Why is the crucifixion so meaningful when the rise of Jesus means he sacrificed very little?

[TheLightInTheTower]

I've heard from Christians before a lot of reasons why the death of Jesus is important and how he sacrificed himself for the good of all of us. I've read many different explanations for the method. I don't quite understand how most of them work with the belief that Jesus then rose from the dead, though.

I understand it in terms of the traditional reading of the crucifixion - that God sacrificed Jesus to Satan as part of a literal deal with the devil, trading him for humanity (which he acquired after Adam and Eve accepted his deal back in Eden), but that God tricked the devil by bringing Jesus back to eternal life, fulfilling the deal but leaving the devil with nothing. ( Based on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6) That interpretation of events makes sense to me.

But it's my understanding that modern Christianity has generally done away with that traditional interpretation and come up with new ways to view the crucifixion, and has largely been replaced with Satisfaction and Substitution based interpretations. But I don't understand how the resurrection of Jesus fits within those, and I was hoping someone would be able to help explain it to me.

 

[geiroffenberg]

There are many layers to the gospel, but under it all is that it is the "gospel" that is the good message from god.
Its not just a message either, it is the word of god in flesh. So what we see on the cross IS a message. Its true, but the real crucifition of christ - the original slaying of the sacrificial lamb - actually is eternal, it happend before the world began, as john states in the book of revelation. so its more a statment of a eternal truth, than just a literal event. It is STILL TRUE that god took all death and sin in himself, but spiritually speaking it is much bigger than what we see with our eyes on the cross. It is the ternal god, the word, createor of all things that states he has dealt with all these curses in himself, our job is just to stop judging then and simply receive this as a fact.

So if we can see the cross as something mroe than a man dying on a cross for a crime he didnt do, then we can see it is God telling us HE died for the sins, death and curses of the world. SO we have a sure message,
IT was true before jesus did this, because it is a ternal gospel, but now we have the real word to stand on.

So as you say, if he rose again, and if he died the death of all the world, then it is all finished. The message then is that God has dealt witha ll death, curse and sin already, and our job is then to receive this consuious faith in what he has done. This change of mind, going from trust in only my own carnal and material resources to trusting on gods word, of what he has done for us, is called repentance, and is the only requirement for salvation. It is also true faith.
Salvation works trough this kind of mind change, that is called repentance,.

 

[geiroffenberg]

I understand it in terms of the traditional reading of the crucifixion - that God sacrificed Jesus to Satan as part of a literal deal with the devil, trading him for humanity

Well, this may be something some people belives for a while, but it isnt really truth. God has never owned satan anything and doesnt have to work out from a deal with him. Its really the whole "law" thing that is the problem.
As they ate of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil", which basically is that they took on the law lifestyle, judging everything by good and evil, and living accoprding to that system. THEN God had to manifest in that kind of realm and satisfie the law. This was more done as a message to humans under the law so they could realize the law has been satisfied. As their mind then goes out of the law mind, the carnal mind, then carn return to spiritual unity with God. Because the blood of jesus metaphorically covers the law for all eternity, so there is no reason fro us to engage in that knowledge of good and evil no more.
So its not really about how the resurection was a trick etc, its more for us, to speak a word so clreatly into our fallen minds that we wake up to the fact that god IS the only power and that he HAS dealt with good and evil, and we can exit the realm of legalism, wchich has death and curses. Our unit with the spirit then means we died out from this law realm, and resurected with god the word in his realm. Thats the real meaning of the resurection, as paul explainjs in romans 6 7 and 8.

 

[brightlights]

I don't think that the exchange model that you're describing is the traditional model. I would argue that the biblical and traditional model is substitutionary atonement. Jesus came as a man, was born under the covenant, assumed responsibility for our sins, and died to pay the penalty for our sins under the covenant.

His rising again means that he truly paid for our sins. The wages of sin is death. If he did not rise then we would have no guarantee that our debt it truly paid. The resurrection is a cosmic receipt guaranteeing that we've already paid the debt of our sins and that we do not have to pay it again.

 

[geiroffenberg]

His rising again means that he truly paid for our sins. The wages of sin is death. If he did not rise then we would have no guarantee that our debt it truly paid. The resurrection is a cosmic receipt guaranteeing that we've already paid the debt of our sins and that we do not have to pay it again.

I totally agree with this that it is aprt of the message of the gospel of the resurection.

It is stated somwhere in hebrew 13 that he was "raised BY his own blood". In other words, as his death paid for all the sins he carried for the world, the "blood of god" on one level atoned for it and the proof that it worked is the resurection. It is many layers of truth to this, but this is definitly one. I still maintain that the message in this is more important, if we dont udnerstand the meaning it makes no sense. It is after all called "the good news". The word itself as received is what makes all the difference.

 

[Thursday]

I've heard from Christians before a lot of reasons why the death of Jesus is important and how he sacrificed himself for the good of all of us. I've read many different explanations for the method. I don't quite understand how most of them work with the belief that Jesus then rose from the dead, though.

I understand it in terms of the traditional reading of the crucifixion - that God sacrificed Jesus to Satan as part of a literal deal with the devil, trading him for humanity (which he acquired after Adam and Eve accepted his deal back in Eden), but that God tricked the devil by bringing Jesus back to eternal life, fulfilling the deal but leaving the devil with nothing. ( Based on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6) That interpretation of events makes sense to me.

But it's my understanding that modern Christianity has generally done away with that traditional interpretation and come up with new ways to view the crucifixion, and has largely been replaced with Satisfaction and Substitution based interpretations. But I don't understand how the resurrection of Jesus fits within those, and I was hoping someone would be able to help explain it to me.

It's more than the crucifixion. It is the fact that the creator of the universe chose to become human, and in becoming human to suffer a terrible death at the hands of his creation.

 

[Ken Rank]

I understand it in terms of the traditional reading of the crucifixion - that God sacrificed Jesus to Satan as part of a literal deal with the devil, trading him for humanity (which he acquired after Adam and Eve accepted his deal back in Eden), but that God tricked the devil by bringing Jesus back to eternal life, fulfilling the deal but leaving the devil with nothing. ( Based on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6) That interpretation of events makes sense to me.

But it's my understanding that modern Christianity has generally done away with that traditional interpretation and come up with new ways to view the crucifixion, and has largely been replaced with Satisfaction and Substitution based interpretations. But I don't understand how the resurrection of Jesus fits within those, and I was hoping someone would be able to help explain it to me.

Wow, I, respectfully, would adamantly have to disagree with this. There are a few reasons... maybe best for me to number them.

1. Christianity did inherit (through converts) a bit of Zoroastrianism. That religion has essentially two gods, a good and an evil god. Christianity has, in a sense, turned Satan into God's evil equal making it a type of Zoroastrianism. However, Satan is a created being and thus never equal to God in any way. The author of creation has authority over the created, including Satan.

2. God calls human sacrifice an abomination... it is what the pagans did. Yeshua (Jesus) did indeed sacrifice himself, but he was not literally sacrificed as animals had been before. Yeshua was did not have his throat cut, his blood not sprinkled on the altar, he was not quartered and roasted and then eaten. Paul is who calls Yeshua a sacrifice but it is meant metaphorically. Paul actually refers to himself more times in sacrificial terms than he does Yeshua. And, Paul refers to Christians using sacrificial terms more than he does Yeshua. Yet, we recognize and accept the metaphoric nature when he uses those terms on himself and us, but take it literally when he speak of Yeshua.

3. God did not offer Satan anything. He created him perfect, he rebelled, he can't be redeemed. Yeshua gave himself as a ransom for all, but that payment was not to Satan, it was to God. Let me explain....

When Adam was created he was created perfect. He lived AS IF plugged into God as God was his source for all understanding. Adam also was given dominion over creation and so when Adam sinned, it was AS IF he unplugged from God and now had to determine for himself between good and evil. But in addition to that, there was a penalty for his sin, death. Many spiritualize this, call it a spiritual death all that... where we see in English, "you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17) the Hebrew (mut t'mut) is literally translated, "dying you will die." This reveals a PROCESS that leads to death, NOT an immediate death. "Dying" (a process) "you will die" (that leads to a finality). So, before Adam sinned there was no death, but when he sinned, the clock began to tick and one day he would taste death. Now, all of us are born with a clock ticking. Not only us, but all of creation. Adam had dominion over it all and when he fell it fell and now all things in creation are dying. Science even proves this (Entropy, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

So you had a perfect creation in Adam who was tempted, gave in and sinned, and the result was death. Now, the curse of death needed to be reversed, and Yeshua would do that by doing the reverse of what Adam did. Called the 2nd Adam ( 1 Corinthians 15:45) he came into this world without sin, was tempted, but unlike the first Adam did not give in and when he ultimately died, he died not having sinned. The wages of SIN was death, and so... without having sin, the grace could not contain Yeshua and he raised. He won back the dominion Adam lost (Matthew 28:18, the word for power is also the word for dominion) and has not earned the right to perfect whomever and whatever he desires.

He sacrificed himself as we can see... but he was not a literal sacrifice. The sacrifices all POINTED to the work I just described, and that is why Paul used the terminology of the sacrificial system in his letters. Romans 5:12-19 speaks on what I just shared. Not sure I helped but be blessed anyway.

 

[TheLightInTheTower]

Wow, I, respectfully, would adamantly have to disagree with this.

Well, I mean, you can disagree with the interpretation. Religious understanding changes over time and I know that viewpoint has largely been abandoned in favour of novel alternatives, by modern day protestants especially, but historically you can't really deny that it was a common and traditional interpretation. (Probably in part because it's the easiest to understand - a lot of the answers so far have been pretty confusing)

But as I said, I can understand that one, so it was more a point of reference for my own understanding limitations than an attempt to put it forward as a correct interpretation of the atonement. A bit of an aside from the question itself, which I think you did a good job answering. I will think on your words for a while - thank you! Once I believe I understand them, I may have some followup questions for you.

 

[TheLightInTheTower]

I don't think that the exchange model that you're describing is the traditional model. I would argue that the biblical and traditional model is substitutionary atonement. Jesus came as a man, was born under the covenant, assumed responsibility for our sins, and died to pay the penalty for our sins under the covenant.

His rising again means that he truly paid for our sins. The wages of sin is death. If he did not rise then we would have no guarantee that our debt it truly paid. The resurrection is a cosmic receipt guaranteeing that we've already paid the debt of our sins and that we do not have to pay it again.

The two models that can claim the mantle of "traditional" are the Ransom model (which I described, at least in part) and the Christus Victor model (which is also pretty contrary to substitution atonement theory since it also presupposed a great evil other that god can best defeat in this manner). Substitutionary atonement (or at least the variant you seem to be describing here, penal substitution) is a relatively recent and novel interpretation. Not to say it is less correct, it's just one I personally find more difficult to understand.

 

[Ken Rank]

Well, I mean, you can disagree with the interpretation. Religious understanding changes over time and I know that viewpoint has largely been abandoned in favour of novel alternatives, by modern day protestants especially, but historically you can't really deny that it was a common and traditional interpretation. (Probably in part because it's the easiest to understand - a lot of the answers so far have been pretty confusing)

But as I said, I can understand that one, so it was more a point of reference for my own understanding limitations than an attempt to put it forward as a correct interpretation of the atonement. A bit of an aside from the question itself, which I think you did a good job answering. I will think on your words for a while - thank you! Once I believe I understand them, I may have some followup questions for you.

You're welcome anytime if you have anything else. That isn't to say I am right either... but perhaps together we can work through it.

I questioned your interpretation because I don't recall it in history. We have a school here in Kentucky, and we are just putting it together. We will be teaching semiotics (study of symbols), linguistics, various rules of exegesis... and historical analysis. So as something of a history buff, I don't remember a Jewish interpretation from early on that aligns to what you shared. I say Jewish because, as you likely know, the faith was considered a sect of Judaism until the final split from those roots in 132AD. If what you shared is historical, it has to come from a time when the face of the faith was more Greek centered which would make that later than 132AD. It sounds gnostic... but without a source I can't know for sure. Do you have a source?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello, TheLightintheTower, and welcome to CF! (Cool name!)

While I wouldn't word it in the way you did, I think the Christus Victor - Christ's victory over death - is a primary reason why His death was important.

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you describe though, a few of your words and phrases could be interpreted differently.

More importantly, I would say that trying to settle on a single theory of atonement to the exclusion of others unnecessarily restricts the work of Christ. Simply put, He was accomplishing more than just one thing by dying on the cross.

I think all or most theories have elements of truth to them. The Orthodox understanding (which is entirely focused on the historical) finds room for all of them to some degree, with the exception perhaps of the idea that it was suffering which God demanded, a "pound of flesh" before He became willing and/or able to forgive sins. That narrow slice is problematic. The variety of others illustrate that much was going on, and God accomplished much.

(Though I also must say that God "owing" Satan anything is problematic as well.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

By the way, Christus Victor is meant to emphasize Christ's victory over DEATH ... not evil as some external force.

The Scriptures explain death as a curse that came over all mankind as a result of sin, which was essentially because they shut themselves away from the Source of Life, which is God ... so death is the result.

Christ defeated death, so it no longer has dominion over persons, and their bodies will one day be resurrected, reunited with souls, and everyone will be a complete living person again, no longer subject to the death that comes to us all in this present age.

I hope that helps.

 

[TheLightInTheTower]

I say Jewish because, as you likely know, the faith was considered a sect of Judaism until the final split from those roots in 132AD. If what you shared is historical, it has to come from a time when the face of the faith was more Greek centered which would make that later than 132AD. It sounds gnostic... but without a source I can't know for sure. Do you have a source?

I think it gained prominence and became the dominant interpretation shortly after that thanks to the work of Origen, so you would be correct - end of the 2nd century. Previous tot he First Council. I think he was pretty ardently anti-Gnostic though. But from what I understand it remained widely accepted until at least 1000 AD. Anselm spent a lot of time arguing against it, specifically, because of that.

I could try to dig up some sources - I guess we can make this a history thread instead of the original topic, since the history is pretty fascinating and I will readily admit most of my understanding is fairly superficial - I am definitely an outsider looking in here!

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you describe though, a few of your words and phrases could be interpreted differently.

(Though I also must say that God "owing" Satan anything is problematic as well.)

Obviously I have interpreted what I've read through my own filters and so there are bound to be mistakes in how I've understood these things. So I'm not sure of the rationale, but I believe it was humans had given themselves to Satan and God himself paid that price to get us back (but also in a way that Satan did not receive what he actually desired).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Right, I meant no criticism, just I wished to be cautious and not entirely endorse your interpretation. It's ok, these things take time to comprehend. I was afraid your source itself might be a problem - some are.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think that the exchange model that you're describing is the traditional model. I would argue that the biblical and traditional model is substitutionary atonement. Jesus came as a man, was born under the covenant, assumed responsibility for our sins, and died to pay the penalty for our sins under the covenant.

His rising again means that he truly paid for our sins. The wages of sin is death. If he did not rise then we would have no guarantee that our debt it truly paid. The resurrection is a cosmic receipt guaranteeing that we've already paid the debt of our sins and that we do not have to pay it again.

Actually, the ransom view he mentioned is older than a satisfactionary or substitutionary viewpoint.

The satisfaction/substitution view emerged from the medieval system of penances, which in turn came from Roman legal concepts. During the middle ages, western theology took a rationalistic turn and started thinking of divine justice abstractly. Not all Christians have had this perspective (it's certainly not a common theme among Eastern Christians), and it's not wrong to talk about other things that Christ accomplished through his Cross.

 

[TheLightInTheTower]

Do you actually have any good sources on the historical Christus Victor theories of atonement? Good suggestions for reading? Gustav Aulén has a pretty thorough book on it I think but he seems to believe it was sin, death AND the devil himself that Christ achieved victory over, not just death.

So if you have any specific criticisms of it, my major source for a lot of this stuff is Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement

 

[FireDragon76]

While satisfaction is a theme in Luther's writings, it is not an exclusive theme and it is not handled the same as in Reformed Christian thought. Protestant scholasticism, which was a movement that began with figures like Calvin and Chemnitz, tended to take the satisfactionary viewpoint as a given because it fit with their overall tone of theology- no loose ends, even if the answer can be emotionally unsatisfying.

Roman Catholics never had one official viewpoint either, though they tended to come down on a satisfactionary viewpoint as predominant.

 

[TheLightInTheTower]

Oh, I just want to say thank you all for your responses. This is my first real thread here, and I'm very happy to have received such well thought out effort in return.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you actually have any good sources on the historical Christus Victor theories of atonement? Good suggestions for reading? Gustav Aulén has a pretty thorough book on it I think but he seems to believe it was sin, death AND the devil himself that Christ achieved victory over, not just death.

So if you have any specific criticisms of it, my major source for a lot of this stuff is Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement

Well, Christ DID achieve Victory over sin, death, and the devil himself.

I suspect the problem may be in a book devoted to the subject. I'm not trying to be cheeky, but it is much simpler than would require a book to explain, so maybe that's why everything else is included.

And again, we don't deny that Christ did those other things as well. We just EMPHASIZE His victory over death, since that was the initial result of sin, and the thing that most needs healing in us.

Truly, the atonement is at once both simple and profound.

I'll ask if there are good recommendations for a book, or comments on that one, from some who could answer better than I.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'll ask if there are good recommendations for a book, or comments on that one, from some who could answer better than I.

I will quote your post in making the request, with your permission?