₦airaland Forum

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Some protestants see the “Great Exchange” encompassed in this passage. The classic interpretation is that though Jesus was not actually a sinner, the sin of the elect was imputed to Him and He received the Wrath they deserved, while the Christian (who lacks righteousness before God) has God's righteousness imputed to them. The main problem is a lot must be read into that one verse. This interpretation is gratuitous at
best, not to mention nowhere is the term “impute” used. Using the principle of having Scripture interpret Scripture, it is best to consult similar passages when trying to interpret this one.


Rom 8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

2 Cor 8: 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Regarding Romans 8:3, Jesus being sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh” means Jesus took on human nature, and thus “made sin” could easily be taken as sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The phrase “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” I interpret as being made a sin offering and made satisfaction for sin. Next, in 2 Cor 8:9 there is a clear parallel with 2 Cor 5:21. Christ doesn't become poor by infusion or imputation, rather He becomes poor in the sense of Phil 2:5-9 where Jesus humbled Himself to take on human flesh and become
obedient unto death, and through His merits heal us and raise us up.
Also, the word “sin” in “made sin” can mean “made a sin offering,” and this is because Paul knew that in the OT some Hebrew words could mean both “sin” and “sin offering,” even in the same context. The Hebrew word Chattaah (H2403) is translated, in the KJV, 182 times as “sin” and
116 times as “sin offering.” Places like Leviticus 4 translate the word both ways in the same context:

Lev 4: 28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

The highlighted words are the same word in Hebrew. This is a very similar situation to 2 Cor 5:21 in which the first occurrence of
“sin” refers to actual sins, while the second occurrence refers to a “sin offering.” There is simply too much read into the text (without support) when Protestants interpret “made sin” as having guilt imputed to Christ and punished in Christ.


So according the right usuage of term that passage may rightly be interpreted as.

"God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we may have the righteousness of God".

The term sin and sin offering is the same word, to be made sin is not to be punished as a sinner but instead to offer a sacrifice.

ayoku777:
Both the rich man and Lazarus and even Abraham were all in sheol. Abraham and Lazarus were not in the torment side of sheol; but were still in sheol all the same. Because none were righteous.

Also; the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. God does not forsake someone He is pleased with; He forsakes someone He is angry with. Meaning the wrath of God was not averted or abated; it was redirected at Christ. Jesus took the wages of our sin.

the bible actually say "He (God) did not turn his face from me"
another erronous interpretation.

That was why He went to hell; the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin.

hahahahahaha, you know how ridiculous you sound?

This is why I love the bible, it is very good in busting bubble, first someone said remission is different from forgiveness and paardon even though scriptures show they all refer to the same thing. Now you are telling me Jesus went to shoel to be punished by God, well what does the bible say?

I PT 4:6

For this is why the gospel was preached to the dead, for though judged in the flesh like men they may live in the spirit like God.

That is what the bible says!

Jesus didn't go to shoel to be burnt in hell fire! He went to preach to the just who died before him and announce to them the good news of the salvation

You so badly want to say Jesus didn't suffer in our place. But you can't explain why the Father forsook Him (the consequence of God's wrath); why He was made a curse (the consequence of breaking the law); and why He went to sheol (the abode of the dead -the wages of sin).

All these are the wages of sin and the consequence of unrighteousness. And since Jesus committed no sin and did no unrighteousness it means Jesus took the wages of our sins -He suffered in our place. That's the gospel truth.

Shalom.

hehehe,

this just get more funny.

First you claim God forsoked Jesus even though the very psalm Jesus reference say "he didn't hide his face from me"

then you tried to defend Calvin's teaching that Jesus went to hell fire of the damn, unfortunately you got stuck in shoel and decided to expound that Jesus was suffering the wages of sin in shoel, the bible says he went to to preach to the dead.

The last straw you are clinging on is he was made "curse" for us. I'll be happy to bust that one too.

simplex2:
Really? And he acted surprised when Adam informed him he was na'ked? Must be a good hollywood actor then.

Fastforward few hrs later, why not just scrap Adam and Eve and start creation of man anew? Wasn't that the idea behind wiping out the entire generation of Noah? Sodom? Wouldn't it have been better killing just Adam and Eve (2 people) than killing off all Noah's generation?

Right from the time of Adam, man has never-ever kept God's law; not Adam, not Noah, not Sodom, none!
Can't God take a clue that the ways of man is different - totally different from his ways and at such let man be?

hehehe

have you considered if you've gat the story wrong?


I don't think God was really interested in wiping out the whole human race. Noahs flood was about showing that sin has effect not exactly ending the whole human race, hence saving noah.

It seems God wasn't interested in Distroying the human race he was more interested in repairing what was damage.

Besides this may be the wrong thread to go into a full discussion on the subject.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]
If I get you right, the position you hold is that Jesus lived a life that pleased the Father and as a result the Father accepted that as a satisfactory offering for sin. The cross was therefore not a place where punishment was put on him for mankind's sin but a place where Jesus simply showed that he willing to remain sinless no matter what MAN (not GOD) did to him.  You stop just there. It will be helpful if can confirm if this is so.

that is not my position!

My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God with superabundant merit, this sacrifice has the power to literally forgive all sins of the whole world and grant exceeding grace to all who recieve it my faith.

My position is that this sacrifice was an atonement (a sacrifice that averts wrath), my position is that it is heretic to claim that God diverted his wrath on his son Jesus. Instead Jesus death was a pleasing sacrifice, an acceptable offering that adequately satisfy for all sin.  

However, you need to explain how ALL portions that talk about Christ's payment for sin tie together before a robust position can be arrived at.

i have no problems with such passage, Christ sacrifice was a "payment" for sin, what I disagree with is that the father is only satisfied if he pours down wrath on his son.

For example, what is your understanding of:
1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romas 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

again this passages agree with what I have said.

ayoku777:
So many people were called righteous under the old testament. Noah, Abraham, Job, David etc; were all called righteous. Even so, the scriptures must be understood in context otherwise you can give it your own meaning.

The same word of God that called all these saints righteous also said;

Isaiah 64v6 -But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Romans 3v10 -As it is written There is none righteous, no, not one:

So unless, you want to claim the scriptures contradict themselves; then it means the righteousness of those called righteous under the old testament was relative to their time or to them. They were still all sinners relative to the imputed and inherited sin of Adam; and were all unrighteous by the standard of the righteousness that makes a man heaven-worthy and eternal life-worthy.

No one was righteous enough to merit eternal life or be heaven-worthy until Jesus came. Only Christ's death and resurrection imputs that righteousness to us.

That was why they all still went to sheol or hades. They were not righteous. If man could attain the true standard of God's righteousness, Jesus wouldn't have come to take our sin and give us His own righteousness. Scriptures should be understood in context.

No one was righteous enough for heaven or eternal life until Jesus died and rose for our sins and gave us His righteousness. Relative to that standard of righteousness; we were all sinners -including Abraham.

I can agree with you if you say they were righteous (or pleased God) enough not to be in the torment side of sheol. But they were not righteous enough for eternal life or heaven until Jesus came.

Until the blood of the Son of God was shed; the inherited sin of Adam was not remitted. All still went to sheol -the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin; as sinners.

Shalom.

so we are back to the sematics! How righteous is righteous. Paul writes abraham believed and it was reckoned as righteousness yet he wasn't righteous enough.
I would not be trapped in that sematic.

Penal substitution says Jesus was damned in our place, that means he suffered hell fire of the damned, not shoel of the righteous.

So please show me where that passage shows a damn Jesus suffering the pains of hell fire.

Somehow you are tip toeing around how ridiculous it sounds that Jesus who you say is God suffer hell like the damned.

Syncan:
Nah. I've been more around than some people, Ubenedictus for instance, I won't even start mentioning Italo, SalC, babestell, vest, MrAladin, hurricanechris...ehm... where dem, dem know themselves.

how come you mentioned my name?

You foget you just resumed after your apostolic work in sambisa?

SalC:
QUESTION

Is it right for a Christian especially a Catholic to loan money to someone with interest or to take up money lending as a business?

Both biblical and church document citation will be acceptable.

i believe syncan just answered your question it is ok to take interest on loans but due consideration must be given to the poor.

urheme:
Ubenedictus, tell us what is legal and biblical about the practices of digging people from their graves and calling it saint for purpose of worship

I am really sure it does contradict the law of God and universal principles

hehehehe, we venerate(profundly respect) people and even the remains of Christians are treated with respect because they were once temples of the holyspirit, we do not "worship" them in the sense you mean.

The bible has examples of great men whose graves are dug and their remain translated to a different location, it is biblical.

Ex 13:19
And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for Joseph had solemnly sworn "God will visit you; then you must carry my bones from here"

here is an example of the biblical practice of translating the remains of the dead. Catholics sometimes translate the remains of the dead if necessary from their previous graves to consecrated grounds.

There is nothing sinful about translating the remains of the dead.

Have a nice day.

Kamsified:
In my dad's voice *comparing bad apples to bad apples* smh

chai!

Who cun be the bad apple?

He continues

That's what's happening in Psalm 22. It starts out with the psalmist feeling forsaken and abandoned. "Why have you forsaken me? … I cry out by day, but you do not answer." But he's not literally forsaken, any more than the other psalms mean that God was literally forgetting the psalmist forever.
It's expressing how the psalmist felt at the time.
But that's not the end of the story. Like the other psalms of lament, there's a pivot point.
Several, in fact. Verse 9: "Yet you brought me out of the womb … from my mother's womb you have been my God." Verse 19: "But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me." The psalm is not a psalm of forsakenness. It starts out that way, but it shifts to
confidence in God's deliverance. Verse 22: "I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." And here's the key verse, verse 24: "For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for
help."
Here is a direct refutation of the notion that the Father turned his face away from the Son. But the refutation is not as important
as the pivot. Jesus is declaring: Right now, you are witnessing Psalm 22. I seem forsaken right now, but my death is not the end of the story. God has not despised my suffering. I will be vindicated. The Lord has heard my cry. Because death is not the end.
Verse 30–31: "Future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"


Jesus is not saying that God has forsaken him. He's declaring the opposite. He's saying that God is with him, even in this time of seeming abandonment, and that God will vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

The closest modern analogy I can come up with might be something like this. Imagine
that later on this election year, this summer, the President is on the campaign trail. And despite his security, an assassin gets in and
shoots him. As the President falls to the ground, he says, "I still have a dream." And then he dies.
Now imagine everybody saying, "Hmmm, his last words were 'I still have a dream.' I wonder what that means. What was his dream? Was he napping on the campaign
bus? What was it about?" No, we'd all recognize that he was making an allusion to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. He'd be
saying that this dream is still alive, that it did not stop with MLK's death, and it would not stop with his.
It's the same way with "My God, my God" on the cross. It's a biblical allusion, and the point of Psalm 22 is not about being forsaken. After all, David wrote Psalm 22.
Was David saying that God had forsaken him forever? No. The literary genre of the psalm
of lament shows that David was saying that he felt like God had forsaken him. That the odds were against him. That things looked
really bad right then. But that was not the end of the story. David still had confidence that God would hear his cry. God did not abandon David. And God did not abandon
Jesus. The clearest evidence of that, besides the rest of Psalm 22, is Jesus' final words on the cross, "Father, into your hands I commit
my spirit." The Father had not forsaken him.
God was still his Father. Jesus was still his Son.

I thought maybe it was because we came from different faith traditions that we disagree, but I just checked the net and its not only my faith tradition that sees your interpretation as problematic and heretic, infact i didn't look far to find a protestant who appreciates the fact that it is heretic for God to forsake himself or that it is unjust to actively punish the innocent.

After repeating the silliness of God punishing his son he goes on to explain the meaning of "my God, My God why have you forsaken me" maybe you will appreciate his work better.

Making a Reference
Here's the key biblical insight that changed everything for me in how I read this passage. It's a simple historical fact about how Israelites cited their Scriptures. They didn't identify passages by chapter numbers or verse numbers. Verse numbers weren't invented yet. Their Scriptures did not have little numbers in the text. So how they
referenced a passage was to quote it, especially the first line. So the book of Genesis, in Hebrew, is not called Genesis. It's called, "In the beginning." Exodus is "Names." We similarly evoke a larger body of work with just a line of allusion: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." or "It
was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
That's why Jesus often says, "It is written" or "You have heard it said." He doesn't say, "Deuteronomy 8:3 says this." No, he says, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.' " That's just the way they did it. So when Jesus says, "My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?" he's saying, "Psalm 22." He expected his hearers to catch the literary allusion. And his hearers should have thought of the whole thing, not just the first verse: "I am … scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their
heads. … I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax. … My mouth is dried up … my
tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. … All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
Is Jesus saying "I have been forsaken by God"? No. He's declaring, "Psalm 22! Pay attention! This psalm, this messianic psalm, applies to me! Do you see it? Do you see the
uncanny way that my death is fulfilling this psalm?"
Jesus has done this before. At the beginning of his ministry, in Luke 4, he read the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, saying, "The spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for
the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Then to make things completely clear, he said, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
That's what Jesus is saying on the cross. When he says, "My God, my God," he's saying, "Psalm 22. Today Psalm 22 is fulfilled in your hearing. I am the embodiment of
this psalm. I am its fulfillment."

A Psalm of Lament and Vindication

Psalm 22 is one of many psalms that fit a particular lyrical pattern. We call them the psalms of lament. They usually begin with a
complaint to God, rehearsing the wrongs and injustices that have been experienced by the psalmist. Psalm 5: "Listen to my words, Lord. Consider my lament." Psalm 10: "Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" Psalm 13: "How long, Lord? Will you forget me forever?" Psalm 74: "O God, why have you rejected us forever?"
This is a common pattern in the Psalms. This opening lament usually goes on for a stanza or two. But then the psalm pivots. The psalmist remembers the works of God, and the psalm concludes on a note of hope. Old
Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann says that these psalms were Israel's way of
ordering their grief and making sense of their sorrow. Today, we'd call it "processing." They would recount their troubles, but by the end of the psalm, they declared their confidence in God.

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/aprilweb-only/my-god-forsaken-me.html?start=3

ayoku777:
You're trying to give "forsaken" your own definition. Forsaken as used in the scripture, is the hebrew word "azab" and it means; "to leave, to depart from, to leave behind, to abandon or to apostatise".

When God forsakes (or leaves) a man, His manifest presence departs from that man.

There is no where "forsaken" was used for the righteous. God never forsakes the righteous.

Psalm 37v25 -I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

It is possible for God to allow the righteous to suffer or even be persecuted; yet that doesn't mean God forsook Him. The suffering of the righteous is not termed being forsaken by God in the bible.

2Cor 4v9 -Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

Ezra 9v9 -For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the king of Persia.

No matter how the righteous suffers, if God's manifest presence doesn't depart from him, then he is not forsaken. God did not forsake Joseph in the pit or in the prison. God did not forsake Job in all his loss. God did not forsake Paul in his thorn in the flesh. For God to forsake a man is for His presence to depart from that man

God only forsakes those who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

2Chronicles 24v20 -...Thus saith the Lord, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, He hath also forsaken you.

To be forsaken of God is to be apostatised by Him (to be treated as an apostate). And God only does that to sinners who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

Now this was the word that Jesus used to describe how God treated Him on the cross. Unless you want to claim Jesus was disoriented and didn't know what He was saying.

The Father forsook Jesus. Jesus was treated as a sinner. The fate of those who transgress God's commandment was meted out to Him on the cross.

That was why the scripture said in Isaiah 53v12

-...He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors;

Jesus was numbered (or counted) with transgressors of God's commandments; He was treated as a transgressor -for us.

So God forsaking Jesus doesn't mean He just allowed Him to suffer in the hands of evil men. God allowing the righteous to suffer is not termed being forsaken; because God's presence doesn't leave the righteous even in his suffering.

God only forsakes an apostatised sinner. When God forsook Jesus; He apostatised Him, He left Him. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors; He was made sin for us, and He took the consequence of the sin of transgressors on our behalf.

That is what it means when the Father forsook Him.

God bless you

i hope you are aware of the implication of what you just said, because I am not sure you even appreciate the gravity of the christological heresy you have on you hand. So you believe that it is possible for God to forsake himself even after the bible clearly says he can't?

You somehow belive that the divine presence can leave someone who is by nature God. How can the divine presence leave God?
Unless ofcourse you do not believe in the trinity. And yes scripture is full of examples of the righteous lamenting there are many such psalms and ps 22 is one of such examples! It starts with a lamentation the it immediately rejects the idea that God has forsaken the righteous, that was the exact psalm Jesus quoted and I kindly ask you to tell me what verse 25 says and d meaning.

Context is key.

He is risen, Alleluia

ayoku777:
Also; the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. God does not forsake someone He is pleased with; He forsakes someone He is angry with. Meaning the wrath of God was not averted or abated; it was redirected at Christ. Jesus took the wages of our sin.

You so badly want to say Jesus didn't suffer in our place. But you can't explain why the Father forsook Him (the consequence of God's wrath); why He was made a curse (the consequence of breaking the law); and why He went to sheol (the abode of the dead -the wages of sin).

Shalom.

you should see me now, I am smiling! the bible records Jesus crying "my God my God why have you forsaken me" but nowhere does the scriptures suggest that the Father was agree with the son! Infact I am sure you are reading that passage wrongly.


the hebrew scriptures didn't have chapter and verse so all jews quoted scriptures by quoting the first words. When Jesus shouted "Eli Eli" he was referencing psalms twenty two, go and read the psalm then you will understand what "forsaken" means, it doesn't mean God was angry with him or was even punishing him it simply means God allowed him to suffer in the hands of his enemies, that is what "forsake me" means, just like God "forsake" job, it doesn't mean God was angry with job, it simply means God removed his protection rom him and allowed him to suffer.

Infact that passage clearly says that "forsake me" doesn't mean to turn away his face. Read verse twenty five it clearly says


"Let the sons of Isreal fear him because he has not despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither has he turn his face away from me, when I cried to him he heard me".

What more proof do you need, God forsake Jesus only in the sense of allowing his enemies inflict pain on him, God didn't turn away his face from his son, he wasn't angry with him as that messianic psalm which Jesus referenced clearly state.

Have a faithfilled day.

ayoku777:
Sheol or hades means the "abode of the dead". And death is the wages of sin. Anyone who goes to hell died a sinner. Hell is not the place for the righteous.

Both the rich man and Lazarus and even Abraham were all in sheol. Abraham and Lazarus were not in the torment side of sheol; but were still in sheol all the same. Because none were righteous.

Actually the righteous men who lived before Jesus when to "shoel" also translated as "hell", so it is untrue to say "hell is not a place for the righteous".

You also claim Abraham wasn't righteous, I belive you've got that wrong too, the bible clearly teaches that abraham believed and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.


I'll answer your passages in another post.

Nneka123:
Everyone got their beliefs and values. We "Catholics" believe that eating meat on a good friday, is like eating the flesh of christ, and inflicting more pain to him, so it's neither of that!!

this is not what the catholic church teaches oh! Please do not misinform people.

ayoku777:
I believe the mistake you're making is that you're equating pardon or forgiveness with remission.

Pardon does not remove the consequence and condemnation of a sin. Only remission does that. And remission is only by the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood IS NO REMISSION.

The examples of Moses and Phinehas etc that you gave was not for remission, it was only for pardon. The people still died in the wilderness.

Numbers 14v20-23 -And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, ....and have tempted me now these ten times,

Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoke me see it:

You see? God pardoned the children of Israel but He still destroyed them in the wilderness. Because pardon is not remission.

Another example for you:

2Samuel 12v13-14 -And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE.

God pardoned David, but the child still died; because pardon is not remission. Pardon does not remove the consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death). Only remission does that.

And for there to be remission, blood must be shed. Jesus came for remission. And He had to take our sin and its consequence and condemnation. That's why the Father forsook Him; and He died and went to hell.

You said Jesus didn't die or suffer in our place. That's wrong.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

What is the curse of the law? It is the curse of breaking the law. When you obey the law, you are blessed. If you break the law, you are cursed.

The curse is the consequence or wages of breaking God's law; just as death is the wages of sin.

The bible said Jesus was made a curse FOR US. Meaning He did the time for our crime.

When Jesus died for us; He took the wages of our sins. And when He was made a curse for us; He took on the wages of our breaking the law.

This is the gospel truth. Jesus died and was made a curse FOR US AND IN OUR PLACE.

Jesus died for the sins we committed and He was made a curse for the laws we disobeyed.

You would need to ignore or twist plain straight forward scriptures to claim otherwise.

Isaiah 53v5-6 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

Shalom.

you have created a false dichotomy, remission, pardon and forgiveness are word used interchangably to describe the same thing infact the dictionary say remission means pardon or forgiveness. Infact my bible translated the passage you quoted as "without blood there is no forgiveness of sin", remission is forgiveness.

In each of those cases God's immediate anger was averted and in other there was true forgiveness of sins. God sometimes leave a temporal punishment even for sins he has forgiven, it doesn't mean the sins weren't remited. Jesus' sacrifice remitted my sins and granted forgiveness but the temporal general punishment for sin remain, my physical body will age, experience pain and die, that is the temporal general punishment for sins even after Jesus remitted it. A similar thing happen in the desert even though God's wrath was abated, the disobedient Isrealites still face God temporal punishment for their sin, i.e non entrance of the promise land.


So pardon, remission, forgivenes removes the immediate and eternal punishment for sins but not neccesarily the general temporary punishment, that is why Christians still age feel pain, suffer and die because the general temporal punishment for sins usually remains. Stop redefining words please.

ladon1:
You mentioned 'innocent' but he took the sin of others upon himself which represent a ransom. A price paid in the stead of another. How can something called 'just payment suddenly become unjust? Hardly not. Perfect justice was satisfied by the attoning sacrice of Christ.
Can someone paid the price of setting another free?
Prrfectly yes sir even even when the price is death.

sorry sir, nobody can serve another's death penalty.

Weah96:
The offering was his death, or "pretend death" since he really didn't die. When you offer someone your head in place of your little daughter's, it's not the same as giving them a Lexus or Range Rover. There is an assumed intention of reciprocity if you must die in order to appease the anger of someone. Death is not a gift. The families of murder victims don't consider the demise of death row inmates as "gifts."

for a Christian death can be a gift to God, the bible does say "O precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful", so yes when the faithful lives this world it is a "gift" to God, a precious thing in his eye, moreso if the death is a matyrdom, giving of your life as a witness to him.

ayoku777:
The Father forsook Jesus when He hung on the cross

Matthew 27v46 -And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

He was made a curse for us:

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

He died and His soul went to hell:

Acts 2v27 -Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Jesus went through all these.

I want you to know that Jesus committed no sin to warrant being forsaken of God. He broke no law to deserve being cursed or made a curse; and He disobeyed no commandment of God to merit going to hell.

These are all the wages of the things we did and the sins we committed. We are the ones that sinned and deserved to be forsaken of God. We are the ones that broke laws and deserved the curse of the law; and we are the ones that disobeyed God and deserved going to hell.

For Jesus who knew no sin and broke no law of God, to experience all that our actions deserved, means He took the wages of our sins. The consequence and condemnation of our rebellion and disobedience was endured by Him.

God bless

a classic case of continous misinterpretation of scriptures, I'll point one, the word translated as hell in the passage you quoted is "shoel", it isn't hell fire, it isn't the abode of the damn, but instead the land of the dead, the "other side" where the old testaments saints awaited the messiah".

ayoku777:
The "How" is not even a 10kobo question much less a million. The bible is clear on the fact that our iniquities were laid on Jesus; and He in turn suffered the forsaking, the curse and the hell that was the consequence of our iniquities in our place.

Isaiah 53v6 -All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

When your iniquities are placed on someone; the person becomes the one that suffers the consequences and condemnation of those iniquities -no longer you.

Its like surrogacy. If a woman's fertilized eggs are placed inside the womb of another woman. Who now gets to suffer the trimester feelings and moodswings? Who now gets to suffer the swollen feet and added weight? And eventually the birth pangs and labour pains? Ofcourse its the other woman.

When our sins were placed on Jesus; the consequence and condemnation that accrued to that sin were also endured by Him. Jesus sort of became the "surrogate" sinner for our iniquities and He endured the "pains and pangs" that came with it.

That was why the Father forsook Him; that was why He was made a curse; and that was why His soul went to Hell.

Separation from God, the curse of the law; and hell are all the wages of sin and the consequence and condemnation of disobedience and rebellion against God.

Jesus suffered all these for us and in our place. He committed no sin to deserve being forsaken by God, being made a curse or going to hell. No, we did all the sins that deserved these wages. But the Father laid our sins on Jesus and Jesus endured the consequence and condemnation of all our sins in our place.

God forsakes someone He is angry with. For the Father to forsake Jesus means the wrath wasn't averted or abated, it was redirected at Jesus. When the Son of man was lifted up, He drew all judgment unto Himself. Our iniquity was laid on Him and He suffered the consequence for us.

Jesus took the crime and did the time. That is "HOW" He reconciled us to the Father.

Shalom

this is what happens when you base your doctrine on the erronous interpretation of a verse, I already explained that the greek word translated as "laid on him" is used in the same chapter to mean make "intercession for" to offer up a sacrifice. that passage doesn't say what you claim it says, it doesn't say our sins were imputed to Christ and punishment was carried out on him, instead it is more rightly understood as saying that the lord God presented Christ as a sacrifice for the iniquity of us all, he made intercession for our sins.

You can check the word translated as "laid on him" it doesn't mean to imput.

trustman:
The Eucharist
When Jesus said in Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you ...” what did he mean? Obviously he was ‘sacrificing’ something for us. Did the nature of that sacrifice involve some form of punishment?

The Cross
Ordinarily the cross was an instrument of punishment and judgment. God’s choosing of the cross as the place for Jesus’ crucifixion must have been deliberate rather than uncalculated. It must have been meant to pass across a message in no uncertain terms.

you seem to be forgeting a crucial detail, Is 53:8, it says by oppression he was taken away.

Does that mean God was the achitech of such oppression? Because you seem to be saying God is the active cause of Christ suffering. the cross was a punishment but importantly an unjust punishment. the bible says it is "oppression".

Was it God who was "oppressing his son and pouring wrath on him or was the cross the oppression and injustice of man? Judge for yourself and see how you make God a sinner who oppresses his son.

So when closely looked, at it is obvious that the going to the cross, something that caused Christ a lot of agony, could not have been a simple painless anguish-free incident. His substitutionary work on the cross, which we may not fully understand on this side of eternity, is the price Christ paid to meet the righteous requirements of our holy God.

when I look at the cross I certainly do not see God pouring wrath! What I see is the injustice of men who crucified an innocent man, a holy victim who willingly and sacrificially surrendered himself to his unjust killer and offer himself to the father, I see Christ who by bearing injustice merited glory for all who believe in him, I see his humility and obedience that saves me. I see the father who accepts the matyrdom of his only son and for his sake reckons righteousness on all who believe in him. the cross is not the expression of divine wrath it is instead an expression of divine love. God wasn't pouring wrath on the son, instead the merits of Christ averted the wrath I deserve. Atonment isn't about pouring wrath on the innocent but averting wrath by performance of some good.

Peace

simplex2:
Keep probing dear, you'll get there someday.

Meanwhile, while you're at it, have you wondered why just a sin of disobedience changed the entire supposed plan of god for man?



Yes, how? How did the death make god forget the grievous sin of disobedience and now got reconciled with man? How is there even a reconcillation because things has remained the way it was till after the cruxification: the supposed relationship between god and man (adam) hasn't been the way it was before the almighty sin of disobedience; death is still ravaging everywhere, sickness, informities...exactly as they were before Jesus came and died: so what exactly was the over-hyped death for?

And to think that the death would have been avoided if the omniscient god got the revelation that adam will actually eat the fruit; if the omni-potent god planted the tree on top of mount everest where it would be inaccessible to adam: if the omnipresent god rebukked the serpent when he was trying to deceive eve as he is ever present everywhere, everytime...

A lot of things dont add up abeg!

I actually believe God "got the revelation" of adams disobedience, he simply decided to let it be and instead bring forth good out of the mess.

Goshen360:
Okay. I have many scriptures for you to explain in line with with subject. One at a time.

New International Version

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

1 Corinthians 15: 2-3

How do you explain this verse?

do I really need to explain this?

It is clear, Christ died for our sin, it was to free us from our sins that Christ died, to set us free from sin. Christ death was the sacrifice that washed away our sins.

trustman:
So, that one offering was animal sacrifice and another grain offering should not make us want to use the items involved and method of offering come to any unnecessary conclusion. By the way most of the offerings (both animal and others) went through fire and fire signifies judgement!

I am aware that the levitical rites varied, that is not my point, instead my point is that nowhere in those rites is "wrath" poured on the victim, the sacrificial gifts were not beaten or flogged! there was no such thing as transfering wrath, the animal was killed in a most merciful way! It was not burnt alive, the idea was never to transfer wrath on an innocent animal, instead it was an offering of ones "precious goods" in recognition of the sovereignty of God, a sign of gratitude, in cases of animal sacrifices its main idea is the offering of the animal blood its life force as a compensation, a gift a payment for ones own life. I repeat there was no transfer of wrath, the very thing pen.sub advocates accuse God of doing.

In the same way it is the central message that each of the Levitical Offerings were meant to convey that should be the focus of anyone studying them.

and I am happy to repeat that transfer of wrath was never a message in the levitical sacrifices.

Now coming back to our core issue: Jesus’ substitutionary death, I think you need to see these passages and tell me if they don’t talk of substitution or punishment –
Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?
Hebrews 13:11-12 “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” Notice here; ‘Jesus also suffered’

Unlike your attempt at Isaiah 53: 5,6 I believe the issue of punishment is clear there:
“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed”
What does it mean to chastise if not to inflict punishment on someone? Is this passage not clear as to fact that things were done to Christ because of our sins?

I think you are uneccesarily mixing things up. First my arguement is not against the vicarious nature of Jesus death, to put it in your word I agree that "things were done to Christ because of our sins", my arguement is not against the "sufferings of Christ" I do believe he suffered. I also believe he bore a chastisement that brought us peace, in essence he did bear a punishment and that punishment he bore has brought us peace. What I disagree with is how you classify this "punishment" he bore. I believe that the punishment the bible is refering to is death, God proclaimed death and suffering as punishment for sin and since Christ accepted suffer and die he bore "chastisement", the very one that brought is peace. that is what I believe that passage is saying. I do not believe, infact I reject the thought that erronously claims it means Jesus went to hell fire of condemn souls and suffered the torments of the damned, I reject the thought that says God was actively pouring his vindictive wrath on his son, I repeat what I said ealier in the thread, that teaching is a 16th cent teaching and isn't true.

These passages all talk of Christ taking our place. Why? Because if all have sinned and the wages of sin demands God’s wrath poured out on man; then what could Jesus have done other than pay the price required by God for mankind’s sin problem?

scriptures do not teach this, it never say God was pouring the wrath. this unfortunately is your own thing

Kay17:
By dying or preaching?!

for me it isn't an either or question, it is instead a both/and reality.

Put simply I believe everything Jesus did on earth has salvific value from the incarnation to the ascension, I believe that his preaching does have salvific value, even Jesus did declear "the truth shall set you free", his teaching showed up the way to, the path of God. I also believe that Christ accomplished the work of salvation par excellence on the cross, it is on the cross properly speaking that our sins are washed away and grace won. So yes I believe that Christ did accomplish salvation specifically by dying, but his incarnation, birth, life, joys, encounter, sorrow, teaching even learning, suffering, ressurrection and ascension all play a part in the overall work of salvation and are thus rightly described as salvific.

Kay17:
Interesting. . .

What then was the purpose of Jesus Christ on earth.

i belive every Christian will agree that he came to reconcile us to God. the 50million question is how?

With those points dealt with then I'll says the texts below agree with me.

trustman:
Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

amen! He gave himself as a sacrifice unto death, a death that clease us and is so value-able that is redeems us from our iniquities and give us grace to do good.

After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.

or it simply means he has finish his part in our salvation, he has offered totally himself in a sacrificial death?

He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

usually I don't mind the term substitute when talking about the atonement, infact I used it myself sometimes, Christ did offer a sacrifice for sins he didn't commit so I usually allow people say "substitute" by i do not know the sense in which you use the term, Jesus physical death wasn't as a substitute for our own physical death, we will die physically and nobody was substituted for that. Instead the atonement of Christ is more exactly describe as vicarious in the sense of "on behalf of the other". Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death.

2 The Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. 3 But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. ... 15 “Then he [the high priest] shall kill the goat
of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.


Thus it is the High Priest's duty to perform a most sacred rite, going before the Mercy Seat (the Lid of the Ark of the Covenant) in the Holy of Holies, and thus make atonement for all Israel.

Once one realizes the role of the priest in "bearing the iniquity of the people," carrying this over to the New Testament we see Jesus' role as High Priest in a more mature light. Clearly, when texts like Isaiah 53:11 and 1 Peter 2:24 speak of Jesus "bearing our iniquity," it refers to His role as
High Priest taking on the burden of making atonement for other people. Thus, in "bearing sin" Jesus was not "guilty" in our place. This can be seen even in the contexts of Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24, which I'll briefly turn to.

In Isaiah 53:6, it says "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." It turns out, this same Hebrew word for "laid" is used a few verses down, in verse 12, "he makes intercession for the transgressors." That same Hebrew word is translated to mean "make intercession," showing clearly that
"make intercession," and "make atonement for" are synonymous with "bearing sin,".
When Peter says Jesus "bore our sins" (1 Peter 2:24), the Greek word used here does not so much mean "carrying" something as
it means to "go upward." Interestingly, of the 9 times that this word is used in the New Testament, it is never used to mean "carry" something, but rather to "go up a mountain" (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2), or "ascended up into heaven" (Lk 24:51), or even "offer up a sacrifice" (Heb 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; James 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5). Given that it's used to mean "offer up" a sacrifice most of the
time, especially in the context of 1 Peter 2:5, then it can easily be said that's what it refers to in 1 Peter 2:24. (One cool detail I found in the Greek Old Testament was that
of over 150 occurrences of this Greek word for "offer up," it referred to a sacrifice about 70% of the time it was used, e.g. Gen
8:20; 22:2; 22:3; Ex 24:5; 29:18; 29:25; Lev 4:31, so this detail would not be lost on the original audience reading Peter's First Epistle.)


with this I conclude that to "bear our sins does not mean "to be punished in place of sinners", it instead means to offer a sacrifice of atonement for the sinner. God laid on him the responsibility of making intercession and a sacrifice for our sins.

He bore our sins does not mean he was punished for them it instead means he took up the resposibility as high priest to offer sacrifices and prayers for them.

consider Leviticus 10:17,
16 Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned up! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the surviving sons of Aaron, saying, 17 “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?

This text is fascinating because it directly links the priest's act of "making atonement for them" with that of "bearing their iniquity." In other words, when a priest is said to "bear iniquity" of a sinner, it means the priest takes on the responsibility to "make atonement" for the sinner. It does
not mean the guilt is imputed to the priest so that now the priest himself becomes guilty. (And never does the Bible say the sacrificial animal said to be "bearing the iniquity," and for good reason, because that's not the nature of atonement, as I showed at the start.)

Now consider two other texts relating to this matter:

Exodus 28: 36 “You [Moses] shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ 37 And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. 38 It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

Numbers 18: 1 So the Lord said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your father's house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood. ... 8 Then the Lord spoke to Aaron, “Behold, I have given you charge of the contributions made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel. I have given them to you as a portion and to your sons as a perpetual due. 9 This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every offering of theirs, every grain offering of theirs and every sin offering of theirs and every guilt offering of theirs, which they render to me, shall be most holy
to you and to your sons. 10 In a most holy place shall you eat it. Every male may eat it; it is holy to you. ... 21 “To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting, 22 so that the people of Israel do not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die. 23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, and among the people of Israel they shall have no inheritance.


The Levites and Aaron and his sons had a pretty sweet deal. They were entitled to the first and best of all animals, grains, and tithes. This was both in exchange for the
fact they would not be able to own land, but also because God saw their job as very sacred. But their job also carried with it a lot
of responsibility, such as making atonement for any offenses committed against God's honor, especially relating to the consecrated objects of the Temple. The Bible calls this "bearing the iniquity" of others, which for reasons shown above is not to be
understood as guilt being transferred to them but rather 'carrying the duty' of having
to make atonement. This is clear from texts like Numbers 8:19, but it is especially clear in the instructions given for the Day of
Atonement, which will now be looked at.

ayoku777:
I believe the mistake you're making is that you're equating pardon or forgiveness with remission.

Pardon does not remove the consequence and condemnation of a sin. Only remission does that. And remission is only by the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood IS NO REMISSION.

The examples of Moses and Phinehas etc that you gave was not for remission, it was only for pardon. The people still died in the wilderness.

Numbers 14v20-23 -And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, ....and have tempted me now these ten times,

Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoke me see it:

You see? God pardoned the children of Israel but He still destroyed them in the wilderness. Because pardon is not remission.

Another example for you:

2Samuel 12v13-14 -And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE.

God pardoned David, but the child still died; because pardon is not remission. Pardon does not remove the consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death). Only remission does that.

And for there to be remission, blood must be shed. Jesus came for remission. And He had to take our sin and its consequence and condemnation. That's why the Father forsook Him; and He died and went to hell.

You said Jesus didn't die or suffer in our place. That's wrong.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

What is the curse of the law? It is the curse of breaking the law. When you obey the law, you are blessed. If you break the law, you are cursed.

The curse is the consequence or wages of breaking God's law; just as death is the wages of sin.

The bible said Jesus was made a curse FOR US. Meaning He did the time for our crime.

When Jesus died for us; He took the wages of our sins. And when He was made a curse for us; He took on the wages of our breaking the law.

This is the gospel truth. Jesus died and was made a curse FOR US AND IN OUR PLACE.

Jesus died for the sins we committed and He was made a curse for the laws we disobeyed.

You would need to ignore or twist plain straight forward scriptures to claim otherwise.

Isaiah 53v5-6 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

Shalom.

i have a feeling you just opened a can of worms or you just opened the door to long sematics.

I'll give you a more academic reply after I conclude the point I am making.

Weah96:
The offering was his death, or "pretend death" since he really didn't die. When you offer someone your head in place of your little daughter's, it's not the same as giving them a Lexus or Range Rover. There is an assumed intention of reciprocity if you must die in order to appease the anger of someone. Death is not a gift. The families of murder victims don't consider the demise of death row inmates as "gifts."

you are still runing too fast.

take time to enjoy the discus for now we will arrive at this point.