There is a great difference between the sacrifice of Christ and offerings under the Law of Moses. And there are major similarities, some of which are directly applicable to the thesis we have been developing in respect to sacrificial offerings for human nature.
The difference
Animal sacrifices were not the real thing. God wanted lives dedicated to His commands and His principles; animal sacrifices were of no use in and of themselves.
That point should have been perfectly clear to Israel: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eat ye flesh [i.e. you keep the burnt offering to yourself. I don’t want it!] For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you” (Jer. 7:21-23).
When we look back to Exodus, this is what we see. The book of the covenant (Ex. 20-23) is full of commands to godly living. It has only brief reference to sacrifice and none of the detailed instructions regarding them. The people of Israel committed themselves to keeping the Book of the Covenant and on that basis were welcomed into fellowship with God. Detailed rituals of sacrifice were later revealed but were not of themselves the substance of godly conduct.
In contrast, the sacrifice of Christ was the real thing: “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:5-7 citing Psa. 40:6-8). The Psalm proceeds to describe Christ doing the substance of the will of God (vs. 8-10). In the face of difficulties of every sort — physical exhaustion, family doubts, official opposition, violent threats, unending demands, harassing crowds, frustrating followers, an impenitent nation — he fulfilled the will of God; he “preached righteousness in the great congregation” declaring God’s faithfulness and His salvation. In every circumstance, God’s law was in his heart, on his lips and demonstrated in his actions. This is what God wants.
The similarities
First, the animal offerings were not a reparation by man to God; they could not be for they were themselves a result of God’s bounty to his people. In like manner, Christ is not a gift to God, he is a gift from God. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). When we come to God through Christ, we are accepting God’s gift to us.
Second, the atoning sacrifices under the law were designed to teach divine principles to Israel. Those offered for circumstances where no transgression had been committed (child birth, leprosy, etc.) were instructional devices teaching the power that the flesh has to dominate our lives. The sacrifice of Christ provides the same instruction respecting our nature in a most compelling and powerful form. In this regard, the sacrifice of Christ is very much a sacrificial offering for human nature.
Before developing this matter further, there is one aspect of the subject that needs comment.
A Common Question
Apart from saving us, did Christ have to die for himself?
In disputes within the brotherhood, this is often presented as a helpful way of clarifying the topic. Three questions are raised: 1) If not for us, would Jesus have had to die? 2) Would his perfect obedience apart from the cross have resulted in God giving him eternal life? 3) Or did he have to die for human nature to save himself irrespective of us?
Upon reflection, we feel none of these questions yields a helpful answer.
To save sinners
Jesus was no ordinary person. He was born, not of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but by the direct action of God upon the virgin Mary. This divine action was taken that God might save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). Throughout the ages, He had promised to do so: “With the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities” (Psa. 130:7-8). God begot Jesus to fulfill this promise.
As the apostle writes, here is the great reason why there is a Lord Jesus Christ: “God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him…[God] sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins…the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (I John 4:9,10,14).
The first question, “If not for us, would he have had to die?” cannot be answered for, apart from saving us, Jesus Christ would not have existed! He was specifically begotten that God might save us through him.
Life-giving bread from heaven
Jesus knew this was his purpose. As he said of himself, “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” (John 6:50).
[The phrase “cometh down from heaven” is Bible idiom for something provided by God. It is applied to the manna in the wilderness even though it physically was found on the ground (Ex. 16:14; John 6:31). And any divinely-provided benefit is said to be that which “cometh down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17-18). Since the Lord Jesus was a great blessing supplied by the direct action of the Father, the idiom is appropriately applied to him.]
The Lord clearly saw why he existed and, if he had not humbled himself in obedience unto the death of the cross, he would have denied the very reason he lived. He would have joined all who rebel against the sovereignty of God. Question two is thus useless because, for Jesus, there could be no perfect obedience apart from the cross.
The beauty of our Lord’s character is in the willing enthusiasm with which he embraced the Father’s desire to save: “I delight to do thy will, 0 my God” (Isa. 40:7-8). In this spirit, he would say, “No man taketh it [his life] from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18). He could have walked away from his captors who fell down before him (18:6); he could have urged Pilate to release him (19:9-12). But he would have none of that, for he had the divinely-given right to lay down his life for us and he was determined to do it (10:18).
He benefited from his own death
Giving himself wholly to God’s purpose, he declared, “I lay down my life for the sheep [that they might be saved]…Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again [providing his own salvation]” (John 10:17).
Thus in regard to question three, there is no thought of the Lord dying for himself apart from us or for us without regard to himself. He was the savior of the race; and he was part of the race saved through himself: “for it became him [God], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings [which sufferings included the suffering of death] ” (Heb. 2:9-10).
The death of Christ was thus an integral part of his work of salvation, which was the very reason for his existence and was the only way to eternal life for him, as it is the only way to eternal life for any human being. The idea of Christ dying for himself only, and not for us also, is totally foreign to scripture. It is thus useless speculation to consider Christ apart from his work.
A Summary
Since this series is continuing month to month, we think it helpful to summarize the major points made this month:
- The sacrifice of Christ is what God really wants — enthusiastic dedication to His will.
- As with some sacrifices under the law, Christ’s offering teaches great principles in regard to human nature.
- God sent Jesus to save sinners. In this role, he must die to fulfill his reason for being born. In doing so, he provided the way for his own eternal life. There is thus no scriptural basis for considering Christ apart from his work.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One