Critiquing: Was Jesus’ Death Really a Sacrifice if He Knew He Would Rise Again?

June 24, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Sacrifice and Foreknowledge — Disciples and Sacrifices — Separation from God — Substitutionary Atonement — Divine Justice

---

Introduction

The content titled “Was Jesus’ Death Really a Sacrifice if He Knew He Would Rise Again?” tackles several theological questions about the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice, the practices of his disciples, and the concept of sin causing separation from God. This critique aims to evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, focusing on potential logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases.

1. Sacrifice and Foreknowledge

Logical Coherence

The content discusses whether Jesus’ death can be considered a true sacrifice given his foreknowledge of resurrection. The argument is structured as follows:

1. Premise: Jesus knew he would rise again.
2. Premise: Jesus experienced pain and anguish leading up to and during his crucifixion.
3. Conclusion: Despite his foreknowledge, the pain and anguish make his death a sacrifice.

Analysis

Logical Inconsistency: The content asserts that foreknowledge does not negate the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death. However, it also acknowledges that Jesus’ confidence in his resurrection could mitigate the sense of sacrifice. This presents a cognitive dissonance where the emotional anguish is emphasized to retain the sacrificial narrative.

“Jesus knew he was gonna be raised from the dead, but he still went through the pain of the crucifixion. And he anguished about it.”

Equivocation Fallacy: The term “sacrifice” is used ambiguously. Initially, it implies a loss or giving up of something significant. However, the content shifts its meaning to focus on the act of enduring pain.

“If you know, asking, was it really a sacrifice, you’re not, I think it’s a little bit of an equivocation on the word sacrifice, using it in the sense of, did he really lose anything?”

2. Disciples and Sacrifices

Logical Coherence

The content addresses why Jesus’ disciples did not offer sacrifices at the temple, suggesting a lack of scriptural evidence does not necessarily imply they didn’t practice it.

Analysis

Argument from Silence: The content heavily relies on the argument from silence fallacy, suggesting that because there is no record of the disciples offering sacrifices, it does not mean they did not do so.

“Maybe they did, but it isn’t recorded. I know that Jesus didn’t because he was sinless, but his disciples weren’t.”

Unsubstantiated Claim: The assertion that silence in the scriptures about disciples offering sacrifices does not logically support the claim that they did. This highlights a burden of proof issue, where the content should provide positive evidence rather than relying on the absence of evidence.

3. Separation from God

Logical Coherence

The concept of sin causing separation from God is examined, especially in light of God’s omnipresence and Jesus’ interactions with sinners.

Analysis

Language Ambiguity: The content acknowledges the complexity of theological language, noting that terms like “separation from God” are analogical and not literal.

“When we say that God cannot be in the presence of sin, what we’re referring to is a perfect holiness and injustice.”

Cognitive Bias: The explanation attempts to reconcile contradictions by redefining terms in a manner that suits the argument. This reflects a confirmation bias where interpretations are skewed to fit pre-existing beliefs.

4. Substitutionary Atonement

Logical Coherence

The concept of substitutionary atonement is presented, suggesting that Jesus’ death was necessary to satisfy divine justice.

Analysis

Moral Intuition: The content appeals to common moral intuitions about justice, stating that wrongdoing must be punished and that substitutionary atonement satisfies this need.

“We object to that. Wait, you mean he got off scot-free? He got away with that? We know he’s guilty.”

Flawed Reasoning: One cannot introduce the human intuition of necessary punishment as an argument for divine punishment and then reject the human intuition against eternal punishment.

5. Divine Justice

Logical Coherence

The argument concludes that God’s requirement for a sacrifice stems from his nature of being just and loving.

Analysis

Hasty Generalization: The content makes broad claims about divine justice based on human moral intuitions, which may not necessarily apply to a divine context. In addition, human moral intuitions are significantly misaligned with biblical notions of justice. Human intuitions do not deem a child’s lie worthy of the eternal damnation the Bible claims the child deserves.

“What is happening there? We’re expressing an intuition about justice.”

Unsubstantiated Claim: The content asserts that Jesus’ death was foreknown and predestined, without providing concrete evidence or a robust argument to support this claim.

“[Jesus] was slain before the foundations of the world.”

6. Discrepancy in Punishment Duration

Logical Coherence

The notion that sinners must spend eternity “dead” to pay for their sins, whereas Jesus “paid” for human sins with only three days of death, is inherently problematic.

Analysis

Logical Inconsistency: The core issue here is the inconsistency in the duration and nature of punishment. The content suggests that eternal punishment is the just penalty for sinners, yet Jesus’ three-day death is deemed sufficient to atone for all humanity’s sins. This discrepancy undermines the logical consistency of the justice being portrayed.

“Either Jesus pays or you pay. There is a debt. It’s our debt. It has to be paid one way or another. If Jesus pays, then it’s done. Then we are released and forgiven.”

Disproportionate Punishment: If eternal separation or punishment is the deserved penalty for sins, then a finite period (three days) seems insufficient to equate to this eternal punishment. This disparity raises questions about the fairness and logic of substitutionary atonement.

Mathematically, the debt can be either three days, which would mean humans have paid their debt for sin after three days of death, or an eternity of death, which would mean Jesus failed to pay the debt for the human sins he bore as soon as he was resurrected.

Conclusion

The content presents several theological arguments that, while emotionally and intuitively appealing to believers, contain logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The reliance on ambiguous language and fallacious reasoning undermines the logical coherence of the arguments. A thorough critique from a critical perspective reveals these flaws and emphasizes the need for clearer, substantiated arguments in theological discourse.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!