# Question about Christian Theology--Christ as Sacrifice to Whom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668 "2013-09-12T15:44:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/1 "2013-09-12T15:44:17Z")
The traditional idea of course is that Christ was offered as a sacrifice to God to satisfy his wrath etc etc. I’m wondering whether there have been any theologians who ever suggested that it wasn’t God whom this sacrifice was meant to satisfy, but _us_? If not theologians, then has this idea been presented in any other context? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/2 "2013-09-12T15:51:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The traditional idea of course is that Christ was offered as a sacrifice to God to satisfy his wrath etc etc. > > I’m wondering whether there have been any theologians who ever suggested that it wasn’t God whom this sacrifice was meant to satisfy, but _us_? > > If not theologians, then has this idea been presented in any other context? “Wrath?” Where did you get that from? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/3 "2013-09-12T16:12:57Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > “Wrath?” Where did you get that from? That’s the traditional idea, within Protestantism anyway. I _think_ in the Catholic tradition as well. What exactly it means to “satisfy God’s wrath” is up for debate, but the general traditional idea is–God is angry at sin, this is bad for us, and Christ’s sacrifice in some way makes that anger not have its otherwise-expected effect. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/4 "2013-09-12T16:35:38Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The traditional idea of course is that Christ was offered as a sacrifice to God to satisfy his wrath etc etc. Not a Christian myself, but cite? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/5 "2013-09-12T16:58:42Z")
Here’s a wikipedia article on the Substutionary Theory of the Atonement, which as you can see from the first paragraph in the article, is the mainstream position. [Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(satisfaction_view)) Though the description in the heading of the article doesn’t use the term “wrath” you can see that it refers to our sin as “an affront” etc. And while Aquinas denied that the satisfaction involved was of God’s wrath per se, Calvin affirmed it and it became the traditional Reformed doctrine at least–from which evangelicals have inherited much of their religious speak. As to what the Catholic tradition is here, as I said in the OP, I’m not sure. Vine’s Expository Dictionary is pretty definitive of the traditional way of talking about these things, in the sense that, in my experience, lay protestants talking about theology will feel perfectly justified in simply quoting Vines to authoritatively define some term or other. And in it we find this sentence in the article on the sense in which the sacrifice is a propitiation: “…he who believes upon Him is by God’s own act delivered from justly deserved wrath…” Read any “what we believe” statement from a church in the Evangelical tradition (i.e. churches with the phrase “Bible Church” in the name usually count, as well as conservative Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, and Baptist denominations, among others,) and you’ll almost certainly see a statement of the Substitution theory, which is basically what I was referring to. If you have some problem with the word “wrath” in this context, please replace it with “whatever it is about God’s relation to us that is supposed to make a sacrifice necessary.” But [“We are saved from God’s wrath by Christ’s sacrifice”](https://www.google.com/search?q=we+are+saved+from+God's+wrath+by+Christ's+sacrifice&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADSA_en) is, as far as I can tell, practically axiomatic for the Christian tradition I was raised in and which is (aside from Catholicism) the mainstream among those, I’ll say in the US at least, who think it’s worth spending any time over theology. Not universal–mainstream. At the prior link you can find both agreement and disagreement with the statement–but in every case, the assumption is that the statement is in some sense the standard view. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/6 "2013-09-12T17:45:13Z")
Since this actually seems like a serious discussion, I’ll link in from [theopedia](http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ). > [@](#): > > The Atonement of Christ is the sacrificial work of Jesus for sinners. In his death on the cross, Christ atoned for the sins of humanity such that God is satisfied and reconciliation is accomplished for all who will be redeemed. The obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners is the ground of redemption. > > Necessity of the atonement > As stated above, Jesus’ death satisfied and reconciled sinners to God. Yet, in order to fully appreciate the doctrine of the atonement it must be made clear why the atonement was necessary. > > **Theories of the atonement** > > Historic theories > •The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. > > •The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God’s edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as “recapitulating” or “summing up” human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement > > •The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. “Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners.”\[1\]^ Anselm’s work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory > > •The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory. Anselm’s theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ’s work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God’s honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man’s place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man’s sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory > > •The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory > > •The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God’s moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God’s displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement > > Modern theories > •The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89). > > •The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ’s expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77). > > •The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father’s condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it. > > •The ‘Christus Victor’ or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ’s victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor. > > •The Accident Theory: Christ’s death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man’s hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity. > > •The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity. Christ’s atonement raises a good many questions, and imaginative scholars have diligently tried to answer them. * * * 1. 1 ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/7 "2013-09-12T17:50:19Z")
In a shorthand, you may have heard something along the lines of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God being somewhat different. OT God is perfectionist and demanding and judgmental and demands blood sacrifices, and no human is worthy of his blessings. That’s why the Israelites had such a strong culture of animal sacrifice and of destruction of their enemies - they believed that God demanded it of them in order to tolerate them being upon the earth. See also the Flood, the exile from Eden, all of the “and we slew them and their animals” - not a forgiving sort, God, and more than a bit bloodthirsty. NT God is STILL perfectionist and demanding and judgmental, but he’s realized (perhaps in therapy) that he isn’t going to get anywhere with all these animal sacrifices, and he is presented as \*wanting \*to have a relationship with humans, so he splits off part of himself to become human, be perfect (which regular humans can’t be) and act as a uber-blood-sacrifice to \*\*permanently \*\*become a necessary filter between perfect God and imperfect humanity (or at least the applicable subset) to prevent the need for permanent and continuing animal sacrifices (that didn’t entirely work anyway). The “wrath” is specifically referring to God’s inability as a perfect being to tolerate being in the presence of imperfect humans without instantly smiting them to remove the imperfection from his presence. And no, I never got an answer as to why that was the case, just that it was. The sacrifice provides humans with the necessary filter to present a “perfect” face to God, thus allowing the mutually-desired relationship. Cite is Lutheran confirmation classes. EDIT - So, halfway between the Satisfaction and Penal-Substitution theories presented above. Excellent summaries. As for the OP, no I’ve never heard a CHRISTIAN theology proposing that the sacrifice is for humanity’s perspective, but I have heard several \*other \*religious and non-religious groups propose the idea. From a Christian standpoint, the sacrifice concept HAS to be related directly to God’s needs, and necessary for salvation, or the whole idea of the sacrifice becomes tangential = therefore not fitting within one of the central tenets of Christian theology. Not saying it isn’t out there - Christian offshoots throughout history have come up with pretty bizarre interpretations of everything (as have some major Christian traditions themselves), but I haven’t heard of this specific idea as a mainstream Christian proposed idea. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/8 "2013-09-12T18:02:12Z")
I think when you start talking about “God’s needs” or “God’s inability” to do X, you start running into extreme difficulties with the entire concept of God. (Not to mention the Immaculate Conception, which torpedoes all of it.) ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/9 "2013-09-12T18:25:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think when you start talking about “God’s needs” or “God’s inability” to do X, you start running into extreme difficulties with the entire concept of God. > > (Not to mention the Immaculate Conception, which torpedoes all of it.) Oh I’m right there with you. Not that I don’t \*remember \*a good deal of it, but I no longer believe any of it. Makes for interesting conversations with insistent evangelists. 😃 However, I think that makes this a hijack, so I’ll head back to the OP: **Frylock** , why were you interested in this topic? Did it come up in conversation, or something you thought about? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/10 "2013-09-12T18:40:00Z")
> [@Lasciel](#): > > Oh I’m right there with you. Not that I don’t \*remember \*a good deal of it, but I no longer believe any of it. Makes for interesting conversations with insistent evangelists. 😃 > > However, I think that makes this a hijack, so I’ll head back to the OP: > > **Frylock** , why were you interested in this topic? Did it come up in conversation, or something you thought about? I don’t even remember what verse or passage it was, but I came across something in Paul that could, at least out of context, be taken to mean that the sacrifice was to satisfy _us_ so that _we_ would finally accept God, rather than (as I believe is traditionally taught) the other way around. Found the concept intriguing, and wondered if any past thinkers have ever had the thought and taken off with it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/11 "2013-09-12T18:42:30Z")
> [@Lasciel](#): > > However, I think that makes this a hijack, so I’ll head back to the OP: You’re right. Sorry for the hijack in GQ. Mea culpa. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/12 "2013-09-12T19:04:40Z")
It seems to me that, in order to understand the idea of Christ as sacrifice, one has to understand the idea of sacrifice as it was understood by the Jews in Biblical times, since Christ’s sacrifice was likened to these. [QUOTE=Romans 3:25] God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=I Corinthians 5:7] For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [/QUOTE] So, question for Old Testament experts: whom were those sacrifices (e.g. the Passover lamb) meant to satisfy? God? The sacrificee? The rest of the community? Some other supernatural power/being (like Satan, or the Angel of Death)? Abstract cosmic justice? or what/whom? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/13 "2013-09-12T19:10:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I don’t even remember what verse or passage it was, but I came across something in Paul that could, at least out of context, be taken to mean that the sacrifice was to satisfy _us_ so that _we_ would finally accept God, rather than (as I believe is traditionally taught) the other way around. Found the concept intriguing, and wondered if any past thinkers have ever had the thought and taken off with it. It has something to do with the Jewish Paschal lamb, does it not? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/14 "2013-09-12T19:12:31Z")
Prof. Pepperwinkle, once again I am grateful to have you as part of the SDMB community. I was all set to point out that penal substitution is only one (though the most well-known) theory of the atonement, but your answer went way above and beyond what I was prepared to offer. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![tullsterx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tullsterx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tullsterx)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/15 "2013-09-12T19:12:50Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Christ’s atonement raises a good many questions, and imaginative scholars have diligently tried to answer them. “. . . he sacrifice was to satisfy us so that we would finally accept God.” To me, that kinda sounds like something close to the Declaration Theory from what the Professor posted. “. . .Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them.” I personally subscribe to the “he got executed, so they decided to make something up to explain how the Son of God could be executed by man” theory. I guess that’s the Accident Theory. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/16 "2013-09-12T19:31:51Z")
I’m not sure if our Jewish scholars will be participating here since tomorrow evening starts Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The following is, obviously, an oversimplification: Sacrifices in the OT were meant to cover several functions. It could be as atonement for an individual’s sins, or for a family’s, or for a tribe’s, or for the nation’s. In these cases it would be a sign on the sacrificers that they realized they had not followed the Torah, and were offering up of their livelihood as a show of good faith that would try to keep the Law. In addition, a sacrifice could be considered a bonding between an individual, family, tribe or the nation, between them and God, giving thanks for the Lord’s protection. It could also be as a way of asking for God’s protection. A ceremonial sacrifice could also serve to provide a sense of community for a tribe or the nation. Note that in some places in the OT an individual (such as the head of a family or a king) could offer up a sacrifice, and in others only the appointed Priests were allowed. The latter was, in many cases, a question of political control over the people. The vast majority of NT interpreters consider Jesus’s sacrifice as an atonement for mankind’s sins, and hence, no further ritual sacrifices were needed by Christians. I hope that approaches an answer to the question. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/17 "2013-09-12T20:52:26Z")
So God’s all like: “These humans, they are such sinners. They just won’t do what I tell them. I was nice, I even gave them free will and they _still_ won’t do what I want! It makes me so mad, I really want to make them suffer. … . Oh, hang on, they have gone and tortured and tried to kill my son, whom I love. OK, I guess I had better let them off then.” ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/18 "2013-09-12T21:55:43Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The traditional idea of course is that Christ was offered as a sacrifice to God to satisfy his wrath etc etc. > > I’m wondering whether there have been any theologians who ever suggested that it wasn’t God whom this sacrifice was meant to satisfy, but _us_? > > If not theologians, then has this idea been presented in any other context? > [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > “Wrath?” Where did you get that from? > [@Quartz](#): > > Not a Christian myself, but cite? [Romans 5:8-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:8-10&version=NIV): > [@](#): > > But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. > > Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/19 "2013-09-12T22:14:05Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > . . . So, question for Old Testament experts: whom were those sacrifices (e.g. the Passover lamb) meant to satisfy? God? The sacrificee? The rest of the community? Some other supernatural power/being (like Satan, or the Angel of Death)? Abstract cosmic justice? or what/whom? Well, one beneficiary of the sacrifices was the priesthood, who got to eat a substantial part of most (some? it’s been awhile since I read those verses) sacrifices. This was a significant perk. But if I remember correctly, some of the folks studying the bible propose that in the earliest times, it was the head of each household making the sacrifices and a specialized priesthood came later. If that’s true, it can’t have been part of the original motivation. Based on the story of Cain and Abel, I’d go with the idea that Jehovah just liked the smell of cooking meat. ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668/20 "2013-09-12T22:24:23Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > So God’s all like: “These humans, they are such sinners. They just won’t do what I tell them. I was nice, I even gave them free will and they _still_ won’t do what I want! It makes me so mad, I really want to make them suffer. … . Oh, hang on, they have gone and tortured and tried to kill my son, whom I love. OK, I guess I had better let them off then.” God sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to save us from Himself. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-christian-theology-christ-as-sacrifice-to-whom/668668.md?page=2)