Apostolic By-lines (1)
Christ paid the price to free us from the curse that the laws in Moses’ Teachings bring by becoming cursed instead of us. Scripture says, “Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.” Galatians 3:13 (God’s Word translation, 1995, God’s Word to the Nations)
Paid the price– THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO GO OUT ON MAY 13. It always amazes me how much Catholic and Reformed theology finds its way into what is purported to be translation of the text. Take this “translation” in the God’s Word Bible, for example. Here’s the same text in the NASB, the ESV and the NIV:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law . . .
Notice that God’s Word Bible actually substitutes the penal theory of atonement for a Greek verb (exagorázō) that means, “to redeem.” TDNT’s article makes an off-hand but crucial comment:
Not used in the LXX, this term refers in the NT to Christ’s redeeming work, the stress now being on purchase to freedom from the law (Gal. 4:1ff.). God, of course, pays the price himself in Christ, meeting the law’s claim and thus giving true freedom through justification by faith (Gal. 3:24–25). Redemption is needed because the law is God’s holy ordinance and eternally valid. Hence in the transition to freedom sinfulness is exposed and forgiveness is experienced in Christ. Yet redemption is not a transactional “buying” of God’s favor.[1]
Did you notice the opening phrase “not used in the LXX”? What does that tell you? It should tell you that “redeem” as we find it in Greek is not a Hebrew idea. If it were, the LXX would have used the term. Of course, this doesn’t mean that redemption didn’t occur in the Tanakh. What this means is that the Greek idea of manumission (buying back a slave) isn’t the basis for the Hebrew concept of atonement. That’s important. When Paul uses the Greek term, we could conclude that he does nothave the Greek idea in mind. In the Tanakh, the situation of slaves was completely different than slaves in the Roman world:
The term slave in Bible translations is given to misunderstanding, because it is all too easy to mistakenly read the cruel slavery of the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Europeans, and Americans into the Old and New Testaments. For this reason, to describe what was allowed in the Bible, one should use terms other than slave and rather speak of bonded labour (albeit only for real debts), labour service, or with Georg Huntemann speak of servant-hood work. Alan Richardson has formulated it as follows:
“The ‘house-tables’ deal with domestic slavery, not the criminal slavery of the galleys and mines. It should not be thought of in the light of modern slave-trading practices. Indeed, one must sympathize with the English translators in their efforts to render doulos: the ‘servant’ of the English Versions is too weak and colourless; the ‘bond servant’ of the Revised Version margin is accurate but archaic: while ‘slave’ is too apt to suggest to modern ears the inhumanities of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. ‘Workers’ is perhaps the best modern rendering of douloi, even though it does not carry with it the suggestion of being tied to one’s occupation and to one’s employer.”
The Hebrew expression for slave, ‘ebed (pl. ‘avadim) is a direct derivation of the verb ‘db, which means ‘to work:’ consequently a slave is simply a worker or a servant. The ‘ebed is distinguished from hired workers (sakhir) in three ways: he does not receive a salary for his work; he is a member of the household of his master (comp. Genesis 24:2; Leviticus 22:11 and below); and his Lord exercises a fatherly control over him . . .”[2]
Given this significant difference, it’s easy to see that importing a concept of slave-payment doesn’t fit the socio-political circumstances of the Tanakh. Paul obviously knew this. So why would he choose a Greek word that has all the overtones of Roman slavery? Perhaps we can explain some of the background of his choice by noticing this:
The almost verbal repetition of 1 C. 6:20: ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς, in 7:23: τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε, and the rather abrupt way in which the phrase is introduced in both cases, shows that it is a kind of slogan of Paul’s. In both verses the main point is that Christians are not free (6:19) but are the possession of Christ (7:23). Intentionally it is not said who has bought them, or from whom they are bought, or at what cost. The reference is simply to the fact of their redemption.[3]
Have we turned Paul’s “slogan” into creedal necessity? Have we redirected Paul’s point, that we are bound to the Messiah, and made it a theological dogma? That would be like converting “If you’ve got the time, we’ve got the beer” into a demand to drink Miller whenever there is a lull in our busy day.
Think about it. Do you suppose Paul would build a crucial doctrine on an idea that never appears in the Tanakh and only makes sense in the Greco-Roman world of cruelty? And while you’re thinking about it, we’ll take another look at the consequences—tomorrow.
Topical Index: redeem, exagorázō, slave, payment, sin, Galatians 3:13
[1]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(19). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2]https://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_org/WoT_8_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher__ed.__-_The_Humanization_of_Slavery_in_the_OT.pdf
[3]Vol. 1: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (125). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
This TW didn’t go out or get posted. That’s been corrected. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks!
This one was sent twice. Yesterday 5/14 and again this morning 5/15
Yes, I know. Server problems. Hopefully it is fixed for tomorrow.
From the TW:
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Languages evolve. This term is found in works by Diodorus Siculus ca. 60—30 BC. The term prefixes ek (from, out of) with agorazō (buy) to arrive at “redeem”. Agorazō is found 21 times in the LXX and 30 times in the NT, with the prepended form (exagorazō) 4 times in the NT. For comparison of this sort of evolution of terms, the Greek bainō (walk) is found just four times in the LXX, though it is present quite often prefixed with various prepositions (e.g. ana-, “go up”, “ascend”, a whopping 561 times!), while it is never used in the NT, though it’s found prepended with prepositions numerous times.
I’ll post more on the 2nd part.
Perhaps someone can tell me how 2 Cor 5:21–especially in its full context to include vv. 17-21–cannot be understood as a “penal substitution” conception of atonement. Especially when considered alongside Romans 6 (esp 6:20, “when you were slaves to sin”).
I will agree that the God’s World translation is incorrect here, reading in the penal substitution theory, but “redeemed” in this context does not make this verse inconsistent with the theory.
Craig, here are my thoughts.
I have never understood the idea that 1. Jesus “paid” the price for, or, that 2. He was our “substitute”, in order for us to be saved. If the Father is a perfect and just Judge, neither makes any sense to my Greek mind.
First, how can an innocent person be allowed to be executed on behalf of the guilty? How does that satisfy justice? Does God not care who dies just as long as somebody dies? I don’t think so. Would even we humans allow an innocent brother to offer his life on behalf of his murderous brother, and call that justice?
Second, the penalty for sin is dying AND death. If Yeshua is our substitute, and the Father’s justice is met, then Yeshua must stay dead forever. (And even worse, for those who believe eternal hellfire is the punishment, Yeshua must endure that!) Yet, none of these Believers believe what follows their own simple logic.
Christ “paid the price” is better translated in other versions as, “redeemed”, “reclaims”, “rescues”, “liberates”, and, “frees”. I think all of these are good. The “curse” of the Law is not the Law; the curse of the Law simply means the consequence of breaking it ensures your death. And because we have all sinned, we will all die. It is obvious that the death of Yeshua does NOT save ANY of us from death. We are all going to die and thus, God’s justice is properly served and the “debt” paid. But because of the resurrection of Yeshua, He is able to reclaim us from death and we are born (again) from above, into round two of our existence. Not into our old mortal bodies, but as a new creation into a new experience of serving.
Christ experienced the same (and worse) suffering and death as us yet He did not substitute for us. We suffer and die, and, He suffered and died. He took HIS place, not our place. WE “paid the price” for our sin with our death but God, because of, and through Christ’s death and resurrection, is able to reclaim us. Why? Because it is a process. How can we be made in the image of God if we do not share a common experience and heritage.
God and His purpose for us is consistent and must work though all of His attributes including justice, but also, love, mercy, and an extended mysterious time-frame.
Daniel,
In the sacrificial system in the Tanakh, didn’t an innocent animal die (a sin offering) for the collective sins of Israel on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)? But there was also the ‘scapegoat’, the one sent into the wilderness. One was sacrificed on the altar, one was sent into the desert. The first died for YHWH as a substitute for Israel’s unintentional sins. The blood of this sacrificial goat was sprinkled on the mercy seat, and then the intentional sins of Israel were figuratively placed on the scapegoat before sending it into the wilderness. Both were substitutes for Israel.
No, I don’t think the spotless lamb was a substitute for sinful Israel; it was a picture of and a temporary substitute for the perfect Yeshua.
Sacrificing the lamb ultimately proved nothing. It had to be repeated every year. If it substituted for Israel, why did they all continue to die? It may have delayed judgement every year but it did not eliminate their death. And again, even Yesuha’s death does not prevent our death but it does, with His resurrection, provide for our restoration and reconciliation.
He did not take our place, but took His place as Mediator.
I certainly agree that the sacrificial system was a temporary substitute, but certainly the plain language of the system in the Tanakh is as a “sin offerring”. This sin offering was to be done once per year. Christ’s sacrificial death fulfilled it.
See Hebrews 9 (and see my post @ May 14, 2019 2:12 pm under the 2nd part of this TW):
Christ died a physical death, but arose in spiritual life. He died, yet now He lives! And His resurrection is the first-fruits resurrection, with those who believe in Him following in resurrection to life. Those believing die once (physical), non-believers die twice (physical and spiritual).
This is how Christ is Mediator.
“It is obvious that the death of Yeshua does NOT save ANY of us from death.” Daniel, if natural dying “pays” for sin, then even unrepentant Hitler is going to live forever. Next door. There’s death, and then there’s sleep. The Bible makes a distinction. Hitler is “asleep”, according to the Bible: not “dead”. “Death” is about what Revelation calls the “second death”. Two different things. I believe Hitler has yet to die that death.
You say “We are all going to die and thus, God’s justice is properly served and the “debt” paid.” Well, I don’t want to meet God’s justice and “pay” my own debt! I want a “Substitute and surety”. I don’t want to die forever (second death): I want to only sleep (like Yeshua did). Almost all of us sleep, but only the wicked die the second death. They “justify” themselves by that death (which I believe is dissolution forever), like you say, but I want Yeshua to justify me.
Excellent, Miss Hayes, leads to my first thought, wouldn’t atonement me to cover, which would cause us to believe that there’s something more, when Yeshua fully removes. There are a lot of believers who I lovingly try to disconnect, from Kingdom now theology. Messiah has yet to come and finish the work. There’s so many things we are not able to do until that time. Some of my friends think we can do it all now there is nothing impossible with God. Yet they forget that their sin is only covered up for now, and we constantly deal with the sin nature or the evil eye.
This subject gets very involved but, what’s the point of Hitler’s resurrection if God is just going to kill him again? Isn’t Hitler dead enough right now? Nevertheless, I do believe in the Second Death. But what is it, and WHY is it?
Traditional denominations teach that this means burning in hell for all eternity but we have long moved beyond that horrid view of our loving Father. But if that is not true, then what is the point of Hitler’s Second Death? To parade him, and millions of other unrepentant sinners, in front of all the righteous saints for a while, before God makes them “extra” dead in the Second Death?
Or, is the Second Death, like so much of Revelation, symbolic of something else?
I believe it is inaccurate to say we have “life”. Yes, we are living but we do not really process “life”. It is more accurate to say we are (slowing) dying. Or, if I can reinterpret Revelation’s terminology, we are currently living our “First” Death. Therefore, it can be understood that Revelation’s Second Death is not the state of being (extra) dead, but the second state of being mortal again, similar to now, but living under the harsh rules of the Kingdom. (Who are these people living outside the gates in Rev 22:15?)
The point of God’s judgments are not punitive but corrective. I can’t imagine what Hitler’s correction behavior might involve, but he’ll have a thousand years to practice it.
But what if Hitler doesn’t want to “be corrected”? He didn’t this go round.
Laurita,
I readily admit I have a paradigm through which I filter my thoughts, and that paradigm is that God is not running an experiment (like Dr. Frankenstein) with billions of people hoping to get a few of them to see things His way, and forever casting off and destroying the rest. (Is most of humanity’s suffering for naught?)
God has a will and man has a will but I am betting that God’s will is superior to man’s will in every way. It may take Hitler a thousand years to make reparations and finally be convinced of the Law’s righteousness but he will finally realize how obeying it is the best possible thing one could ever want to do for one’s own benefit. We will all be overwhelmed by God’s love, mercy and infinite abundance lavished on us, even if it must be learned through God’s justice.
If we don’t eventually surrender to what is best, then either there is something wrong with the Law, or, something innately flawed with God’s design of man. If the Law is perfect then the flaw is with us but when we are healed of our flaws and become perfectly rational, how could we ever reject that which is perfect?
1Ti 2:4 He desires all men to be saved and come into the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 4:10 . . . the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially [not only] of believers.
Craig and Dawn,
Agreed, but a judgment’s ideal purpose is to correct the injustice. Punishment does nothing to repair the damage nor reform the offender. A dead offender cannot fulfill the judgment. He cannot repay the injured; hence the just judgment is rendered void. Of what use then would be God’s judgment?
But were we given free will so that God could ‘beat’ us with His? Is love a contest?
Daniel,
Let me jump in here for a moment. We can go to the Gospel of John for help–John 5:29:
…hoi ta agatha poiēsantes eis anastasin zōēs,
…those who good deeds to resurrection of-life,
hoi de ta phaula praxantes eis anastasin kriseōs
those but who evil accomplishments to resurrection of-judgment
You can see the parallels made between these two clauses. Here’s my translation:
…those having done good deeds, to resurrection of life; but those having done evil, to resurrection of judgment.
I’ll add: The word used for ‘life’ in the next “age” is always zōē, while the term for physical life in this age is psychē
Hi Daniel! My understanding is that all who are dead now (until Christ returns and the first resurrection happens) are asleep. The earthly body has expired and God reclaimed the breath of life.
ALL being the key word there. Even Hitler and even me one day. The only one not asleep is Jesus who was resurrected by God.
Anyways, scripture talks about the second resurrection being everyone comes before the judgement seat (including those who were NOT raised at the first resurrection). This is where the second eternal death is meted out if its warranted.
I appreciate your thoughts for sure. I don’t think it’s about being dead enough though. More a matter of whom one chose to serve in physical life. He is loving but He is also just and will pass judgement as He promised He would.
Craig, I’m having difficulty finding any connection between 2 Cor. 5:17-21 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement (“PSA”), especially since the Tanakh specifically condemns it. First, the understanding of “sin” as a particular violation of a particular (although mentally unspecified) norm is not warranted. The Greek hamartia can also be translated “waywardness” or “violation.” Put that in the context of vv. 17-19, and the idea of reconciliation as return, not purchase, is readily apparent.
Second, in essence, what the PSA view is espousing is that the eternal, righteous, just, gracious, and good God killed his own Son because he hated sin so much. In other words, Jesus had to pay for your sin and mine so that God could forgive sin, right? There are a number of problems with this.
A. Does a good Father kill his child for the sake of another? Does this mean that the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the ultimate description of God’s character? No way! In fact, that notion violates Scripture. In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the sin committed by the people in regards to the Golden Calf. God tells Moses that the person who committed the sin is the one who must receive the punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a basic principle, ‘Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.’ This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18: ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die… the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’
B. If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you accountable unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? No, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt, not collecting it from someone else. God doesn’t need a human sacrifice to forgive sin. In fact, God frequently forgives sin without any association with a sacrifice. God forgave David, Job, and the inhabitants of Nineveh through simple repentance. Yeshua announced that one’s sins were forgiven without a sacrifice. That should give you a hint that there is something wrong with the PSA paradigm.
C. Human sacrifice is specifically forbidden in Scripture. In Deuteronomy 12:29-31, God calls human sacrifice something that He hates. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation. We see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16:20. So, the concept you are espousing is something that God specifically condemned. But somehow God himself gets a pass when it comes to killing his own son. That’s a hard pill to swallow. In my opinion, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a creation of the Roman Church, not God.
Daniel,
First, I want to thank you for directly engaging my question; that is, how 2 Cor 5:21 cannot be understood as a “penal substitution” conception of atonement. However, you did not consider Paul’s words in Romans 6:6: no longer be slaves to sin.
While hamartia has a semantic range larger than “sin”, the latter is the consistent meaning in the NT, and that is certainly the meaning in both Romans and Corinthians. Messiah clearly died on behalf of those who believe: 2 Cor. 5:15: 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. And 21 He [God] made Him who knew no sin [Christ] to be sin ON OUR BEHALF, so that we [the unrighteous] might become the righteousness of God in Him.
A foreshadowing of this is in the sacrificial system in which two goats were used on Yom Kippur: one to be sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat—ἱλαστήριον, hilastērion, as Skip notes in the first footnote of part 2—for the unintentional sins of Israel; the other on which to figuratively place the intentional sins of Israel.
The other word referenced in the first footnote of part 2, λύτρον, lytron, is used in the LXX of Exodus 30:12: “When you take a [a]census/sum of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a RANSOM for himself to the Lord, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. This is yet another foreshadowing; Messiah provides the ransom in Matthew 20:28/Mark 10:45 when Christ is described as one who will give His life as aransom (lytron) for many.
But this term can also translate as “redeems”, as the LXX does in Lev 27:31: If, therefore, a man wishes to redeem part of his tithe…. It is also used this way in Num 3:46, 48, 49. The verb form, lytroō, is used in Ex 13:13, 15, as well as Ex 34:20. The verb form is used alongside its noun form quite a bit in the Pentateuch.
The verb is also found in Deut 7:8: but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of [a]slavery/slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. This is a foreshadowing of Messiah’s redeeming of those ‘slaves to sin’ (Rom 6:6) through His blood. See John 8:33: They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” They didn’t recognize their enslavement to sin—and they ‘forgot’ about the Exodus (see also Deut 15:15; 24:18).
Here’s another usage in Deut 21:8: [a]Forgive/atone for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O Lord, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.’ And the blood-guiltiness shall be [b]forgiven/atoned for them. The word is also found in 2 Sam 4:9.
This term is found in the NT. I’ll copy and paste a portion from an earlier comment. First is Titus 2:14:
The second is 1 Peter 1:18:
To answer your item A: See John 10:11: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.”
To item B: Messiah paid our (the sheep) ‘sin debt’, a debt we cannot pay of ourselves.
To item C: See Rev 13:8: …except those whose names are written in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb slaughtered before the world was founded (CJB). God didn’t ‘kill his own son’.
Let me add this to my immediately preceding comment. Messiah’s death (His cessation of life, psychē) is, arguably, the beginning rather than the end, for the Resurrection follows. Christ’s resurrection provides the first-fruits for the future resurrection to life (zoē) to those believing in Him. Halleluiah!
Craig, I am sure we agree on the essences of what Christ accomplished for us. It seems to me we are only arguing semantics, nevertheless I maintain it is incorrect to say Christ “substituted” for us.
My first clue that the word should not be used is the Bible itself. In the versions I checked God never once used the word, which should be a very strong indication not to employ it. In a search, “regarding substitution”, 38 verses came up but not one of them actually used the word. You have given many examples of these verses, and they are powerful verses about Christ suffering and dying, for our benefit, as our Redeemer, as a ransom, baring our sins, taking our infirmities, dying for us, etc. Yes, yes, but He still didn’t substitute for us. Once again, if He actually replaced us, why are we still here suffering and dying?
To bear or carry “our” sins and the penalty of “our” sins, can simply mean he bore, “just LIKE us” our suffering and penalty of our sins. When I say, “I feel your pain”, I mean, just like you, not that I actually have your pain. If I “carry” your mortgage, you still have the debt. Yeshua did not carry “away” our pain and death. He carried the SAME pain and death as us.
“Statute” is the root of substitute (Merriam-Webster). I suggest that the “statute” is the original law and the “sub” statute is a secondary inferior law. Therefore, Christ is the Statute, the original Lawgiver. He is not a “sub” lawgiver. A substitute is not the Real McCoy but actually a phony. An inferior team mate substitutes when the best athlete is injured. Brass substitutes for gold when it cannot be afforded. Margarine is an artificial substitute for butter, idols substitute for the real God.
Christ is the Real McCoy. The lamb was the substitute for Christ. The lamb did not substitute for Israel but for Yeshua until He arrived in the flesh. Was Isaac a substitute for Israel, which did not yet exist? No, Isaac was a picture of Yeshua, a closer substitute than a lamb for Yeshua but still, just another substitute.
To say that Christ replaced us is to infer that our sacrifice would have been equivalent to His; – that we could have redeemed ourselves by our own death. That would be the inferred parallel but nobody believes that.
Good response Dan and I would use the same word “substitute” to describe the replacement theology of (most) Christian religions; a substitute (not the real thing) for the chosen people of the God of Israel, Judaism and Torah. Read Michael Wyschogrod’s Abraham’s Promise. You might be VERY surprised by what you can learn from it. It might be the most valuable book I have ever read! It proposes a resolution to much, maybe all, of the problems we have today and keeps both religions intact, which was always meant to be, not just one or the other.
He met and wrote to Cardinal Lustiger as well as Kar(din)l, LOL, Barth in their day. Barth’s response was “you know, I never thought of it that way” while Lustiger, who was born of Jewish parents who died in the holocaust, never replied, which Wyschogrod regarded as a reply in its own way.
The book may even provide an answer to some of your other issues like universal redemption and free will. Kindle $2.99
Daniel,
I’ll begin with your concluding statement: To say that Christ replaced us is to infer that our sacrifice would have been equivalent to His; – that we could have redeemed ourselves by our own death. That would be the inferred parallel but nobody believes that.
But this isn’t exactly parallel. The difference is that Christ was sinless. It was His sinlessness that provided the means by which He could be “sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Because we are not without sin, we cannot ‘self-redeem’. Our self-sacrifice would be deficient because we are not unblemished. But since Christ was sinless, He didn’t need to ‘self-redeem’, yet He was able to provide a sacrifice for the rest of us, for our sins, so that we can become righteous through Him.
Doesn’t “on our behalf” connote substitution? If I were to pay off someone else’s school loans, I would do so ‘on their behalf’. My payment would substitute for their payment. One could even say that my payment replaced theirs. However, importantly, I do not replace the other individual—his funds were replaced by my funds to satisfy the debt. Hence, it’s not out of line to say that Christ was our ‘sin substitute’.
You wrote: To bear or carry “our” sins and the penalty of “our” sins, can simply mean he bore, “just LIKE us” our suffering and penalty of our sins. I may be obtuse here—and I can be at times—for I’m just not following you on this. What do you mean by “just LIKE us”? Christ is like us in all respects, except for the fact that He was sinless. He didn’t bear His own sin, as He had none of His own to bear. Thus, He provided Himself as our substitute. Now, to be clear I’m not stating, nor did I mean to imply, that we don’t have to worry about sin, as a consequence of Christ’s sacrificial death. That would be antinomianism (literally, ‘against the law’).
To summarize, Christ did not ‘replace us’. He died for our sins. Any sort of self-sacrifice is deficient, because all have sinned—except Christ. Because Christ was without sin (unblemished) He was/is the only One Who could provide a one-time-for-all atonement. The sacrificial system in the Tanakh was to be done each and every year. But that changed:
The “copies” (the sacrificial system in the Tanakh) were replaced (v. 23). The yearly sacrifice was rendered obsolete by the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
This is because the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). But we must confess them.
Craig, I am continually surprised and thankful for your efforts to expound on each issue. Nevertheless, I think we’re done here and neither of us are going to change, at least for the time being, but to clarify my point re “bearing our sins just like us”.
If I’m a slave bearing rocks to build something and a free man volunteers to bear my load, I am thinking that can mean one of two things. One, the free man bears my whole work load and I get to go sit in the shade. Or, two, the free man is only sharing my burden. He is indeed bearing my load, as it is the very same load as me, but he is not removing it from he, he is just doing it just like me.
So, which case fits the roll of Yeshua better? I say the latter. Yeshua did not remove my suffering and death, but He did bear both, just like me. And He did it on my behalf, not so that I can escape this life’s burdens, but so that He would be just like me in all things, AND MUCH MORE, He would be able to rescue/redeem me from my death through some mysterious process which insisted on His death and resurrection.
Regarding paying someone else’s school loan on their behalf, you are confusing “you” with “your payment”. “You” did not satisfy the debt, “your payment” did. Your money is gone forever but you are not. The debt was not you but an amount of money. If Yeshua gave His life AS A REPLACEMENT, it is gone forever, or, He never really gave it.
Drats. I intended to include the following in the immediately preceding comment.
I’d mentioned that hilastērion, ἱλαστήριον, one of the words referenced in the first footnote of part 2 is used in Heb 9:5 to refer to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. Well, I neglected to look for the verb form until today. An occurrence of this verb is found in Heb 2:17:
Some versions use “make atonement” or simply “atone” in place of “ make propitiation”.
Thank you for all the faithful scholarship, Craig. I don’t think we have been told what redemption looks like on God’s end. I think all the rituals and word pictures we have been given have been attempts to give us something to grasp to help us believe that we HAVE been redeemed, but I don’t think even those ways to understand it fully explain it. We don’t NEED to understand it, after all, for it to work: I think all we need is to believe that it has happened. I don’t think eternity will be sufficient to develop the capacity to understand what God has done for us!
While searching for the full context of the quotation at footnote 2, I came across the following (pp 55-56 of article/56-57 of pdf); bold and italics added, except last paragraph in which bold is in original:
Craig, thank you and Daniel for sharing a wealth of knowledge and insight with me.
I now need to understand.
Yeshua was sent to redeem the lost sheep. Not to save those thereafter… In this redemption process he had to dwell in death or among the dead or sleeping to restore them in 3 days…
Given this version in scripture the further prophetic reason in Hosea comes to mind. Redemption is a three day or process journey. Die off, bury, arise unto life. Explained in ROM 6 by Paul.
His example of death on the cross till this day is not confirmed by natural science. To die in what three hours of exposure on the cross. To have blood and water separated within minutes after dying…. So did he really die or was the limp of a body the same as an unconscious person…
Declaring Father in your hands I command my soul. Well that seems to imply what Paul recorded in ROM 6 from verse 10 and 1Cor 15 from verse 44. As Peter recorded when the corruptible is clothed with the incorruptible…
Was the cross not an example of how redemption happens and was the burial and resurrection not an example of how serious consideration should be given to our own sin. As that is the only soul worth saving. The rest will follow through our example living. Not through our knowledge and arguments.
This would also then be in line with all the prophetic reasons of redemption and the apostolic writings explaining his a redeemed life is witnessed.
I for one have am not convinced that the cross saved me. I understand that the cross empowers me to take up my responsibility to consider and adapt my life as an example. Then the anointing will follow and we will not live according to our will but according to the redemption plan an example of life eternal knowing God and the salvation plan He had put in place for all.
See Laurita’ last comment on The Debt.
Maybe we are reading more into the cross as intended. All the purchasing and redemption from sin occurs with submission unto God’s will not through someone else. Read again how Yeshua reiterates obedience above following and by following he actually implies doing as guided. Not worshipping or calling on a name tag…
As Skip keeps reiterating an Hebraic name is not the tag but what the person stood for or done…
And last our greatest struggle is the life we live not the life we lived…
Or am I again reading to simplistic into scriptural records.
Seeker,
Respectfully, if we cannot agree that Yeshua died on the cross (Matthew 27:50-54; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:44-48; John 19:28-42; cf. John 10:11-18; John 2:18-22), we just don’t have enough of a shared point of reference for dialogue on this.
Accepted. Thank you.
Seeker,
I really appreciate your graciousness. I’d been thinking off and on today about how I might be able to respond. If you’ll indulge me, I think I can prove to you that Messiah really did die on the cross by the witness of the NT Scriptures. Or, if you prefer, we can just agree to disagree. Your choice; but, I think it would be wise to look at the evidence. It did take me a while to put together!
There are two related verbs used for “die”. These are not the only two words related to death, but their usage should suffice. The first word is thnȩ̄skō, which is used only 9 times, and each time it is in the Greek perfect tense-form (“had died”). The other word uses the preposition apo (“from”, “away”) and prepends to thnȩ̄skō: apothnȩ̄skō. This latter term predominates, as it is found 100 times in the NT.
It would be quite tedious for me to check all 100 occurrences of the second term; however, thankfully, the evidence of the usage of the first term, coupled with context in which the second is found, should be enough to make the case.
Here are all the uses of thnȩ̄skō:
The wide variety of subjects in the above should show that the term refers to physical death, rather than an unconscious state. If not, the larger context of Luke 8:49 should prove decisive.
In the account of the dying girl in Luke 8, a messenger came to tell Jairus, the girl’s father, not to bother Yeshua any longer because the girl thnȩ̄skō, “had died” (8:49). Upon hearing this, Jesus told the man to ‘believe and she will be healed’ (8:50). After Jesus healed her he said, “…For she is not apothnȩ̄skō, dead but is sleeping (katheudō)” (8:52). The crowd laughed because they ‘knew’ she apothnȩ̄skō, was dead (8:53). After Messiah told her to get up (8:54), the girl’s spirit (ho pneuma) returned.
In the context here we can see that the two terms mean the same thing—physical, mortal death. Even more, we can see that at the moment the dead girl was brought back to life her “spirit (ho pneuma) returned”, thus obviously implying she had ho pneuma while she was previously alive. Now compare to John 19:30 in which Yeshua ‘gave up the spirit (ho pneuma)’, and after this it was observed that Jesus thnȩ̄skō, “had died” (19:33).
To go just a little further, 1 Cor 15:3 Paul states that Jesus apothnȩ̄skō, “died”.
Even more evidence is found in Mark 15:44, where both terms are used: ‘Pilate wondered if He (Messiah) had now died (thnȩ̄skō), so he summoned the centurion and asked if He died (apothnȩ̄skō) a while ago’.
I hope this helps.
Craig, thank you for your dedication to reveal the truth. Your efforts are appreciated by more than just me.
I do not dispute the language or tenses used. I know of death and resurrection from death. Seen too many of these. The worst example was a teenager that just died and after 16 hours in the mortuary the mortuary assistant rapes the corpse… That action brought her back to life. Now this happened about 50 years ago (I was not even ten at the time) and many disputed if she really was dead. Another instance was a man in the mortuary fridge for four days. They come to identify the body. The steal trolley was pulled out too fast causing the corpse to jolt. Surprise its alive… Now that happened around 30 years ago. So I for one will never dispute resurrection.
Given the recorded records the probability of the events happening as recorded is so unreal that either the records are false or the event occurred over a longer period of around three to twenty days. That is science. Again with God nothing is impossible – we can accept we may always differ in detail but seldom in faith.
All the events could have happened as they did. Again not for me or you but for those of the time. Then yes I accept that was what was experienced and documented.
As for the reliability of the records that is still a scholastic debate as many records are recorded by at least the second generation after the event except for 7 of the writings of Paul and those by Peter and John. As for Acts it may be the most accurate records of events in the New Testament as Luke was s learnt physician of the time.
A lot of scholars say read Josephus documents which are also disputed as actual personal observation by the historian, the most accepted view is that the writings are rather reflection on what he heard.
That just my view…
Back to Yeshau. Or as I read the records Salvation through anointing. That is the message for us the later generation. An event before my time cannot cleanse me. The lessons from the event can guide and direct me to applying that what is crucial for salvation.
How would Paul who was apparently not present during the event, some claim he was, explain salvation to his audience who were neither present during the event. As all do today, refer to an event then explain its purpose for their audiences lives.
Now Yeshua had to redeem the lost, not only those alive but also those dead. Can we agree on this as that is what the records reveal.
On those alive I understand the perfect example was provided. Those dead well even Paul records this differently than Peter does in Ephesians 2. Those that were dead in sin he resurrected… While Peter says those in the grave. Did he really have a chitchat with those dead for some 1500 years plus. Would this really be needed as they have no emotions, gender nor body to even show remorse never mind express it. NB not my definition of how those look that are dead. So what would the purpose be. Yeshua said a soul had no form or gender…
Again I do not dispute physical resurrection. I differ from how you interpret the scriptures. I have no scriptural qualifications I just have too many questions and different understanding based on my life experience not on the records. The records explain what we should believe or rather practise. The records explain faith as a result of our experiences gained through what we practised with an attempt to achieve redemption.
Trusting and praying or baptising in His name all refer to adhering to his teachings and showing others how… Just uttering the name in prayer is not what is meant by what is recorded. Again maybe too simplistic or reading too much into.
My search began 15 plus years ago when I ways lied to by individuals teaching the truth. God has not abandoned me, I think he just nods in unbelief how stubborn I am to change my views based on individuals repeating what I have personally read and came to understand differently. Scripture is open for interpretation. Knowing what was actually recorded is what I am discovering here…
As I have told others the scriptures say it is impossible to provide light or acceptable understanding to one who stops believing as first taught. So maybe my search for the truth will not enlighten me but may help others.
I understand that being possessed through anointing is what scriptural empowerment is all about. Problem is their is recorded around 14 different spiritual gifts with thousands of natural talents to be used by God. Which did he anoint you or me with. Skip is clearly s teacher. You seem to be the spirit of truth.
Mine I have come to accept as angel of death… In this natural realm.
Joy, peace and righteousness in the Holy Spirit.
Let me make this one comment. There is difference between revivification (or resuscitation) and Jesus’ resurrection as well as our future resurrection. In 1 Cor 15:53 and 54 there are two of the three appearances of the word athanasia in the NT. This word comes from thanatos, “death”. The prefix “a” makes the word the opposite, of course. Thus, the word means ~ ‘not subject to death’. Most translations use “immortality”. So, in view of the example of Yeshua, who resurrected as our first-fruit example (1 Cor 15:20), believers will be resurrected in the new spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44). The “perishable” will put on with “imperishable”, and the “mortal” (thētos) will put on the “immortal” (athanasia) (1 Cor 15:53-54).
The remaining occurrence of athanasia is found in 1 Tim 6:16 in reference to God.
Seeker, the “evidence” in the biblical account of the death on the cross has been analyzed by forensic pathologists and they confirm that it points to “natural” (under the circumstances) death. Do some research. It is available and understandable to any lay person.
Seeker, You said of your gifting: “Mine I have come to accept as angel of death… In this natural realm.” What? I may have to unfriend you…if I want to live. Please elaborate.
Yes you may unfriendly me if you wish Michael. Just my opinion based on the people that die within 14 days after I get the thought that it will happen. As for life, we will always differ. I want out and you want in… I am 54 and accept I cannot wait to die. I have had an interesting and very full life for which I am grateful. I cannot get myself to think of me wanting to live. Maybe just midlife crisis…
George sorry the sites I read up said the tomb is from a time 340+ years after Jesus. And what did the pathologists do the tests on, no remains? DNA strands, which they got where? Cloak or bandages those were proven 20 years ago to be a hoax… Records, well we know none existed or remain from the specific 35 years. No I will still pass on these findings at this stage. I accept the views as plausible…
Craig thank you that was truly something to reflect on, and still thinking. I will revisit 1 Cor 6 till 15 again. For now… So those Jesus resurrected were not the same as his resurrection… As for mortal with immortal was it not the same Paul who explained this and the resurrection as being born from above, clothed with Christ, made alive through faith, etc all referring to a process of anointing. And Peter well he actually used the term incorruptible… (If translations are correct) leave me with this one I will eventually figure it out… Thank you for giving me some direction of thought.
Seeker, you are referring to forensic pathology from direct evidence, it can also be done up to a point from indirect evidence such as we have in the bible, John 19, that describes the crucifixion of Yeshua. But you also need to understand how death by crucifixion happens, the pathology, to fully understand the meaning of the indirect evidence such as breaking the legs, and piercing the side resulting in blood and water as well as the fact that there were many eye witnesses, before during and after the event giving first person reports that lead to the pathology, the cause of death. All evidence that stands up in court.
George thank you for replying. I acknowledge what you are referring to. I am also the first to admit we know little about what happened in 1653 so neither can we know more than but a sentence from the actually chapter of events, if we even know that much. My views are different and are being shaped and changed as I understand more, not by how much knowledge I gain.
May peace and joy guide your ongoing efforts like Skip, Laurita, Craig, Michael and all the others offering guidance to help me and others like me understand that serving God is about doing rather than knowing… And we need to understand what serving or religion or faith actually imply.
Can someone tell me what the real idea of Hebrew atonement was that was taught every Shabbat in the synagogue? Feel free to dumb down your answer because you guys are wayyyy too smart for me. I’ve been trying to figure out this atonement thing because the Christian view is exactly what I was brought up in and I’m trying to unlearn right now. I can google Hebrew and Jewish atonement all day long and I get different view points so I I figured you guys could tell me the truth. If I start with that knowledge maybe this whole write up will make more sense to me. Sorry to be lame!
Sarah I accept atonement is about me casting away my sins so that I can be acceptable in the ryes of God as I understand His desires. Others consider it as God accepting our offers or humbleness to say we are sorry so that we can move forward again as united. The later requires no real change from me while the first view implies I need to do something to change and be reunited….
If this does not confuse any further as I am often more confused after quickly reading and need to revisit a few times before I understand what was bring said. All in a good days labour…