The Question:

Thanks for your candid and generous response. Perhaps, you could give me your studied insight on my particular approach concerning the Resurrection. Consider this: When Jesus predicted his own resurrection — twice, I might add, by using his own power, didn’t that essentially nullify any intention of his becoming a sacrifice? I understand that he was offering a gift to the world by making the ultimate sacrifice. But, he got his life back fully restored and elevated. If I give you a gift with the expectation of having it returned, then it wasn’t meant as a gift in the first place.

The Answer

If I understand you right, in regards to the crucifixion, what was the sacrifice if Jesus knew he would be resurrected and put in charge of everything? In a sense, you are saying you have noticed a flaw in the gospel story. The gospels paint Jesus as some martyr who gave up everything to go to the cross for the sins of mankind, but in fact he gave up nothing. Why is that a sacrifice? Therefore, the writers misunderstood the nature of sacrifice when they wrote their fictional, exaggerated account of a man named Jesus.

I am reminded of Ayn Rand’s definition of sacrifice:

” ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t….

“…if you give [a friend] money at the cost of disaster to yourself–that is the virtue of sacrifice in full….

“…if you devote your life to serving men you hate–that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.”

“Sacrifice is the surrender of value.”

In other words, if there is an expected reward for doing something, or if you are doing it for some known benefit, it should not be considered a sacrifice. So, if I understand you correctly, what you appear to be saying is that since Jesus knew that it would all turn out right in the end, therefore going to the cross was not a sacrifice. His ‘sacrifice’ didn’t come to disaster, and he knew it wouldn’t.

First of all, I think Rand’s definition of sacrifice is pretty good. It actually lines up with the Bible to a certain point:

Mark 12:41-44 “Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

The widow gave, as Ayn Rand would put it, “at the cost of disaster” to herself. She gave all her money and Jesus uses her donation as an illustration of an ultimate sacrifice. She gave to others without consideration of any earthly advantage.

Close to that, in Matthew 6:1, Jesus warns us of giving (sacrificing) with selfish motives for personal gain:

“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.”

To be generous and charitable so that people will praise you, negates a person’s sacrifice. It’s obnoxious. But here we also see a feature which is embedded into the very nature of sacrifice: the promise of reward. Jesus does not remove the promise of reward from the equation, but he does make a distinction between seeking the praise of others, and seeking the praise of God. God promises that he will reward the faithful and this in no way negates the act of charity or of sacrifice. The knowledge of reward is a perfectly acceptable motive for doing the right thing as long as it is done to bring glory to God, not oneself.

Think of it this way: All true sacrifice has a promise of reward attached to it, and yet to be rewarded for doing the right thing does not diminish the fact that you did the right thing. The soldier who goes into battle, even if he or she dies, knows that his sacrifice will benefit the nation and the people, even if he doesn’t know them and even if they never know of what he did. This foreknowledge in no way diminishes the courage behind the willing sacrifice, done exclusively for doing the right thing as opposed to doing it for money or fame. The mother who carries her baby to term at the risk of her life, and with the hope that the baby will live, does not diminish the courage of her willingly putting her life on the line. She doesn’t do it for fame, but because it is righteous. It could be said, too, that the knowledge of God’s reward is partly why they had the courage to go through with such a noble sacrifice.

To Rand’s point, she might say doing something for a reward declassifies it as a sacrifice and moves it into the category of being earned, and if we just reduce sacrifice down to Rand’s definition, she may be right.

But secondly, the knowledge of an awesome reward does not negate the pain or suffering involved in a sacrifice. A woman goes through the pain of childbirth and the pain is real, but the joy of having the baby in her arms afterwards makes her forget the suffering involved. Does this negate the suffering? Also, if anyone were to willingly set aside personal comforts, dreams, and desires for the sake of fighting for freedom, does that diminish the emotional, spiritual, or physical pain involved along the way? The suffering is still real even if there is an expectation of reward, so it is still an effort of great virtue.

Ayn Rand’s definition of sacrifice and the christian definition line up with each other for a little ways, but then they diverge. She defines sacrifice as giving up everything for something that will not replace your lost value. And that’s the end of it. The christian, however, also defines sacrifice as giving up everything for something that will not replace your lost value, but then we add that such a deed will be rewarded by God.

Jesus and John Galt

To speak in the manner of Ayn Rand, one could say that Christ exhibited all the characteristics of Rand’s perfect man: John Galt. Christ–God in the flesh–had the full authority and the complete autonomy, to keep his perfection for himself and to use his self-determination to use his power for his own benefit. He alone had the ability to live completely righteously, and God could have abandoned us to drag ourselves out of the mire of our flaws. He could have disdained all of our religious efforts to please him and to ask for his help, and he could have slapped down our petitions for help and mercy as signs of weakness. We hadn’t earned our place in this world and we are weak if we ask for help. Jesus had earned his place in the world and he therefore should be the only one to benefit from his actions. He and his actions were purely from his will, and he gave us an example of how to live as true humans. Therefore he could have chosen–John Galt style–to withdraw himself from the equation and allow us to learn our lesson the hard way and seek perfection without his help. That would make us weak. I once had a man tell me, “Why would I need Christ, if I could become Christ myself?”

One one level I wholly agree with Rand, and so does scripture. Scripture calls us to work and to be content with whatever it is that we earn, and it calls us to not envy or to covet other people’s stuff that they gained from their hard work. We should work for our own stuff and we certainly shouldn’t demand others to give us their stuff. That’s sin. Scripture also warns us to not be greedy, but greed doesn’t mean benefiting from one’s hard work, it means doing anything, even lying, cheating, and extorting others for the sake of making money. One shouldn’t cast aside moral values in order to get rich, and neither should one expect other people to work hard for you, while you sit around and do nothing. As much as he rails against religion, I think John Galt would at least agree with that.

However, thankfully, Jesus took John Galt’s philosophy one step further: Jesus knew he was the only one in the universe who is actually autonomous, has all power, and can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants without any accountability whatsoever, and that we could never cure our flawed natures. Therefore, he chose to lay down his power for us. This is Christ’s sacrifice. Instead of exerting his authority over us, or demanding we do the impossible, he willingly humbled himself to become one of us so communion with him would be possible. This was his reward: a restored relationship with us. It wasn’t the return of his pre-incarnate power; it was our return to him. He made a sacrifice–he became a human–not for any perceived value we might give to him, but because we were utterly helpless unless he made that sacrifice. His ultimate sacrifice does follow Rand’s definition because there was no perceived value-added benefit to God for restoring our lost humanity. Also, he was only getting back what he gave up when he sat on the throne again. He didn’t have to go through the suffering to achieve that which he had already had.

In regards to salvation, there is no shame in accepting the gift of God’s righteousness. Just as there is no shame in someone who cannot walk being carried to the feet of Jesus to be healed. Just as there is no shame in a blind person being given eyes to see, or a deaf man given the ability to hear. There is no shame in accepting the cure for those things which one has no power to cure. “I’ll do it myself!” is a noble demeanor for things that one can do for oneself, like work, but it is foolishness for the one thing that we cannot do for ourselves: salvation.

So, in matters of this world, live as John Galt and work hard for the things you want to achieve and do not feel entitled to the hard work of another. But in matters of salvation and the cure for sin and death, accept that Jesus did for you what you could never achieve on your own.

So, should Jesus’ sacrifice be negated simply because he knew he would resume sitting on his throne after making the sacrifice? No, anymore than when my son does something honorable and kind or sacrificial and I get to reward him with a hug and the best compliment in the world: “Well done.” I would give my life to receive that compliment from my heavenly father, and he wouldn’t withhold it from me simply because I did what I knew he would be pleased with me doing.

I hope that answers your question.

Blessings.