Bible Study Jesus' cruficixion equivalent to child sacrifice?

[cyberjosh]

What do you think about this article here? Several warning bells went off but I can't quite point my finger on it. He showed how God hates condemning the inocent and how it is not permissible under his law but then makes it sound like the theology of Jesus' sacrifice went against God's justice system. And he also quotes a very curious passage from Micah where Micah asks rhetorically if he should sacrifice his first born for transgression. What on earth does that verse mean? There is a "part 2" link at the bottom which completes the article, so read that too to see his conclusion. But the article disturbed me a bit. Can any one answer my questions to put me at ease a little?

Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

One of the most puzzling parts of the article is when he says:

Today, we can look back upon these periods of apostasy in Israel's history and shake the head in condemnation. The thought of slaying an innocent child to pay for one's sins is anathema. Now, how much more the concept that the Law of God legalizes and accepts the substitution of the Innocent for punishment in the place of the guilty? Would God do that which He regards as an abomination for others to do? Would God do that which is not right and punish His own innocent Child for our transgressions - for the sins of the soul? It is written: 'It is not good to punish an innocent man' (Prov.17:26). Also: 'Do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty' (Ex.23:7). 'Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent - the LORD detests them both' (Prov.17v15). Yet, this is exactly the teaching of those who adhere to the beliefs of either the satisfaction or the penal substitution theories of atonement. It is envisaged that God the Father, in order to save us from the penalty of our sins, had to satisfy His own law and honour by punishing the Righteous One in our place. It is a reinstitution of the Canaanite doctrine - to teach that an innocent Child can, through sacrifice, pay the penalty for man's transgressions and sins of the soul.

It sounds subtly like a wrong arguement to me but it has some elements of truth in it. What is the proper analysis?

 

[jgredline]

Thanks Josh
I will spend some time on this timely subject and post my comments in a little bit.

 

[TanNinety]

I probably wouldn't be much help because I already believe in line with what the article had to say. I see Christ not as a sacrifice to a God for cleansing of sin but as a ransom for the devil that He bought us with His death. To me the payment was not being made on the cross to God but to the accuser as He rescued us with His forgiveness.

I will leave you with: Ever wonder why all it took for Christ to forgive sins was just His word of "your sins are forgiven" but christians say that it took the sacrificial death of a son for God the Father to forgive sins? Isn't the authority that Christ forgave sins with drawn from God? Then how come God cannot forgive sins without the sacrifice of innocent blood?

But see if Isaiah 53 helps you any.

 

[TanNinety]

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

To who and why is ransom given? To a captor who is holding someone captive for their release.

Deu 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

A sacrifice is a sacrifice, be it burning of or being nailed to a cross. Now why would God choose something that He abhors to forgive sins?

I am not sure if I am pulling these verses out of context from memory, so check them.
Jeremiah 7:21-22 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Jeremiah 8:8 How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely.

We often take whatever is in the bible to be the word of God, but God Himself said there were things that were falsely added by the scribes. Did He prevent it? No. Did He try to correct it? I believe Yashuah was doing just that.

Leviticus 15-1:33 starts of with the Lord spoke to Moses and describes various reasons why pigeons and turtledoves need to be sacrificed in the temple by a priest.
Now Yashuah was touched by a woman who had a constant blood discharge. Did He tell her to go offer pigeons in the temple? Did He consider Himself unclean for being touched by a woman who had a blood discharge? He actually went to the temple and made a scene and drove out the pigeons, turtledoves and animals. Now why is that, if God commanded such practices? If it was just the selling of the animals that bothered Him and not the sacrifices themselves then He would have tried to correct that part of it like He did correct the Sabbath law and not completely do away with it.

Yashuah said He was the resurrection(not a sacrifice), that He was a ransom(not a sacrifice). He sacrificed His life i.e., laid it down for us, but it wasn’t a ritual of sacrifice to appease God but it was a ransom being paid to rescue us from our captivity of sin.

These are the thoughts I have developed from the scripture, so by all means consider and critique them.

Some might argue on the technicality that God abhorred "child" sacrifice and not an adult human sacrifice. I haven't looked into that part of the argument yet.

 

[Solo]

I probably wouldn't be much help because I already believe in line with what the article had to say. I see Christ not as a sacrifice to a God for cleansing of sin but as a ransom for the devil that He bought us with His death. To me the payment was not being made on the cross to God but to the accuser as He rescued us with His forgiveness.

I will leave you with: Ever wonder why all it took for Christ to forgive sins was just His word of "your sins are forgiven" but christians say that it took the sacrificial death of a son for God the Father to forgive sins? Isn't the authority that Christ forgave sins with drawn from God? Then how come God cannot forgive sins without the sacrifice of innocent blood?

But see if Isaiah 53 helps you any.

Jesus' work on the cross was established before the foundations of the world. His work of salvation was determined upon every soul upon their death. When a righteous man died, he went to the portion of Sheol for the righteous, paradise (Abraham's bosom), while those that died in unrighteousness went to the portion of Sheol for the unrighteous, hell (torment). After Jesus' resurrection the righteous portion of Sheol moved to heaven, and since His resurrection all believers have the hope of being resurrected.