Why did Jesus die on Calvary?

My first response would be to ask the member's opinion. What is the motive behind such a question? Is it just a matter of curiosity or is the person trying find fault? Personally, I don't remember reading of any person being sacrificed in the Temple. The people were not to sacrifice outside the Temple. I would think that God is free to choose wherever the sacrifice of His Son was to take place.

 

Even though Jesus was sacrificed, He was sacrificed in our place. He died a sinners death. He also died for all people, not just the Jews. The sacrifice offered in the temple was for Jews only.

 

Where is the passage that states any sacrifice outside the temple is like murder?

 

Jesus IS both the sacrifice and the Temple.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.​

HankD​

 

Here is your answer. My Schofield lll goes on to elaborate on this, but the basic answer is here.

Hebrews 13:10-14

 

I think sag is on to something. God never commanded human sacrifice from the Jews. The sacrifice of human blood in the Temple would have desecrated the Temple.

HankD is right on:thumbs: Jesus is the sacrifice and the Temple!

Jesus was crucified at Calvary (Golgotha) because that was where the transgressors were. He fulfilled scripture that He would be numbered among the transgressors.

This also fulfilled prophecy concerning crucifixion (being "lifted up" as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, laying down His life for His sheep.....) and numerous passages concerning the suffering servant (Isa.), and the prophecy concerning the casting of lots for His clothing and so on and so.

peace to youraying:

 

That's a good point.

Also, this is about the Tabernacle, not the Temple.

Also, wasn't this law just for the Israelites when they were in the wilderness?

 

Okay, I looked at the passage again. Here it is:

Context is important. Maybe the sacrifices outside the Tabaernacle were to the "goat idols" and that is what this is about.

 

I believe you are misreading this passage. The Law did not say that any sacrifice made outside the tabernacle made someone guilty of blood. It said anyone who sacrificed within or without the camp who did not bring that sacrifice to the door of the tabernacle to offer it to God was guilty of blood:

"What man soever there be . . . that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord . ..."

Notice it says the sacrifice that is killed either within the camp or outside the camp must be brought to the door of the tabernacle to make an offering. Clearly this is not saying the sacrifice had to be killed within the tabernacle.

And the purpose for this injunction is also addressed a few lines later:

"To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the Lord."

The sin was not in killing a sacrifice outside the tabernacle/temple (in the field as it is expressed above) but the sin was in not bringing that offering to the tabernacle/temple and offering it to God.

Jesus was in fact slain within the "camp" (during the festival times the ecclesiatical borders of Jerusalem extended beyond the site called "Gordon's Calvary") and Jesus also did in fact come to God's tabernacle and offer himself before God as the Law commanded.

"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by blood of bulls and goats, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:11-12

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

The Scripture is explicitly clear as to why Jesus died on Calvary, the sins of lost humanity, to bring us back to God.

 

Jesus's "BODY" represents the "New Temple" under the "new Covenant".

Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,




Lu 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Lu 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Killing a prophets was bad enough, but killing one in the "City of God" (Jerusalem) is like entering the temple/church to kill the "Priest/Pastor".

A very brazen act against God.

Ps 46:4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. (Body of Christ)

1Ki 11:36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.

P.S. Only "priest" could offer sacrifices, not the "common man".

 

My $.02:

I have seen some good answers. Of course Jesus died to pay our sin debt while living a perfect life so that we, who believe in Him, could be credited with His righteousness. But, there is a reason Jesus was crucified outside of the temple (and the argument that He is the temple for Christians is a good one).

Jesus, in His death, fulfilled two important aspects of the Old Testament ceremony in and around the Day of Atonement. Certainly, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, but He was also the scapegoat.

As the scapegoat, He had to be crucified outside the city. I don't think it is a mistake that more than one gospel states that Jesus was "Led outside the city." The scapegoat would, by the law, be led outside the city.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Agreed Arch. I was going to address that but you did such a good job I'll just refer others to your post :thumbs:

 

I wonder if you might reconsider that view of the scapegoat being a type of Christ. On the Day of Atonement there were two goats that were required to make atonement for sin. One goat was the goat "for Jehovah," while the other goat was "for Azazel" (which word means for "removing"). It was the goat "for Jehovah" whose blood the High Priest took into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled on the mercy seat to make atonement for sin. This was the goat which was a type of Christ. The other goat was led out into the wilderness and in early times was "let go" in the wilderness" but in latter times by Rabbinic injunction was pushed off a cliff to it's death or "cast down" in the wilderness representing those of Israel whose sins were not covered by the blood of the goat "for Jehovah" but instead bore their sins upon their own heads and were "cast down" and "perished in the wilderness" never having entered the "promised land," speaking figuratively of their failure to enter under the New Covenant and enjoy it's provisions) just as that first generation who failed to enter the promised land but perished in the wilderness of Sinai at the beginning of the Old Covenant.

There were two goats, the one which represented Christ was the goat "for Jehovah."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Pilgrimer,

You raise an interesting idea. However, the point of removing (or better: Driving away) the scapegoat was to show that the sins of the people had been removed from among the people.

So, I still think that Christ is both the Sacrificial Lamb and the Scapegoat. It fits the biblical data better, in my estimation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

But I think the other goat, the goat "for Jehovah," fits much better with the Gospel, for this reason. Look at Hebrews 9 where Paul teaches about the Day of Atonement and what it symbolized. Notice that it was the blood of the goat "for Jehovah" that the High Priest sprinkled in the Holy of Holies as an offering to God which Paul speaks of as being symbolic of Jesus offering his own blood in the presence of God. So the blood of the goat which symbolized Jesus' blood was that of the goat "for Jehovah." Jesus' sacrifice of himself was an acceptable sacrifice, offered according to the Law. The blood of the scapegoat was not brought into the Holy of Holies and offered up to God. Which brings us back to the legal point that was being made in this opening note, that the sin lay not in slaying a sacrifice outside the tabernacle, but in not bringing that sacrifice to the tabernacle and offering it up to God, which legally disqualifies the scapegoat from being symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ.

Another very minor point, but interesting, the word scapegoat actually means "goat (of or for) departure." Remember Jesus talking about dividing the sheep from the goats and the goats he put on his left hand and said "Depart from me . . ." Matthew 25:31-41

Also, as a bit of historical trivia, according to Talmudic tradition, during Temple times, on the Day of Atonement a scarlet "tongue" (piece of cloth) was tied to the horn of the goat "for Azazel" (the goat for departure). In the process of this particular ceremony, after the High Priest laid hands on the head of the goat and confessed Israel's sins upon him, it's reported that the scarlet ribbon would miraculously turn white. However, it is also recorded by the anicent Rabbis that for 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, this miracle failed to occur.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer