Did Jesus Give Up His Weekend for Our Sins?
By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano
I encountered this as an objection from one of the commenters in the Facebook post of Worldview Summit, which is about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s position that religious truths are ‘personal truths’.¹ This person engaged with me when I asked one of the commenters about their view about religious truth being a fairy tale that brainwashed people are believing. He began by posting about kids believing what their parents tell them, that we have access to more information nowadays, that places of worship are closing all over the world, and that organized religion has always been exclusive and coercive. I tried engaging with his arguments, but it seemed that he was not interested in doing the same. Rather, he just introduced new arguments. Nevertheless, one among his arguments amused me, because though I find it not worthy of a response, it seems that there are many atheists who see it as a good argument.
The commenter said: “I am always amused by the notion that Jesus died for our sins. Even if you accept the nonsense in the NT, the claimed reality is as follows: Jesus died on Friday, and then magically came back to life on Sunday. So, your *best case* scenario is that Jesus gave up his weekend for your sins. But I guess that doesn’t sell too many Bibles.”
There is also a similar argument from a meme which said:
“”Jesus died for our sins.” Ok, but he didn’t stay dead, right? So what exactly did he sacrifice? Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins.”²
At first, I thought that only random internet atheists believe this. But when I researched about it, I saw that Michael Shermer, an American science writer and historian of science also share the same argument. In a Twitter post, Shermer stated this:
“Jesus died for our sins. But he was only dead for 3 days. So what did he sacrifice? His weekend. Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins.”³
In this essay, we will examine the merits of the argument that Jesus merely sacrificed His weekend for our sins.
What did Jesus Sacrifice?
Based on the quotes above, it seems that they are saying that Jesus did not really sacrifice anything. For example, the meme seems to assume that Jesus could only sacrifice something if He stayed dead, and since He did not stay dead, then no sacrifice is really being made. Michael Shermer seems to imply the same thing when he said that Jesus was only dead for three days. Now, how should we respond to this argument?
First, we will address the seemingly philosophical assumption that since Jesus did not stay dead, then no sacrifice is made. Second, we will talk about the doctrine of incarnation.
Jesus Did Not Stay Dead
The argument about Jesus not sacrificing anything because He did not stay dead reminds me of a discussion about the moral argument. In William Lane Craig’s concluding discussion in the book Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (2009), he cites Don Hubin arguing that classical theism is incompatible with acts of “morally laudable, altruistic, genuine self-sacrifice”. Hubin’s argument is that genuine self-sacrifice must involve a net, long-term cost to the person undertaking such an act. Craig cites him saying:
“A personal cost is necessary for self-sacrifice. And, it has to be a net cost to the individual. Local costs that are compensated are not sacrifices. We often speak of someone sacrificing to get through law school , medical school, or even a graduate program in philosophy. But if these sacrifices are amply rewarded by a welcomed financial success or, more plausibly in the last case, by some sort of psychic satisfaction, they don’t constitute a genuine sacrifice of the self. (139)”⁴
Dr. Craig then states the implications of Hubin’s argument, that a genuine self-sacrifice, must then involve a permanent net loss for the individual involved. But given the justice of God, he continued, God will not allow morally laudable acts of self-sacrifice to go unrewarded, hence, no morally laudable acts can be genuinely self-sacrificial.
With this in mind, Dr. Craig then gives his rebuttal. Hubin’s claim, according to Dr. Craig, involves an idiosyncratic definition of ‘genuine self-sacrifice’. Dr. Craig explains that people who endure hardships do indeed make tremendous genuine self-sacrifices, even if the sacrifices do not involve permanent net losses for the individuals involved. Dr. Craig continues that if Hubin would deny that they are genuine, then he is using ‘genuine’ in an idiosyncratic way, in order for theism to become incompatible with ‘genuine self-sacrifice’. Dr. Craig refutes this notion by flipping the argument against Hubin. He said:
“The strangeness of his conception of genuine self-sacrifice becomes even more evident when we reflect that, given theism, it is people who lead lives of narcissistic self-indulgence who are performing acts of genuine self-sacrifice, since such acts will result in a net loss to those individuals . On any normal understanding of the words , it seems bizarre to say that such selfish persons are leading genuinely self-sacrificing lives . Yet that is the implication of the meaning Rubin attributes to “genuine self-sacrifice .””⁵
Furthermore, Dr. Craig says:
“Far from being a problem for theism, it is part of the glory of theism that there cannot be morally laudable acts of self-sacrifice that go ultimately uncompensated . “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed” (Heb. 6: 10).”⁶
Craig then concludes that classical theism imposes no moral requirement that we should engage in acts of what Hubin idiosyncratically calls ‘genuine self-sacrifice’. He said that Hubin’s argument against the theist does not hold water, also Craig mentions that theists are interested in promoting an ethic of altruistic behavior that looks for the good of others, and Hubin actually promotes the opposite.⁷
Going back, since the argument about Jesus sacrifice seems to say that Jesus did not really sacrifice anything since He did not stay dead, then it seems that their definition of ‘genuine self-sacrifice’ is similar to that of Hubin. Hence, they are vulnerable to the same critique that in their view, people who are actually selfish are those who are actually doing something that is genuinely self-sacrificial, which is an absurd statement. It then follows that their philosophical assumption about Jesus not really sacrificing anything holds no water. Therefore, we can say that even though Jesus rose from the dead, this fact does not invalidate Christianity’s claim that Jesus’ sacrifice provided salvation for us, so that those who believe will be saved.
Incarnation
Now that we are able to expose that the meme is actually making an idiosyncratic definition of ‘genuine self-sacrifice’, let’s talk about the doctrine of incarnation in order to expound on the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.
To start, incarnation refers to Jesus taking on human flesh.⁸ We see this doctrine in John 1:14 where it said, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
This is necessary for Christ to do, because if He did not add human nature, then Christ could not die for our sins, for God is immortal, and Christ could not truly be our representative before the Father.
In the 27th chapter of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994), Grudem talks about the nature of the atonement. In this section, he makes a distinction between Christ’s active and passive obedience. Christ’s active obedience refers to His obedience for us, that is, Jesus obeying the requirements of the law in our place and Him being perfectly obedient to the will of the Father as our representative. Grudem explains that this is needed because it is not enough that our sins would be removed in order for us to merit heaven. We also need the positive merits of Christ’s perfect obedience so we can be counted righteous. And this is what Christ did for us. Christ’s passive obedience, on the other hand, refers to the sufferings of Christ. This includes His suffering for His whole life, His pain on the cross, His pain on bearing the sins of the world, experiencing abandonment by His disciples and also being cut off from sweet fellowship with the Father, and also bearing the wrath of God.⁹
In addition, when we look at the discussion about the kind of suffering that Jesus endured in the crucifixion, the graphic descriptions seem to help me appreciate the theological explanations about the sacrifices that Jesus made for our salvation more.
In the 11th chapter of the book, The Case for Christ (2002), Dr. Alexander Metherell discussed the torture that Jesus experienced before the cross. He starts by saying that it began after the Last Supper, when Jesus went with his disciples to the Mount of Olives, specifically to the Garden of Gethsemane, to pray all night. He explains that Jesus experienced a great deal of psychological stress, knowing what amount of suffering He must endure. It was a very stressful experience for Jesus, so stressful, that He experienced hematidrosis, a medical condition wherein the individual sweats a small amount of blood. This phenomenon, according to Dr. Metherell, made Jesus’ skin extremely fragile, and made it sensitive to the flogging that would follow.
Dr. Metherell continues by talking about the terribly brutal experience of Roman flogging, which consisted of thirty-nine lashes (frequently the victims would get more depending on the mood of the soldier). Dr. Metherell also explains that the soldier uses a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. Upon striking the flesh, the balls would cause deep bruises or contusions, which would break open with further blows. And the whip is said to have sharp bones which would cut the flesh severely. Metherell continues that the back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep, deep cuts. He said that the whipping would have gone all the way from the shoulders down to the back, the buttocks, and the back of the legs. He also explains that the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Metherell also cites the 3rd century historian Eusebius, to say that the suffering’s veins were laid bare, and that the very muscles, sinews, and bowels were exposed in the open. Hence, Dr. Metherell said that many people would die from the beating even before they would be crucified. He said that the victim would go through tremendous pain and go into hypovolemic shock, which basically refers to the victim suffering the effects of losing tremendous amounts of blood.
In the agony of the cross, Dr. Metherell explains that Jesus survived the flogging, and then he unpacked to us what happens in the crucifixion. Dr. Metherell explains that Jesus would have been laid down and his hands would have been nailed in the outstretched position to the horizontal beam. The crossbar is called the patibulum. In this stage, Metherell explains that it was separate from the vertical beam, which was permanently set in the ground. Dr. Metherell then explains that the Romans used spikes that were five to seven inches long and tapered to a sharp point. They are said to be driven through the wrists. The rationale for this is because this was a solid position to lock the hand. If the nails were driven through the palms, then the weight of the person would have caused the skin to tear, and the person would then have fallen off the cross. The wrists are said to be considered to be part of the hand in the language of the day. Dr. Metherell added that the nail would go through the place where the median nerve runs, which is said to be the largest nerve going out of the hand. Dr. Metherell explains that this would be crushed as the nail was being pounded in. Dr. Metherell gives Lee Strobel an explanation to imagine the pain. Dr. Metherell explains the pain we feel when we bang our elbow and hit our funny bone (called the ulna nerve). He said that it’s extremely painful when we hit it. He says that we must picture taking a pair of pliers, then we use it to squeeze and crush that nerve. He said that the effect would be similar to what Jesus had experienced. The pain was so unbearable that they coined a word to describe it — excruciating, which literally means “out of the cross.”
At this point, says Dr. Metherell, Jesus was hoisted as the crossbar was attached to the vertical stake. Then nails were driven to His feet. Dr. Metherell explains that as the nails were being driven through the feet, a similar amount of pain could be felt due to the nerves being crushed. And though these were bad enough, Dr. Metherell explains further that crucifixion is an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation. He says that it stresses the muscles and the diaphragm, putting the chest into an inhaled position. In order to exhale, the individual must push up his feet, to momentarily ease muscle tension. However, in doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. Dr. Metherell continues that after managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in, and again the person would have to push himself up in order to exhale, thus, he scrapes his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on until the person would be exhausted. When this happens, the person would no longer be able to push himself up, which means that he will no longer be able to breathe.
With all these stated, we can say that Jesus clearly experienced an incomprehensible amount of suffering. And it’s not just the physical suffering that He experienced in the crucifixion, Christ also suffered in His passive obedience — as He bore the sins of the world, as He was abandoned by His disciples, as He was cut off from sweet fellowship from the Father, as He bore the wrath of God. Based on this fact, we can conclude that Jesus did indeed make a sacrifice for us, and that Jesus did not give up His weekend for our sins.
Conclusion
Since we are able to show that the philosophical assumption of the ‘Jesus giving up His weekend’, which implies that Jesus did not sacrifice anything, is absurd, then this means that Jesus’ sacrifice is counted. Since we are also able to show through the incarnation that Jesus indeed made a sacrifice for us, then the argument that ‘Jesus only gave up His weekend’ is false. We can then bask at the beauty of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Indeed, the best expression of love is self-sacrifice, and Jesus exemplified this by sacrificing His own life on the cross for our sins. He glorified the Father by obeying His will, and this obedience led to the salvation of anyone who will believe in what Christ did.
References:
- Worldview Summit, “Is religion just a subjective, personal truth?,” Facebook, April 27, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/WorldviewSummit/posts/6919849121421519
2. -_.Dr.Slouchy._-, “jesus gave up his weekend for your sins, ” imgflip, April 27, 2002, https://imgflip.com/i/5ygrwy
3. Michael Shermer, “Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins.,” Twitter, April 27, 2002, https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/872236618601517056
4. Robert Garcia and Nathan King, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 175.
5. Garcia and King, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?, 175.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. “What is the meaning of the Incarnation of Christ?”, GotQuestions, accessed April 27, 2002, https://www.gotquestions.org/incarnation-of-Christ.html
9. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 570–577.
