I have never heard that theory/opinion before. Can you provide any scriptures to back that up?
Or do you mean it validates what God said/prophesied about the sacrifice, that it set it apart from others? If it is the latter, I’m in agreement, if the former, then it’s new to me.
But Israelites sacrificed blameless animals right. Sacrifice meaning noun, as in animal placed on altar? Or was did sacrifice mean something verb, as in forfeiting something of value? Or both?
Israelites sacrificed their owned animals. Humans made sacrifice to God. But Jesus wasn’t “owned” by us, but God. So Jesus was God’s sacrifice (noun or verb?) to Himself?
That isn’t really rhetorical, I’m trying to learn more about this to come to a better understanding. But I am getting further away from the “substitutionary” stance and leaning more towards “Christus Victor”.
I’m really enjoying reading George MacDonald.
I think the animal sacrifices were more of a verb, as there were grain sacrifices and tithing was a monetary sacrifice. There were giving something of value, but trusting in God that He would provide. When Abraham needed a sacrifice, (in place of his son), God provided. I guess in that sense it was a noun, more than a verb, because the ram cost him nothing, but he was willing to give up his son.
So I think the sacrifice of Jesus, was in the giving something of value. God enjoyed life with Jesus in heaven I am sure, and I am sure Jesus enjoyed being with the Father. But He was willing to give up the ‘luxury’ of that to save man, He gave up that value, sacrificed.
So I see the sacrifice of Jesus in His life, not His death. But His life had to end as some point, and that is also how He was to defeat darkness, in being obedient to God even to the point of death. There were also may prophesies that required His death and it be on a cross and other things, but I think the main purpose of His death was to defeat death in obedience to God.
John 8:1-11 When there was an adulteress/law breaker/sinner brought before Jesus. Was His response, bring the most ‘righteous’ Jew before me and stone that man in her place, or stone me in her place, someone must be punished!
No, His response was mercy, and repentance. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.””
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”"
The laws were never about the consequences of not following the laws, there was always more to it. The laws were there to make us aware of the love of God. If you refer to the bottom of my first post, were I try to compare as a librarians law. It was not about following the laws, to not get yelled at, it was about loving others and putting their needs before yours, and in that, you will follow the laws.
Jesus had to suffer to get to the end goal (of showing us the way, and conquering the powers of darkness), much like if I place an object before you that at the end of a path of hot coals. To get the object, you have to suffer or suffering is something you will endure to reach the end. But if you could walk around the coals, you could still get the object and not suffer. Suffering isn’t in and of itself required, but happens to be there. Jesus was willing to suffer and did. The end goal being, showing us the love of God on this earth, and being obedient to God even to the point of death. But I don’t think He appeased God in suffering. He suffered for us, not in place of us. He was willing to suffer to help us, not He suffered appease God.
But I don’t think God needed a sacrifice for sins in that He is subdued by the “laws” of nature or His own “laws” in order to be just. God did not require a sacrifice or suffering to “appease His wrath”. He is just, and mercy can be just.
There are some of us who would be able to forgive one who wronged us, to cancel their debt. Are we more merciful than the Father, the originator of mercy in us? So can God not also forgive those who wronged Him without a sacrifice or payment?
The Christus Victor seems to fit the rest of the scripture so much better than the more commonly taught “substitutionary” interpretation.
But if God was to forgive all of all sins, are we any better off than before we sinned? That is we Jesus was sent, to conquer sin, not just to make us atoned for that sin.
If Jesus lived in any other rule, like with the Romans or any non-Jewish place, He never would have died. Who would hate or hate enough to kill a man who was extremely humble, loved to serve others, and healed people? If anything, people would probably try to keep Him alive as long as possible, to exploit His kindness as long as possible.
It is only through the law that sin could take such advantage of, to make people hate enough to kill through jealousy and pride.
Eph 1:19-20 " I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God’s power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power 20 that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God’s right hand in the heavenly realms. "
What power is he speaking of? Is it some ‘mystical’ power that is given to Christians? Knowledge is power. Is the power of Christ in the knowledge of how/why He lived? Is the power of Christ, the knowledge of the kingdom of God. A kingdom where power is not earthly, power is not game of thrones, it is not inherited through blood, or influence on brute strength and cunning? Rather a kingdom where power is love, the highest of kings means to be the lowliest of servants? Can anyone name an act/event that God did out of selfishness? Everything is for us, He is thinking of us and serving us in everything He does, the King of Kings!
If Jesus never died, one could say, sure He is wise and moral, but He values His life more than God. But in His death, we can now say that everything He did (the washing of disciples feet) even to the point of death, He was obedient to God. “Not my will, but yours be done”. Luke 22:42 Or Mat 6:10 “your will be done,on earth as it is in heaven.”.
Has Jesus never lived, we would not know of this knowledge, or be able to have this power. His life and the knowledge He shared with us is what conquers death and sin. We too can have this power conquer sin, the power is in the spirit and knowledge of the reason for the laws. To “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself”.
So I echo Paul (but from a different perspective than the tradition views I have had in the past). I no longer read a verse of how the blood of Christ covers us, as a substitutionary statement. Rather along with scripture from the beginning in Gen 9. The blood represented the life, so it was Jesus’ life that covers us, knowledge of how/why He lived that covers us. We are made righteous in the faith in the mercy of God (shown to us through Jesus) and repentance, just like the harlot, who was shown mercy, then told to go and sin no more. I am by no means trying to take anything away from Jesus, as I am saying it is Jesus that made us aware, or pointed us, or showed us the path to life. He is the way, the truth and the life, He showed us the truth, and the truth set us free, free from power of the powers of darkness. All the glory to Jesus, the image of the invisible God, who was able to show us who God is way better than the laws ever could.
I am trying to find verses that go against the Christus Victor mindset, as I don’t want to believe something that is against the Bible, but I have yet to find a verse that says anything against it. If fact, the more verses I find, the more seem to support it, and a much more logical sense then the substitutionary mindset does, that atheist seem to dislike or find fault in. Maybe because it is faulty?