Did Christ REALLY make a big sacrifice?

[mattrose]

I ran across this question again today and thought I'd ask for some insights from all of you

The question is posed by skeptics... If Jesus knew He was going to rise again, then why is His death considered such a sacrifice? Is it really a big sacrifice to experience pain for a few hours and death for a few days if you know you'll be resurrected and live forever afterward?

Here are some possible answers I've seen Christians give:
1. He didn't know He would rise again (only by faith)
2. He knew, but it was still the most painful thing ever
3. He knew, but it still would have been easier to avoid
4. It's not a matter of 'what' He went through, but 'who' went through it
EDIT 5. He still experiences the pain presently b/c He is outside of time
EDIT 6. It need not be a sacrifice that ends in total loss in order to be the sacrifice that was needed*
The point is not that the sacrifice be BIG necessarily, but that it be what was necessary

I think #1 is refuted clearly by Scripture (and that's coming from someone who ascribes to a pretty full kenotic Christology). #2 usually emphasizes the gruesome portrayal of the crucifixion (perhaps overdone by Gibson's 'The Passion'), or the fact that the weight of all sins was on Him, or the idea that He then spent 3 days in Hell (or whatnot). But I think the question stands, even if His death WAS the most painful/hardest thing ever in human history, if He knew it'd be over in a few hours/days, what's the big deal? #3 seems true enough, but sorta minimalizes the cross in a way. #4 seems to have potential. Maybe we have over-emphasized the personal nature of the sacrifice and should focus more on the religious significance of the cross. But then again, the Scriptures do seem to make a pretty deal out of Jesus 'giving up' a lot by becoming human and dying on the cross.

I think the above has some merit, but I still find myself not as clear on the best answer to this question as I'd like to be. At the same time, though, I think of the fact that I myself believe I will live forever with God and yet I still struggle to live sacrificially. Or, to use another illustration, even when I know pain will be very short lived, I still avoid it like the plague. Just the other day I found out that I am fairly afraid of needles. My wife wanted to check my blood sugar levels and I hadn't been pricked for many years and I, surprisingly, recoiled for a few minutes before manning up.

Any insights on this question would be appreciated. I just feel like my brain is fried and I'm missing something pretty simple. It could be because I just read 100 pages or so on the debate about whether the Last Supper was an actual Passover Meal. Lots of complex issues there.

Thanks in advance,
matthew

[mattrose]

I called in and summarize Steve's answer to be as follows:

It was still a sacrifice and sacrifices are hard. There is no need to argue that Jesus' sacrifice was the worst sacrifice anyone ever had to make, Christians only suggest that it was the most significant.

I like that

[TK]

I am not sure that Jesus felt it WAS a big sacrifice. ("who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.").

In other words, maybe we make a bigger deal out of it than Jesus did, for whatever reason.

Now, I don't want to be accused of downplaying what Jesus did.

But the question posed has merit, because many people would (and have) lay down their lives (even if they are innocent) to save others.

But in the case of Jesus, we have the Creator taking on a created form and dying for his rebellious creation--- and only He could fit the bill.

TK

[Paidion]

We have the epistemological question again. Did Jesus KNOW that He would rise again? I suggest that He did not KNOW in the absolute sense, but He trusted His Father to raise Him. Thus Jesus could confidently say,
“The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” (Luke 9:22)

In my opinion, He has total confidence that the Father would raise Him, and so was able make this prediction without the slightest doubt. Any human being may demonstrate this kind of confidence. For example, if I were acquainted with a friend's character, I might affirm with confidence, "I know my friend will assist me, if I have a problem." Though I don't know it in the absolute sense (my friend has the free will to refuse helping me), I can nontheless make this strong affirmation because I know his character.

[alaskazimm]

Glenn Miller over on A Christian Thinktank has several articles covering this topic. The one most relevant is found here. The part about pain is about 2/3 of the way down the article in "Part 3 - The Issue of Pain". It is obvious that he has put a lot of thought into his articles.

Essentially he argues that even though Christ knew he would be raised, the issue of pain doesn't go away after his resurrection. Essentially, God is outside of time and as such "constantly relives" the experience of his son being killed. Also, Jesus still has the scars of his suffering and when the Father looks on him, he remebers anew the pain of the experience. Glenn Miller of course goes into much more depth, but I think it answers the question well.

[Homer]

I agree with Paidion; Jesus knew by faith that He would rise from the dead. Although His faith was perfect, it was still faith.

[jriccitelli]

It was not 'how much' He suffered but 'who' suffered.
I wish I heard your call, 'Most' significant, and all descriptions are understatements, when thinking of how our Creator would suffer death for us.
TK said it also; His own creatures put His Son to death.

I always felt, as I have a human nature, that I share with all humans the ignorance of what Holiness and Truth really are, and that this Goodness is what Christ represented.
I feel ‘I share the same nature as those people who were in the crowd’ throwing insults at Him. Just as it is that I share the same nature with Adam, I know I would have fallen too. (And like Peter, when he denied Him, like Thomas had to see Him)
This is a judgment upon 'all' mankind, not just the Israelites and Roman soldiers. This was a statement, a witness upon all mankind that people of how 'our own nature' would be so blind and ignorant to put Jesus, our Lord, and our Savior on a cross.

This is my view, but I have know people who say they would ‘not’ have been ‘so blind’ as to not see who He was. But I think that is over estimating ourselves, and not coming to grip with our real nature as humans.

[mattrose]

Thanks for all the feedback

[darinhouston]

I see the incarnation itself as a tremendous sacrifice if we rightly consider God's holiness. Setting aside his glory and submitting himself to the indignities of the passion is icing on the cake. Also, just think if someone asked you to put your hand in a flame and you were assured that it would heal fully -- wouldn't that be something to avoid notwithstanding your confidence in the final outcome?

[mattrose]

I've had another thought on this question after reading an unrelated book by Jerry Walls on 'Heaven'

1. Our contemporary culture sees a tension between self-interest and altruism. If even part of ones motivation to give is selfish (giving makes me feel good or I'll get rewarded in heaven), then you're not truly being altruistic, so they say.

2. Applying this to Jesus... If He knew that enduring a day of pain would get Him a resurrection body (and eventually back to heaven), was it really a selfless sacrifice?

3. Walls argues that the whole idea of a tension between self-interest and altruism is a product of our secular age. With naturalism, altruism (doing good for someone else) is intrinsically harmful to self. But in the Christian worldview, altruism is intrinsically helpful to self (because loving people not only helps them, but also makes you more like Jesus and therefore helps you).

4. Thus, I think part of my original 'problem' in making this thread was in thinking that Jesus' sacrifice was perhaps somewhat lessened by the fact that He knew something better awaited Him on the other side of death. But, in this, I was accepting a cultural lie. We must make a distinction between self-interest and selfishness, Walls says. There is nothing wrong with self-interest when ones interest is godly.

In other words, the question is not whether Jesus' sacrifice is lessened by the fact that it also benefited Him... the question is whether Jesus' sacrifice was the right thing for others. And it was! Since we live in a world created by a good God, the right thing for others is also the right thing for us.

Pretty wordy, but I think Walls has helped (as have my fellow posters)