern that was shown you on the mountain.

  • Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

  • For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

If the animal sacrifices were a “shadow” and “copy” of a more perfect sacrifice, and the main problem with them is that they couldn’t actually accomplish forgiveness of sins like the true and final sacrifice would, then I am loath to say that their institution was some sort of divine accommodation to problematic or sinful behavior (as I totally grant In the case of slavery, divorce, etc.) especially as everything I read says they were carefully instituted, following exact specifications given by God, in order to properly reflect that said heavenly / perfect sacrifice.

Eventually I’ll read Boyd and give you a proper engaged answer. Will take some time, but it is on my list. I don’t want to give a shallow or too quick response without seriously chewing in it. But if I forget please feel free to remind me.

1 Like

I’m not sure I fully understand here. Animal sacrifice was widespread in the ANE among pagans as well. It is also very common among pagans of today (and other animists; in Africa, at any rate). It seems a reading into the text to do this–somewhat of the error we as NT Christians commit by saying Isaiah’s prophecies were about Christ, or that the Genesis report of the biting man’s heel and man striking his head was necessarily about Christ–we forget that some of this was pertinent to the current time. A Jewish scholar would not necessarily accept what interpretation we foist on the OT.

Thanks.

Very good and true, by the way. I can’t speak for other Christians, but I have always understood it this way. Because that what God was impressed with, was Abraham’s willingness to give up (sacrifice) his son. And God didn’t require such ultimately, but His willingness to give up had to be real, and this (almost) physical sacrifice demonstrated said willingness

I have this suspicion regarding the rich young ruler (yes my words there was inaccurately harsh, was just trying to be a bit silly)… that, had he done so, as soon as he had loaded up all his worldly possessions on the cart and was driving them to the market to sell them, Jesus might well have stopped him and said, Do not sell your goods… Now I know that you fear God, as you have not withheld all your possessions from me…”

Elsewhere I shared I was struck that, in Luke, within the same section as the young ruler who Christ asked for everything, you had Zaccheus praised by Jesus with blessing of salvation after he had given half of his possessions to the poor.

1 Like

Great example.

I don’t think it is reading into the text in the least…
My assumption is that animal sacrifices were offered by God’s guidance, and with his blessing, from the earliest days of history, long before there was an ANE. If I remotely trust the biblical narrative (which you know I inerrantly do!) Then Abel offered animal sacrifices in the very first generation after creation (in approximately 3991 BC, of course! :wink: ). And, of course, God was “pleased” with Abel’s offering.

Then Noah also offered animal sacrifices also long before the other ANE cultures got ahold of the idea. I’d assume that was where the rest of the ANE derived the idea from.

I don’t expect we would need to agree about the theology itself, but I hope we can agree insofar as that a straightforward (dare I say literalistic) reading of the OT text as it is would affirm that from the OT’s perspective, animal sacrifices were going on long, long, long before there was an ANE?

Point is, animal sacrifices exist in the world as a result of God teaching his people to do so, because these were “copies” of Christ’s one sacrifice (to borrow Hebrews’ language)… these sacrifices did not simply exist as random “happenstance”, unintended by God, which he then appropriated in order to illustrate Christ’s sacrifice.

A Jewish scholar would not necessarily accept what interpretation we foist on the OT.

I would assume not. But he wouldn’t accept the interpretation of the author of Hebrews either!

Nonetheless, I’m completely shirking responsibility here and asserting it is the Author of Hebrews that is undeniably “foisting” this particular interpretation on the OT, not me. I happen to agree with him, but don’t blame the messenger…!

:wink:

somewhat of the error we as NT Christians commit by saying Isaiah’s prophecies were about Christ

Next thing you know, you’ll be criticizing those Christians who claim that Moses was really writing about Christ, too. (I remember someone else saying something about that… something about, “if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me…)

Since we’re touching on it, I thought I’d share my larger understanding of atonement theology… I’d written this over on the inerrancy thread some time ago, copied here if interesting…

Thank you yet again, for bringing my mind back to some of the basic OT knowledge that I’d forgotten–for some reason.

“in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin” …(the sin of wandering from the subject) and I am re formulating some thoughts. Very well put. Thanks.

All very true. And far be it from me to deny the utility - indeed the necessity - of finding clarity and deepened understanding from varied theories of atonement. That is no guarantee that all that have ever been put forward (however historically pedigreed among the post-apostolic church) are all true, much less equal in accuracy or profundity. E.g. if someone put forward the conviction regarding your heroic mall police officer that he was a violent tempered man who abuses his family and was just looking forward to being able to shoot somebody on any provocation; then those who know that officer personally and know him to actually be a quite gentle man who loathes the use of weapons; they would be quite right to stand up and deny any standing for the charge of cruelty put forward (much less equal standing with all the other more truthful theories about his action).

Regarding your observations about our worldly situations being “shadows” or “copies” of their perfect counterparts in heaven (very ‘Lewisian’ echoes - that!) and as you say, very scripturally embedded too as we would expect from Lewis. As I recall (and without research that I’m not taking time for in a quick morning reply before work) I’ll insist just off the top of my head that I think the things referred to as being copies were such things as temple or tabernacle (Moses instructions for how the tent should be set up, or David/Solomon’s instructions for the temple). I suggest it would be a mistake to think that this applies across to the board to all our cultural trappings - even if it gets broad scriptural acknowledgment. Even regarding the things that are copies (like the temple) - are we not told finally in Revelation that in the everlasting City of God there will be no temple because God is its temple? Just as there will be no longer be any sun needed for light, etc. We are also told of all the things that will never enter its gates (liars, fornicators, etc.) In other words, there are some things left behind (some of them - good riddance; but yet others that weren’t bad but have now been superseded). My impression (again without research here and now) is that the sacrificial system was primarily installed to deal with sin. The cruel system of Roman torture and capital punishment has even less biblical sanction as a “God-installed” system than the old sacrificial system did. Far be it from any of us to think that Roman crosses are going to “be a thing” in heaven any more than we would expect to find wings in the mansions dedicated to being dungeons and torture chambers. Those are the wares of this world, courtesy of our own wickedness, and the very things that creation (and us!) groan to be set free from. God’s association with it is that he was willing to endure it all in order to reach out to us - rescuing us from all those things! That new life will in no way (other than as loathsome memories that we gratefully turn away from in our savior’s presence) showcase or celebrate those former things, much less be something that God, our loving father would somehow be “in to”.

Thanks for your continued thoughts on all this.

1 Like