A Question About Salvation and Sacrifice

Gadfly, perhaps you can explicate this whole process of salvation and sacrifice for me. It never really made any sense.

Why would God kill Himself to convince Himself to change the rules that He, Himself, made?

For that matter, why does God have wrath? Shouldn't he be above all that. Anger generally arises from thwarted expectations. Shouldn't He have seen all this coming?

Question posed by "Mothworm" on UTI

An honest question deserves an honest answer although I only ask that you recognize that the breadth of the question makes any short answer seem and perhaps actually be, simplistic.

To understand salvation and its relation to sacrifice you have to begin with the idea of creation or, for non-religious folk, the essential cosmology.  Salvation and sacrifice lie at the root of most religions in some form but there are points of contact with some non-religious thoughts on justice and law also.

It begins with the idea that there is a "natural" moral law system that corresponds to the "natural" physical laws.  There is within the "created" order a correspondence between moral actions and the corresponding human condition (since only humans are held to be moral animals by Christians in this sense, it's that whole image of God thing).  This "natural" moral law has found expression in various forms throughout man's religious history.  You will find the idea in the Egyptian idea of "Ma'at" or the Greek idea of "Fates" or the oriental idea of "Karma."  But the point is this:  doing good brings good, doing evil brings evil.  Sometimes it is specific.  "Justice" is thought of as a specific relation between "good" coming on those who do "good" and "evil" coming on those who do "evil."  Sometimes it is not specific, as when in various situations when "good" or "evil" comes upon others as a result of something someone else or some representative did.

This fundamental idea of "justice" lies at the heart of stories like "MacBeth" or any of the Greek tragedies.

So the point is this, the cosmos is a moral universe - either by design (Christian) or by eternal necessity (Pagan).  Since any human observer will rapidly discover that it seems impossible for humans to not do evil (Christians call this - depravity), individually to a greater or less degree, corporately so as to manifest the full range of human potential to do evil, the question arises as to how to separate the moral effect from the moral cause.  If I do evil is there any possibility that I might be able to avert the evil consequence that nature itself (however understood within the individual's world-view) will inevitably accrue.  This is where the idea of "wrath" comes in. 

As an aside:  it is moot to ask why God or any gods would create a moral law such as this?  You would then have to ask why God would create  the physical laws to function the way they do.  Why didn't God decide to make gravity work to repel rather than to attract?  That kind of thing.

The point is this:  all religions generally recognize this basic cosmological idea in some form.  Good and Evil are essentially relgious concepts. Though philosophy has sought to find a purely rational basis for them, that search has generally been spectacularly unsuccessful. "Wrath" however understood is most often seen as a Divine response to human wrong-doing and "Justice" (negatively considered) is the appropriate action which should be extended in response to human wrong doing.

"Salvation" then becomes the term applied to any hope of escaping "justice."  The idea of "sacrifice" is that which is applied, in any religion, to the potential of a vicarious substitute to take the place of the one or ones who did the wrong and who deserve the just retribution.  Remember, there is a sense of inevitability at the root of all such ideas.  If wrong has been done, wrong will come.  In the Bible you will read of such things in terms of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."  But it is not unique to Christianity though Christians believe that all other forms are perversions of an original revelation of this idea unique to Christianity.

The "sacrifice" as a substitute for the one or ones doing harm can take on many forms but there are some general qualities that adhere.  The substitute must be valuable and as pure as possible - hence the idea of young virgins in some cultures.  In modern Judaism the "substitute" offered up since the loss of the Temple in Jerusalem in 77 AD, is "repentance" - a condition of pure contrition and submission. 

In Christianity, God took it upon Himself to offer up a substitute because nothing or no-one on earth was pure enough to qualify as a substitute for the sin of those whom He intended to save from "wrath". The only way a perfect human substitute could be found was if Some One could be Divinely empowered to live a perfect life and die a perfect death under the full weight of the accumulated results of evil that would reflect the true moral consequences of human sin.

Thus, out of His own free will, the Christ of God became the Son of Man to fulfill this particular mission.  He satisfied the demands of justice.

When Christians stand for the idea of moral right and wrong, as an imperative to specific action, they do so out of a passion that is similar to the passion that evolutionists display for the pursuit of "scientific" truth.  We are convinced that the condition of the world is inseparable from the morality of the world, that there are moral causes and effects just as there are scientific causes and effects. Both moral and scientific laws are rooted in the Divine Ordering of the Universe, that is true, but both operate in a necessary manner though there is an element of grace (scientific idea of phase lag) between moral demonstrations and moral effects.  Thus there is an imperative to the pursuit of "righteousness" that is not simply rooted in personal prejudice but in a sincere conviction that it is the pathway of wholeness and health, not only for individuals but for society as whole.

The logical question that is next asked is "why is there still evil in the world" if God has offered a substitute for evil?  That question requires a separate comment or posting.

Comments

[Mike]

"For that matter, why does God have wrath? Shouldn't he be above all that. Anger generally arises from thwarted expectations. Shouldn't He have seen all this coming?"

Generally speaking, it is frustration and not anger that comes from thwarted expectations. Anger or wrath is rather a response to real, imagined, or anticipated violation of our - and God's - sense of integrity. That integrity can be physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, or any other "-al" word you might think of.

An aspect of the image of God is seen in the normal, human response to such violations: anger. The expression of the anger can be problematic and sinful, but the response is not intrinsically wrong. People that do not get angry about anything have lost their moral compass: should we not be angry about the sexual abuse of children? the slaughter of innocent civilians? rape? murder? To be "above all that" is to be sub-human, not superior.

Also, knowing that something will happen is no safeguard against anger, either. For example, I was well-aware of the fact that American soldiers killed during the Iraq war were likely to be subject to being publically displayed and/or dragged around the city. Does this in any way diminish my anger or sense of outrage? Does forewarning lessen the offensiveness of such deeds?

It is no different with God (or so it seems to me). To violate His holiness or divine integrity - e.g., by desecrating the temple during the days of Christ - may have been foreknown but no less offensive. It is also quite likely that God demonstrates His wrath in part to show us that there are things that are morally reprehensible and not to be tolerated.

[Gadfly]

Thanks for the comments.

I agree in the main. "Anger" in and of itself, is neither sinful or righteous. It is the human response, flowing forth from God's image in us, to perceived injustice. Our problem is that what we perceive as injustice may not actually be. We may be outraged at some slight against our person that may have been justified or unintended. God is never without just cause for wrath. When we are outraged over injustice, especially at the violations of God's Holiness that spark us, then it prompts us to action to rectify that situation, even as God's wrath does in Him

Thanks for the comment