Jeannot said:
Jesus was one person. One person, no matter how divine, cannot take away the sin of the world. That would take ALL persons to accomplish. St Paul tells us that Jesus is “the firstborn of the dead.” Jesus rose to show us the way, but like the apostles, we have run from the cross.
RubySera_Martin said:
................
For that reason, it seems God should be able to forgive, too, WITHOUT human or animal sacrifice. According to traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant teaching, God is incapable of doing this. I cannot accept such a God. That was the point I meant to make.
I was thinking . . .
What if Christianity isn't about the "forgiveness of sins" but something slightly different?
In the past, people often made the ritual sacrifice of animals to "obtain" forgiveness for sins. However, in some places in the Bible, sacrifices are not made for sins, but for other purposes. Could a "ritual sacrifice" simply have been an expression? The "ritual sacrifice" was a "sacrifice" where you gave up a portion of your property, income or wealth as a sign that you understood that a relationship with God wasn't "cheap." You worked for it, lived for it, bled for it. A sacrifice, could, possibly have symbolised a change of heart or a change in focus and direction in life. If a sacrifice was a public and explicit expression, then it
helped you remember a choice or decision you made. If you were sincere, and your
expression agreed with your heart and your thoughts, God granted your wishes (not necessarily forgiveness or acceptance). In a sense, a ritual sacrifice was perhaps not just for acceptance by God, but possibly also to ask God for assistance in personal endeavours. This might have included things like, getting married, having children and making money to support them. The time taken for the animal to burn up was an opportunity for reflection and meditation. The sacrifice was an expression of dedication and commitment.
Moving on. Crucifixion and ritual sacrifice: were they the same event? Would there be a twist to the story if they were two separate events not one? I once read an article in
The Good News magazine that suggested this view. I was influenced to come up with a similar view to that in
The Good News magazine, with some adaptations of my own. The crucifixion is usually seen as the ritual sacrifice itself, but what if that concept doesn't work. First, if they were same event, it would have no value as the ritual sacrifice of a dead human being, the Jesus in the world of the dead, is that of a
defeated Christ/Messiah/Saviour. It must, then, have taken place later. Jesus rose again three days later, ascended into heaven, and
then performed the sacrifice.
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. . . . John 20:17
Was Jesus up to something? Hadn't he completed his mission? Perhaps the reason why he needed to ascend back up to heaven was because he had something to do
up there. So what was the crucifixion for? Moreover, what was the purpose of the "ritual sacrifice"? Two separate events, rather than one, taking place. Going back to the Old Testament might offer some clues.
These people come near to me with their mouth and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. Isaiah 29:13
Having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumping over them by the cross. Colossians 2:14-15
In Isaiah 29:13, God is angry because people turned His Law into a bunch rules. By following rules, people started to believe that they could manipulate both themselves and God into accepting them as "righteous." God couldn't accept what they were doing because they thought they were special for being "rule-followers." They turned it into a systematised and technicalised Law system where you were right or wrong based on technicalities rather than something deeply personal. Colossians 2:14-15 may suggest that the crucifixion was really a
political and moral sacrifice to free people from technicalised and systematised versions of God's Law. Jesus gave his life as a martyr against ideology and legalism, not sins.
So . . . the crucifixion was a political and moral sacrifice. The crucifixion was an opportunity for Jesus. He died, spent three days in the world of the dead, but because it was an honourable death, God raised him up and took him up to heaven. This was Jesus' chance to open up a possibility for a new relationship with God. The ritual sacrifice was perhaps to establish and herald this new relationship, as well as a new purpose, a change from the legalism of the past.
...built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus himself as chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit. Ephesians 2:20-22
As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 2:4-5
I pray also that those who believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ... I in them and you in me. John 17:20-23
These three passages seem to go together. The first two talk about a spiritual temple -- that God lives in us. The third suggests not only that God is in us, but also that we are in God -- God lives in us and we live in God. Home sweet home.
Maybe that's the real purpose of Jesus' ritual sacrifice: dedication of a new, spiritual temple. A spiritual nexus of God's people. When we become spiritual descendents of Jesus, we inherit God's acceptance of Jesus: God accepts us because he accepted Jesus first. Perhaps Christianity doesn't really revolve around God's forgiveness after all. Forgiveness is just a part of what it means to be accepted by God and to be part of His family/kingdom. We've wrongly put so much emphasis on it. When we're devoted to that new purpose, we become spiritual descendents of Jesus and
inherit a place in
his home. His home is our home too. Hopefully this is home sweet home for you too.
The idea that the crucifixion and ritual sacrifice were two separate events, rather than one, seems to work for me. It may sound like a break from the traditional story, so it may or may not work for you. Perhaps God forgives us not because someone died, but because we give ourselves a new purpose and make a commitment to it.
Rather than the Forgiveness Gospel, maybe it's the Home Sweet Home Gospel -- that God is just calling us to come back home.
