RedFan
Well-Known Member
If you have children, then you might relate to this following fictitious analogy:
Your neighbor's child is drowning in a pond, infested with Alligators. You and your only son, are the only two people available to save the drowning child.
You can't swim, but your son can. You agree with your son, that he is the only means by which your neighbor's child can be saved.
Your son dives into the water and rescues the child, but ten feet from shore an Alligator sinks his teeth deep into your son's thigh, tearing away muscle, ligaments, creating an enormous amount of nerve damage, that ultimately causes your son to lose his leg upto his hip.
As a father, is that how you wanted to recieve your son back to you? In the sacrifice of your son, that you both agreed on, what did you sacrifice as the father?
John.3[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I'm not seeing the analogy.
First, if I was omnipotent, my son would not be "the only means by which [my] neighbor's child can be saved." And if I talked my son into agreeing to take the risk of diving in the pond when I had other means to save the victim at my disposal, what does that say about me?
Second, if I knew that my son would be resurrected on the third day, even his death would not be quite the same sacrifice as permanent loss of the son's leg was for the father in your analogy.
Third, the sacrifice your analogy posits was more my son's than mine -- and if he and I "agreed" (interesting choice of words) that he would take the risk of enduring great pain "for the sake of the joy that was set before him," Hebrews 12:2, well, I kept my part of the agreement by "highly exalting" him, Philippians 2:9, so hasn't he gotten the reward he bargained for? And if so, where is the "sacrifice" to me?
Last edited: