Understanding the value of Jesus' sacrifice

[Rushing Jaws]

Hello, I have a few questions about the sacrifice of Jesus:

What does it mean that God "gave" Jesus? (John 3:16) It appears more like God lent Jesus for 33 years and then He returned to the Father.

If I buy something precious with a diamond, and the seller smashes the diamond into pieces, then I take those smashed pieces and put them back together restoring the diamond as it was before... and I keep the diamond, what price did I pay for my purchase?

What is the permanency of Jesus' sacrifice? For God to have "given" something, it must have cost Him something... to lose something He doesn't have anymore.

What did it cost God to purchase us?

1 Corinthians 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

What is the value of suffering for 3 hours on a cross or being dead for 3 days in light of eternity? 3 hours or 3 days of suffering/death is infinitely negligible relative to eternity. Is it not so? What is missing from my understanding?

Scripture tells us the currency of the transaction happened with blood.

Acts 20:28 ... shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Revelation 5:9 ...You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

We also know the blood is precious.

1 Peter 1:18-19 ... you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ

It seems like most in the church don't appreciate much the value of the blood. We take the gospel too lightly because we don't properly appreciate the weight of Jesus' sacrifice.
What value does the shed blood have if Jesus is alive in heaven with the Father?
What is the permanency of the sacrifice? What was sacrificed? What was lost? What was given up?
To sacrifice means to give something you will not have anymore.
If you receive back what you gave, what sacrifice is that?

## It cost God everything - even God cannot give more than the Gift of God Himself. But that is what the Father gave: He gave His Unique Son, and the Son gives His Spirit, and everything else. The Son is the Gift Who Keeps on giving.

[eustilou]

Before the incarnation the verse does not apply. Since Son of God was not always a human. After the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension in the presence of God for us, as an immortal human, then that verse applies. God the Father didn't change. The Word who had two natures, one being "with God" something other than God, and "was God." How the Word was "with God" changed.

Thanks. You're right.
Hebrews says Jesus is the same, not the Word.

[37818]

Scratch that...
Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever (Heb. 13:5)
In the Father there is no variation or shifting shadw (Jam. 1:17)

Before the incarnation the verse does not apply. Since Son of God was not always a human. After the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension in the presence of God for us, as an immortal human, then that verse applies. God the Father didn't change. The Word who had two natures, one being "with God" something other than God, and "was God." How the Word was "with God" changed. Beginning with the creation of all things, the incarnation. God's nature was and is immutable. The Word always had two natures, immutable, being God, and a mutable nature, by whom God does all things God does. Not in the creeds. But is in the NT, John 1:1-3, 14, etc.

[Christianbookworm]

The most satisfactory answer I found:

christianthinktank.com/2littlepain.html

Agreed. Jesus will always remember exactly what he went through for our sakes to the tiniest detail.

[eustilou]

The most satisfactory answer I found:

christianthinktank.com/2littlepain.html

[eustilou]

Nature is a common mistranslation of physis. For instance in the theology of Chalcedon, Physis explains the duology of Christ...how he is both fully God & Fully man ie: Jesus demonstarated (had activity) as fully man and demonstrated (had activity) as fully God (Jn 12:45; 14:5-7; Jn 20;28).

Nb: ousia & physis are closely related terms. Imu, ousia is the unsubstantiated speculation upon a thing, whereas physis is evidenced...hence its relationship to the idea of activity...The idea "nature" dictates activity...as opposed to ousia which dictates an accumulation of properties/attributes/wealth...

Thanks for explaining. I'll have to read up on that verse myself also.

[apostoli]

Looking in Strong's dictionary, partakers = sharers, and nature = nature.

I see no indication in Strong's dictionary that nature = activity.

Nature is a common mistranslation of physis. For instance in the theology of Chalcedon, Physis explains the duology of Christ...how he is both fully God & Fully man ie: Jesus demonstarated (had activity) as fully man and demonstrated (had activity) as fully God (Jn 12:45; 14:5-7; Jn 20;28).

Nb: ousia & physis are closely related terms. Imu, ousia is the unsubstantiated speculation upon a thing, whereas physis is evidenced...hence its relationship to the idea of activity...The idea "nature" dictates activity...as opposed to ousia which dictates an accumulation of properties/attributes/wealth...

[eustilou]

There is no mention of anyone becoming endowed by a God like substantiality. Also notice the word "partakers". Also notice the word "nature" = "physis" = "activity". Imu, we become participants in the divine will, activitating it.

Looking in Strong's dictionary, partakers = sharers, and nature = nature.

I see no indication in Strong's dictionary that nature = activity.

[apostoli]

You are putting words to a belief I've contemplated, but find rather embarrassing. It's true that we are becoming more like God, but I am not sure it would be fair to say we can "become" God in any meaningful sense. I know Eastern Orthodoxy has some sort of concept of Theosis, so I'd be thankful if OBP came in and shared about this mystery.

To my knowledge the legend is directed at 2 Peter 1:4 "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." Now, to my mind several aspects arise: There is no mention of anybody becoming like God. There is no mention of anyone becoming endowed by a God like substantiality. Also notice the word "partakers". Also notice the word "nature" = "physis" = "activity". Imu, we become participants in the divine will, activitating it.

[apostoli]

What did it cost God to purchase us?

Assuming you mean God "the Father", then I would suggest, He gave up his supremacy. Have a look at the last chapter of Revelation wherein we lean than God and the Lamb share the same throne.

Those that are ignorant of scripture may not accept my position, even though , I have over the years continued to evidence my support of Nicene Christianity (the RCC, ROC, EOC, OOC, COE, LOC etc etc etc = 99+% of Chistianity) and not some apostate religion.

To support my position I'll quote saint Paul "For he (God the Father) hath put all things under his (the Son) feet. But when he (God the Father) saith all things are put under him (the Son), it is manifest that he (God the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him (the Son)". (1 Cor 15:27).

______________________

Another matter to concern us: never in the history of Nicene Theology has it been advocated that the Father, Son and Spirit are one hypostasis, the teaching has always been there are three hypostases, who are homoousius (consubstantial) = one God united in ousia/physes (substantiality/activity) but three distinct hypostases (near guess in an English translation = persons).

[eustilou]

The trinity changed after Jesus was born.

Scratch that...
Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever (Heb. 13:5)
In the Father there is no variation or shifting shadw (Jam. 1:17)

[Pentecost]

I think I got it. How does the following sound?

The trinity changed after Jesus was born.
Before, it was Father, Word and Holy Spirit. After Christ was given, it became Father, Word in human (resurrected/glorified) body and Holy Spirit.

I wasn't following the conversation closely, but I am not sure it is fair to say that. The Word became flesh, and but if a perfect God changes, doesn't that by definition make it less perfect, simply differently perfect? I know I've been influenced a bit much by Neo-Platonism so perhaps I need straightening out too, but the way you worded this seems off to me.

Humanity is part of the trinity now... allowing us to be partakers of God's divine nature through Christ.
The Word becoming flesh created a human interface to the trinity: Christ... the door... through which we can be hidden in God through Christ.

You are putting words to a belief I've contemplated, but find rather embarrassing. It's true that we are becoming more like God, but I am not sure it would be fair to say we can "become" God in any meaningful sense. I know Eastern Orthodoxy has some sort of concept of Theosis, so I'd be thankful if OBP came in and shared about this mystery.

I'm wondering whether the interaction dynamic between the Father and the Son changed forever due to the Word being human and having a human body now.
I'm wondering whether Christ having a body diminishes or changes in any way how the Father relates to or interacts with the Son.

The Father and the Son are one, Jesus said so Himself, if they're interactions changed, it was not as a decrease.

For example, a father and son discover a colony of ants that is about to get wiped out by an incoming wave. They need to be told quickly to move to higher ground, but the only way to communicate that is for the son to become one of the ants. Because the father loves the ants so much, the son becomes an ant and some of the ants listen to the son's message and move to higher ground before the wave hits. Now, the son ascends back to the father, but remains in the form of an ant... forever changing the interaction dynamic between the father and the son. The son is still of human nature with all its reasoning capacity and still has all power and authority of a human, but will remain an ant forever.

Obviously no analogy is perfect but... We were not "discovered," and this seems to limit the sovereign power of God, and remove from Jesus either his God nature, His human nature, or both.

Could this be what God "lost" or gave up in order to save us?

Do my thoughts have any merit, or am I totally off base?

I don't want to minimize the suffering, shed blood and death of Christ. Those had their costs also.

I'll be honest, I think the best place to start is to see what is already believed and determine if you can agree with their reasons for why they believe it. There are various teachings that I personally have examined and discarded, Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, are the three modern and widespread misunderstandings of the Trinity, and I think if you examine the JW, Oneness, and Mormon reasons for holding these respectively, then you'll be left with the orthodox understanding of Nicea. It is vague in parts, but not limiting... Unless I'm ignoring your question there. It was what did Jesus' pay for? A ransom for our sins. We sold ourselves to the devil by obeying him (sinning), and the payment he's given to his slaves is death. Jesus did not deserve to die, and Death took him anyways, and so Jesus broke the power of the grave over Himself, and because He had taken a Human nature, Humans are also free from the power of Death.

My understanding focuses on the "bondage" and "slavery" aspect, what did the Father lose? I don't know. Christ is Victorious, and as we partake in that Victory, so too does the Father and Spirit rejoice in it, fore did not the Father will it first, and did not the Spirit enable and empower throughout? God is three people. Not God are three people, nor God is one person, but God is three people. A singular and a plural. God as God lost nothing. The Father may have lost something to the Son, as a human father loses control of his own son. Or perhaps the Spirit gained in someway? I think it is a mystery.

But really, who did God pay? Himself? I don't think The Father sent the Son to appease the Father's wrath. I know many disagree but that sounds silly to me. If God payed anyone else, and didn't recoup the cost then God failed and that isn't possible. So I say that The Father lost His Son, and the Son lost His life, the fact that both were restored should give he hope that we will be restored.

I am sorry if this seems scatterbrained. I'm a little light headed but wanted to respond to you right now.

[eustilou]

What does it mean that God "gave" Jesus?

I think I got it. How does the following sound?

The trinity changed after Jesus was born.
Before, it was Father, Word and Holy Spirit. After Christ was given, it became Father, Word in human (resurrected/glorified) body and Holy Spirit.
Humanity is part of the trinity now... allowing us to be partakers of God's divine nature through Christ.
The Word becoming flesh created a human interface to the trinity: Christ... the door... through which we can be hidden in God through Christ.
I'm wondering whether the interaction dynamic between the Father and the Son changed forever due to the Word being human and having a human body now.
I'm wondering whether Christ having a body diminishes or changes in any way how the Father relates to or interacts with the Son.

For example, a father and son discover a colony of ants that is about to get wiped out by an incoming wave. They need to be told quickly to move to higher ground, but the only way to communicate that is for the son to become one of the ants. Because the father loves the ants so much, the son becomes an ant and some of the ants listen to the son's message and move to higher ground before the wave hits. Now, the son ascends back to the father, but remains in the form of an ant... forever changing the interaction dynamic between the father and the son. The son is still of human nature with all its reasoning capacity and still has all power and authority of a human, but will remain an ant forever.

Could this be what God "lost" or gave up in order to save us?

Do my thoughts have any merit, or am I totally off base?

I don't want to minimize the suffering, shed blood and death of Christ. Those had their costs also.

[apostoli]

What did it cost God to purchase us?

Assuming you mean God "the Father", then I would suggest, He gave up his supremacy. Have a look at the last chapter of Revelation wherein we lean than God and the Lamb share the same throne.

[eustilou]

I suspect whatever answers you get in this thread will all prove to be inadequate at best, because there are mysteries we may never understand.

I understand that our understanding will always be limited, and we'll never grasp everything fully...

But lately I've become quite unsatisfied at how little I appreciate Christ's sacrifice... and the questions mentioned above are what I found at the bottom of my heart.

Just asking the questions and talking about them is helping me appreciate more the work that He did.