Could God have done that which is not good? (Prov.17:26)

[jerusalem]

It is written: 'It is not good to punish an innocent man' (Prov.17:26).

Could God have punished an innocent Man? If the argument is that God made Jesus guilty for our sins, then we have another problem to reconcile: It is written, 'The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself' (Ez.18:20). The context of Ezekiel chapter 18 makes it clear that God’s justice does not allow for the transference of guilt from one person to another. The responsibility for sin lies with the sinner. Even the conscience and reason testify that justice must be correctly applied and is not simply a matter of exacting a penalty - as though the issuing of the penalty is all that is important, even if it falls upon one who is innocent of the offence. True justice requires that the penalty for a crime be applied to the guilty alone, as it states in the Law: 'Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin' (Deut.24v16; cf. 2 Chron. 25v4). In ancient times, it was a practice to also punish close relatives of the guilty for serious crimes. The Lord loathes all injustice. Prov.17:15: 'Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent - the LORD detests them both.'


Jesus gave His life for us as a perfect sacrifice, without sin. Yet, in His body He bore our sins - the sins of man. He was bruised, lacerated, torn and pierced. The sins of mankind were plainly visible in His flesh. He also bore the pain of man's sins in His heart. He was burdened by those sins, but He was never the One responsible for them. The sins were the sins of mankind. Justice demands that the guilty must answer for their sins, not the innocent. How then are we set free from the penalty of death? - It is through the offering Christ made of His life. This He gave willingly to God for us - as the perfect offering and covering for sin - sufficient for all who truly believe and repent.



Christ's forsakenness at the time of His trial was physical, not spiritual. The Father removed His protection and permitted His Son to be delivered into the hands of sinful men. God did not resist, but allowed His love to shine forth in the midst of suffering. Jesus gave the sacrifice to God of a sinless perfect life for our sakes. He gave what mankind could not give, because of sin. His offering avails for all who now trust in Him as Saviour and Lord.

 

[Van]

Jerusalem, wonderful post, I do not agree with it but a wonderful post all the same.
I think the first thing to say is that when God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus for the sin of the whole world, it was not an act of justice, but an act of mercy.

Second, I think God's justice is maintained by the idea of not punishing the father for the sins of the son in the afterlife. Certainly in the OT, God ordered the killing of the innocent children of the pagans. They were in Adam and therefore in a sinful state, but were too young to have done willful sins. Therefore I think it is wrong to justify our action by saying God did it. We are not God, and God has told us not to punish the son for the sin of the father. In this life, it is not unjust for God, the giver of life, to take life. We, mankind, on the other hand, cannot extract justice in the afterlife, so we are bound by the rules given to us by God for our conduct in this life, and that means we punish folks for the wronging they have done, and not for the wrongdoing of their parents or children.

The third and last thing I will say is that Jesus who knew no sin, became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). And that is why He cryed out, Why have you forsaken Me - Matthew 27:46. Jesus on the cross, felt what it is like to be separated from God due to being in a sinful state. And the pain that condition made our Savior cry out. Or so it seems to me.

 

[jerusalem]

Thank you, Van, for posting. I respect your views also and agree that the cross was not an act of justice, but mercy.

On the matter of justice, consider the following from Acts: 'In his humiliation he was deprived of justice,' Acts 8:33. This is what the Bible says happened to Jesus at His trial. He was deprived of justice. Yet, so often, theologians try to explain the crucifixion in terms of God’s justice. Why is this?


The Bible nowhere states that Jesus was justly executed. On the contrary, it is the contention of Scripture that He died as a lamb without blemish and without spot, leaving us an example of how to endure when suffering wrongfully (1 Pet.1:19, 2:19-23). Now, the phrase: 'without blemish and without spot' does not refer to the physical - for He was marred more than any man (Isa,52:14), but to the spiritual. His offering and sacrifice to God was 'a sweet-smelling aroma' (Eph.5:2) - without any stench of corruption. Jesus Christ, in both life and death, was spiritually pure and untainted by sin.


He is to be seen as the Substitute of Righteousness - the embodiment of righteousness - the Holy and Righteous One who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice for the sake of all who truly believe. He ‘submitted Himself to the One who judges righteously’ (1 Pet.2:23) — not to the justice of man — and received the justice of the resurrection, being raised to heavenly glory. This is the Gospel that needs to be preached.


To God be the glory!


Blessings.
(I will post again in reply to your other points.)

 

[jerusalem]

Van, thank you for the points you made in your third paragraph. I will reply to the first of these. (I am glad you quote Scripture!)


I also would like to quote from 2 Cor.5. Consider the verse you quoted in context :'So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer' (2 Cor.5:16).


How the world sees us and judges us is different to the way God sees us and judges us. There is a worldly point of view, and there is a godly point of view. In the eyes of God, as true believers, we are righteous because Christ is our righteousness. The world looks upon us differently. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: 'For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of a procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe ..' (1 Cor.4:9). Who did this? - God. According to Paul, God had made the apostles to be viewed as foolish and weak: 'the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world' (1 Cor.4:9-13). There is an outward appearance and an inner reality. God allowed the apostles to go hungry and thirsty; to be in rags and brutally treated; to be homeless, cursed, persecuted and slandered. In the eyes of the world, the apostles were worthless scum. Paul said that they had once regarded Christ in this way - from a worldly point of view (2 Cor.5:16). Jesus was treated like a common criminal, spat upon, slandered, verbally and physically abused, mocked, scourged, nailed to a cross and left to die. In the eyes of the world, Jesus was sin. The mob had shouted for His death. He was regarded as one who had blasphemed God and who had worked miracles by the power of Satan (Mat.26:65; 9:34). To the Jews, He was despised as one who had wished to usurp authority and to destroy the law given to Moses. To the Romans, He was a cause of disorder. To the world, the apostles were 'the smell of death' (2 Cor.2:16), but to God 'the aroma of Christ' (2 Cor.2:15). On the cross, 'Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God' (Eph.5:2). Jesus did this for us. This was how Christ presented Himself to God, but this was not how He appeared to the world.


We must not take a verse of scripture out of context. This verse: 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor.5:21), is a verse which must be viewed in the context of the passage, the whole letter, and Paul's related comments in his first letter to the Corinthians and other letters. When we do this, we will not take a worldly view of the cross. In the One whom the world judged as sin we have become the righteousness of God.


Amongst the Corinthians were those who were judging Paul by outward appearance: 'You are looking only on the surface of things' (2 Cor.10:7). Some people were saying that in person he was 'unimpressive' - that his speaking 'amounted to nothing' (2 Cor.10:10), and demanded proof that he was speaking for Christ: 'You are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me' (2 Cor.13:3). As a way of confirming his calling, Paul chose not so much to speak of the signs of an apostle, which he had wrought amongst them: 'miracles, signs and wonders' (2 Cor.12:12), but of his sufferings in the likeness of Christ (2 Cor.6:4-10; 10:23-29). Paul's concern was not for himself: 'What we are is plain to God' (2 Cor.5:11), but was for those who were forming worldly and divisive judgmental attitudes. Just as we are not to judge Christ by surface appearance, as He was judged by those without faith, so we must not judge each other.


Man had esteemed Christ as one accursed of God (Gal.3:13), smitten and afflicted by Him - but that was only the outward appearance, the view of the world. The Scriptures agree: Christ, 'through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God' (Heb.9:14). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, told his accusers that they had murdered the 'Righteous One', predicted by the prophets (Acts 7:52). - The One murdered was righteous. God's vindication of His Son was the resurrection.


'God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things ... by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross' (Col.1:19-20). Paul said: 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (2 Cor.5:19, NKJ). How were we reconciled to God? : 'We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son' (Rom.5:10). Therefore, we can conclude, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through the death of His Son - who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. - This is biblical and reveals that there was no spiritual separation of the Father and the Son at the time of the atonement.



In reality, far from being the embodiment of sin upon the cross, the Scriptures declare that Jesus died righteous, unblemished by sin and at one with God.

Blessings.

To God be the glory!

 

[jerusalem]

Now, Van, with respect to the points you make in the last paragraph, I must ask readers to consider the following:

An alternative reading of 2 Cor.5:21 renders the word for sin, Gk.: hamartian, as sin-offering (given as a marginal reference in modern translations).This dual interpretation is made possible due to the fact that there is ample precedent for such usage in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (notably: Lev.4:32; 5:6, 7, 8, 9) and in the Hebrew, e.g. Hosea 4:8, 'They eat up the sin of My people,' where a single word is used for sin, Hb.: chatta'ah, which can be translated sin-offering. The Greek expression hamartias, meaning sins or sin-offerings, is used in the book of Hebrews in a direct quotation from the Septuagint of Psalm 40:6: 'In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure,' Heb.10:6, NKJ. The word 'sacrifices' has been added for clarity of meaning by translators, but it does not occur in the Greek of either the passage from the psalm or from the letter to the Hebrews. There is no doubt, therefore, that the term was understood to have this application during New Testament times. A modern translation by David Stern renders 2 Cor. 5:21 as: "God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness" (The Jewish New Testament).

The dual import of Paul's words in this passage can be understood from the biblical context. It was not the view or judgement of the world that God accepted concerning the sacrifice of His Son. - As a sin-offering, Jesus presented Himself as the untainted, pure and perfect offering to God for our sakes, that we, in union with Him, by God's grace might share in His righteousness and thereby have our sins removed.

On the final point you make, with respect to the cry of Jesus on the cross consider the following:

Christ's abandonment, from the time of His arrest to His death on the cross, was physical - not spiritual: 'ForHe has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; but when He cried to Him, He heard' (Psalm 22:24).

It is often stated that God the Father could not bear to look at His Son on the cross and had to turn away, leaving Him derelict. This verse, taken from the psalm that speaks more than any other of Christ's sufferings, states the opposite. It is as though written with the prophetic knowledge that there would be those who would declare that God withdrew His Spirit and left His Son entirely alone: God did not regard the state of His Son with abhorence, He did not hide His face from Him, and when His Son cried out He heard. The 'afflicted one' is the subject of this psalm, as can be understood in the context of the previous verses:1; 7; 16-18; 22 (quoted in Heb.2:11-12).

As further evidence that God the Father did not turn away from His Son at the crucifixion, we should consider Christ's prayers:

'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34).

'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit' (Luke 23:46).

To whom was Christ speaking, if the Father had turned away? One prayer was offered at the beginning of His ordeal on the cross, and the other was spoken just before His death. As the man who had been born blind said of Jesus: 'We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will' (John 9:31). Our Lord's prayer for others was heard by God - likewise His final request. Here, again, is proof that God did not turn away from His Son.

Did God withdraw the Holy Spirit? - No. We can read that Jesus 'through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God' (Heb.9:14). The Holy Spirit was very much involved in the offering Christ made of His life. God's Son, 'holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners' ... 'offered himself' once for all (Heb.7:26-27). - The Bible declares that Jesus was separate from sinners, innocent and pure, when He, as our High Priest, made a fragrant offering and sacrifice of His life to God.

Blessings!

To God be the Glory!

 

[cygnusx1]

The Cross of Christ was both an act Of God's Judgment and Mercy ........

"at the Cross Justice and Mercy kissed"

take away the Justice , the judicial side of the cross , and you empty it of any meaning , for God could have just said the words "I forgive you" and it would have been done.

 

[jerusalem]

Thank you cygnus for your reply. However, 'justice' is what the bible says Jesus was denied. Stephen called our Lord's death 'murder' (Acts 7:52).

Yes, God can say, 'I forgive you.' God forgives past sins. But to be accounted righteous and uncondemned by sin, we need to be covered with the righteousness of Christ - THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer.23:6). The offering He gave of His life can be our covering. It was an offering of righteousness that we cannot give because of sin.

The problem of error creeps in when attempts are made to explain the death of Jesus in terms contrary to Scripture. His death was not the result of God’s justice, but an act emanating out of God’s love. ‘God so loved the world ...’ is what we read. ‘His justice was taken away’ (Acts 8:33, NKJ). Our faith is placed in the Person of the One who died and gave His life — ‘The Lord Our Righteousness’ (Jer.23:6). We receive of ‘the gift of righteousness’ (Rom.5:17) as a result of Christ’s obedience unto death. Indeed, as Paul said, we are ‘saved by His life’ (Rom.5:10, NKJ). The whole force of Paul’s argument in Romans 5 is that Jesus was righteous to the very end of His mortal life. Now, by God’s grace, whosoever has faith in the Son is judged righteous.

Jesus was the sacrifice of righteousness, of whom we are the beneficiaries as His followers. We are justly declared righteous — not because of ourselves, but because of the One who gave His life for us - to whom we look to in faith. Now, just as the Father was pleased to accept the sweet gift that His Son made of His life, so He is pleased to welcome us who are with Him - for whom Jesus died. Jesus gave up His life on account of our sins — to save us from our sins — by being the gift of righteousness for us, in our place, on the cross.

To God be the glory.
(P.S. I will review any other posts on Wednesday and at the weekend - keep them coming. I'm glad to hear from you.)

 

[Van]

Jerusalem, lets review. Did Jesus receive justice at the hands of man? Nope. So we have no dispute on this point. Did Jesus receive justice at the hands of God? I say yes and I assume you say yes but for different reasons.

I think Jesus was a sin offering, something presented to God to appease or atone for the sin of mankind. I assume we agree on this point. And Jesus bore our sins in his body. I assume we agree on this. Which takes us now to the gist of the matter, did God impute the sin of mankind into Jesus?

You posted the argument that God cannot punish someone for someone else. But by the sin of the one (Adam) "the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19) indicates God in fact did impute the consequence of sin from a single sinner to all of mankind. Therefore, God could have transferred the consequence of sin, to be in a sinful state separated from God, to Jesus without violating any teaching of scripture. And having done that, it would be just for Jesus to suffer and die, not for his sins, because He was sinless, but for our sin.

Another point, you seemed to argue that someone separated from God because of being in a sinful state, could not pray to God. I disagree, I think God will hear and respond to the prayer of a sinner if the sinner has repented in his heart and is trusting in God for the forgiveness of sin, Romans 10:9. So Jesus could pray to God from the cross and commend His spirit to God.

Bottom line, I do not see any difficulty is accepting 2 Corinthians 5:21 as written, God made Jesus who knew no sin to be sin for us.

 

[jerusalem]

Jerusalem, lets review. Did Jesus receive justice at the hands of man? Nope. So we have no dispute on this point. Did Jesus receive justice at the hands of God? I say yes and I assume you say yes but for different reasons.

I think Jesus was a sin offering, something presented to God to appease or atone for the sin of mankind. I assume we agree on this point. And Jesus bore our sins in his body. I assume we agree on this. Which takes us now to the gist of the matter, did God impute the sin of mankind into Jesus?

You posted the argument that God cannot punish someone for someone else. But by the sin of the one (Adam) "the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19) indicates God in fact did impute the consequence of sin from a single sinner to all of mankind. Therefore, God could have transferred the consequence of sin, to be in a sinful state separated from God, to Jesus without violating any teaching of scripture. And having done that, it would be just for Jesus to suffer and die, not for his sins, because He was sinless, but for our sin.

Another point, you seemed to argue that someone separated from God because of being in a sinful state, could not pray to God. I disagree, I think God will hear and respond to the prayer of a sinner if the sinner has repented in his heart and is trusting in God for the forgiveness of sin, Romans 10:9. So Jesus could pray to God from the cross and commend His spirit to God.

Bottom line, I do not see any difficulty is accepting 2 Corinthians 5:21 as written, God made Jesus who knew no sin to be sin for us.

'Jesus bore our sins in His body' - on this we agree, but in what way?

God hears the repentant sinner - of this there can be no doubt.

To understand Romans 5, we need to ask what were the points Paul was addressing. Your comments are well considered and greatly appreciated. I will provide a full reply at the weekend.

Blessings!

To God be the glory!

 

[cygnusx1]

Thank you cygnus for your reply. However, 'justice' is what the bible says Jesus was denied. Stephen called our Lord's death 'murder' (Acts 7:52).

IT WAS A PENAL WORK
Scripture plainly teaches that God is both holy and righteous, and that "justice and judgment" (not "love and pity") are the establishment of God’s "throne" (Ps. 89:14). Thus there is that in the Divine Essence which abhors sin for its intrinsic sinfulness, both in its respect of pollution and in its aspect of guilt. The perfections of God are therefore displayed both by forbidding and punishing the same. He has pledged Himself that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4). Therefore, in order for a full Satisfaction to be rendered unto God, sin must be punished, the penalty of the law must be enforced. Consequently, as Savior of His Church, Christ had to vicariously suffer the infliction of the law’s curse.

What we shall now seek to show is that the sufferings and death of Christ were a satisfaction to Divine justice on behalf of the sins of His people. In case any should object against our use of the term "satisfaction," let us point out that this very word is found in our English Bibles, being given by the translators as the equivalent for the Hebrew word which is ordinarily rendered "Atonement": "Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest" (Num. 35:31, 32).

The deep humiliation to which the Son of God was subjected in taking upon Him the form of a servant, and being made "in the likeness of sin’s flesh," was a judicial infliction imposed upon Him by the Father, yet voluntarily submitted to by Himself. The very purpose of His humiliation, His obedience, His Sufferings, makes them penal,for they were unto the satisfying of the claims of God’s law upon His people. In being "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4) Christ became subject to all that the law enjoins: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19), which means the law calls for the fulfillment of its terms. "Christ in our room and stead, did both by doing and suffering, satisfy Divine justice,both the legislatory, the retributive, and the vindictive, in the most perfect manner, fulfilling all the righteousness of the law, which the law otherwise required of us, in order to impunity, and to our having a right to eternal life" (H. Witsius, 1693).

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18). The reference here must not be restricted to what Christ endured at the hands of God while He hung upon the Cross, nor to all He passed through during that day and preceding night. Beware of limiting the Word of God! No; the entirety of His humiliation is here included. The whole life of Christ was one of sufferings, therefore was He designated "the Man of sorrows," not simply, "sorrow". From His birth to His death, suffering and sorrow marked Him as their legitimate Victim. While yet an infant He was driven into exile, to escape the fury of those who sought His life. That was but the prophetic fore runner of His whole earthly course. The cup of woe, put to His lips at Bethlehem, was never removed till He drained its bitter dregs at Calvary.

Every variety of suffering was experienced by Him. He tasted poverty in its severest rigor. Born in a stable, owning no property on earth, dependent upon the charity of others (Luke 8:3), oftentimes being worse situated than the inferior orders of creation: (Matthew 8:20). He suffered reproach in all its bitterness. The most malignant accusations, the vilest aspersions, the most cutting sarcasm, were directed against His person and character. He was taunted with being a glutton, a winebibber, a deceiver, a blasphemer, a devil. Therefore do we hear Him crying, "Reproach hath broken my heart" (Ps. 69:20). He experienced temptation in all its malignity. The Prince of darkness assailed Him with all his ingenuity and power, causing his infernal legions to attack Him, coming against Him like "strong bulls of Bashan," gaping on Him with their mouths like ravening and roaring lions (Ps. 22:12, 13). Above all, He suffered the wrath of God, so that He was "exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38), in "an agony" (Luke 22:44), and ultimately, "forsaken of God."

What then is the explanation of these unparalleled "sufferings"? Why was the most perfect obedience followed by the most terrible punishment? Why was unsullied holiness visited with unutterable anguish? David declared, "Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken" (Ps. 37:25); why, then was the Righteous One abandoned by God? Only one answer is possible; only one answer fully meets all the facts of the case; only one answer clears the government of God. In taking the place of offending sinners, Christ became obligated to discharge all their liabilities, and this involved bearing their sins, being charged with their guilt, suffering their punishment. Accordingly, God dealt with Him as the Representative of His criminal people, inflicting upon Him all that their sins merited. As the sin-bearing Substitute of His people, Christ was justly exposed to all the dreadful consequences of God’s manifested displeasure.

Of old the question was asked, "Who ever perished being innocent?" (Job 4:7), to which we may, without the slightest hesitation, answer, None. God never has and never will smite the innocent. Therefore before His punitive wrath could fall upon Christ, the sins of His people must first be transferred to Him, and this is precisely what Scripture affirms. Remarkably was this foreshadowed of old in the great type of Israel’s annual Day of Atonement, "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions with all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat" (Lev. 16:21). So too was it plainly prophesied, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. . . He bare the sin of many" (Isa. 53:6, 12). So also is it expressly affirmed in the New Testament, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28). Once again we would point out there is not a hint in these passages that Christ bore the sins of His people only while He was hanging upon the Cross. We are aware that many have so affirmed, but in doing so they have not only been guilty of adding to the Word of God, but also of flatly contradicting it.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Satisfaction/sat_07.htm

 

[jerusalem]

"Of old the question was asked, "Who ever perished being innocent?" (Job 4:7), to which we may, without the slightest hesitation, answer, None. God never has and never will smite the innocent. Therefore before His punitive wrath could fall upon Christ, the sins of His people must first be transferred to Him, and this is precisely what Scripture affirms."

Thank you, Cygnus, for submitting the article on the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. It is so long and touches upon so many points; I hardly know where to begin. I humbly ask that we allow the Bible to reveal the truth. Verses of Scripture never contradict each other. Too often, apparent conflicts are called ’mysteries’, when in fact they are simply problems of understanding that can be resolved when the correct interpretations are applied.





Let’s first have a look at the idea that Jesus suffered God’s wrath. The plain teaching of Scripture is that those who suffer God’s wrath are those who refuse to repent. Jesus did not die for these, as I think you will agree. We cannot become beneficiaries of the cross without repentance; as Jesus said: ‘Unless you repent you will all likewise perish’ (Mat.13:3).



Occasionally, one hears the claim that the cup of communion symbolizes not just the blood of Christ but also the cup of God's wrath - of which, it is said, Jesus drank on our behalf when He suffered and died. It is necessary to study the biblical application of these figurative terms and the context in which they are used.



In both the Old and New Testaments, 'cup' is employed in metaphorical expressions, such as: 'cup of consolation' (Jer.16:7, NKJ); 'cup of salvation' (Ps.116:13); 'cup of blessing' (1 Cor.10:16); 'my cup overflows' (Ps.23:5), etc.. Most often, the metaphor refers to suffering, e.g.: 'the cup of ruin and desolation' (Ezek.23:33, NIV); 'the cup of His fury' (Is.51:22); 'the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath' (Rev.16:19). - The 'cup of the Lord' (1 Cor.10:21; 11:27), however, spoken of by Paul, refers not to the cup of God's wrath, but to the 'cup of blessing' used in Holy Communion (1 Cor.10:16). 'The cup of demons' (1 Cor.10:21) is the opposite phrase - denoting the ceremonial food or drink of false religion. One cannot receive the blessings of the Lord, imparted through Holy Communion, if one is also partaking of elements presented in the counterfeit worship of devils (1 Cor.10:20-22).



For what reasons and upon what persons was the wrath of God poured out on Israel and Judah in Old Testament times? Was it not poured out for reasons of national apostasy upon the incorrigibly wicked who refused to repent? God sent His servants, but few listened and took heed of their warnings. Jeremiah wrote: 'Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return. I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Everyone turned to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle' (Jer.8:5-6, NKJ). Also: 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster that I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshipping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew. Again and again I sent my servants the prophets,who said, "Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!" But they did not listen or pay attention; they did not turn from their wickedness or stop burning incense to other gods. Therefore, my fierce anger was poured out; ..' (Jer.44:2-6, NIV).



It is the revelation of Scripture that the 'cup of God's wrath' represents God's judgement upon the incorrigibly wicked who refuse to turn from their evil ways. This cup of His fury is not poured out or given to those who are willing to repent. Indeed, the repentant are promised life: 'For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!' (Ezek.18:32). It is theologically incorrect, therefore, to claim that Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath on our behalf when He suffered and died. Jesus died to save all who are willing to repent - not those who refuse to repent, for whom the cup of His wrath is justly reserved. The cup of suffering that He drank was not the outpouring of God's anger, but was the witness He had to endure for our sakes, in order to fulfil all that was written. Only those who elect to follow the way of evil and refuse correction suffer the wrath of God. This will be the fate of the wicked at the end of the age: 'We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. The nations were angry; and your wrath has come' (Rev.11:17, NIV).



The statement: 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2) does not mean that Jesus atoned also for the sins of the incorrigibly wicked. The English preposition 'for', translated from the Greek word 'peri' can simply mean 'concerning' (Strong's). Through Jesus, therefore, atonement for the sins of the whole world is available, but only those who turn to Christ in faith will benefit. Universal salvation is not the teaching of Scripture. Other such statements, e.g.: 'Jesus Christ ... gave Himself a ransom for all' (1 Tim.2:6), need to be understood in a similar manner. His payment of the perfect sacrifice on our behalf is available for all, but to take advantage of God's gracious gift we have to repent in faith. Likewise, John the Baptist's comment: 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!' (John 1:23) does not mean that the whole world, including the wicked, are now exonerated and forgiven, but that Jesus is the One through whom the world can find forgiveness. Throughout the Old and New Testaments it is clear that it is the wilfully sinful who suffer God's wrath, not those who repent.



The cup of suffering that Jesus drank was a cup that we, as Christians, might also be called upon to drink. To James and John, Jesus put the question: 'Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?' (Matt.20:22, NIV). 'We can,' they answered. Jesus then replied: 'You will indeed drink from My cup ...' (Matt.20:23). The two disciples sought a place of honour by their Master's side in His coming kingdom, but Jesus explained that such honour is given only to those who are prepared to suffer as He. By using the metaphor of drinking from His cup, He also prophesied that they would indeed suffer. James, in fact, suffered martyrdom in the early days of the Church, as recorded in Acts (12:2); while John, the writer of Revelation - if we accept the testimony of the early Church, received banishment on the isle of Patmos (Rev.1:9). Paul expressed these sufferings this way: 'Now I rejoice in what I suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church' (Col.1:24, NIV). He wrote: 'The sufferings of Christ overflow into our lives ...' (2 Cor.1:5, NIV). As disciples of Christ, we must be prepared to take up our cross and follow Him (Lk.14:27). The cup of communion that we drink reminds us that He suffered to bring us His peace. He did not suffer God's wrath and we are not called upon to suffer God's wrath; but, for the sake of the Church, like the apostles, we may be called upon to suffer in the likeness of Christ.

As for the interpretation of Leviticus 16, please view my next submision. Be as the Bereans.

To God be the glory!

 

[Van]

Jerusalem, I agree with much of this last post, but lets review 1 John 2:2.

Here is how the NASB renders it: And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. If we change the translation choice from "for" to "concerning" Jesus is the propitiation concerning our sins and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole world. Either way, the propitiation must be applied to us or to others of the whole fallen world of mankind.

 

[jerusalem]

Jerusalem, I agree with much of this last post, but lets review 1 John 2:2.

Here is how the NASB renders it: And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. If we change the translation choice from "for" to "concerning" Jesus is the propitiation concerning our sins and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole world. Either way, the propitiation must be applied to us or to others of the whole fallen world of mankind.

“You posted the argument that God cannot punish someone for someone else. But by the sin of the one (Adam) "the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19) indicates God in fact did impute the consequence of sin from a single sinner to all of mankind. Therefore, God could have transferred the consequence of sin, to be in a sinful state separated from God, to Jesus without violating any teaching of scripture. And having done that, it would be just for Jesus to suffer and die, not for his sins, because He was sinless, but for our sin.” (VAN/QUOTE)

MY REPLY:

In verse 8 of Rom.5, it is stated, ‘While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ At the time of His death, therefore, ‘Christ died for the ungodly’ (v6). Mankind was still in sin and under the condemnation of guilt for sin at the time of our Lord’s death. Guilt had not been transferred.



What of the consequences of sin? Did Jesus suffer the consequences of sin? - How can we doubt? He was sinned against in the most vile and despicable way - insulted, beaten, scourged, nailed to a cross and left to die. He died as a result of sin. The question is: whose sin? Were these the sins of Christ? Is it just to declare Jesus guilty of inflicting such punishment upon Himself?



Visibly, man’s sins against God’s Son were clearly evident and born in Christ’s body on the cross — yet no amount of suffering could cause Him to relinquish His love for mankind. No volume of sin and brutality lashed out into His flesh could mar His righteousness. Man could mar His body with sin, but not His soul. He remained righteous to the very finish, when He said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit’ (Luke 23:46). — Yes, the Father was listening and had not turned away from His beloved Son.



Death is a consequence of sin. The Bible indicates two deaths. Jesus declared: ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [‘Gehenna’ Gk.]’ (Mat.10:28). Did Jesus suffer the lake of fire – the ‘second death’? (Rev20.14-15) No. The second death is reserved for those who will be destroyed in both body and soul.



Now, let us consider the death of the body. In the Bible account, mankind is derived from the flesh of Adam – so that when judgement was placed upon Adam’s flesh it also applied to all who came from his flesh. We all die in body, don’t we? So, Paul was able to write, ‘In Adam all die’ (1 Cor:15:22). This consequence of Adam’s transgression is something common to every man. Therefore, why did God allow the consequence of Adam’s sin to pass down upon his progeny? The answer is given in this passage. God, with true foreknowledge, was able to pass judgement upon the whole of mankind for which Adam was representative in kind. At the time of Adam’s sin, God judged and declared mankind to be sinners. – No one can deny this fact – no matter how righteous man tries to be on his own; we sin. God’s judgement, therefore, declared the state of man’s spiritual condition. It was a judgement on the spiritual state of mankind. To make this point clear, Paul wrote: ‘Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression’ (Rom.5:14).



Spiritually, we are all accountable for our own sins. As the Bible indicates: ‘The soul who sins shall die’ (Ez.18:4). Nevertheless, God also declared through Ezekiel: ‘Repent and live!’ (Ez.18:32). Paul, writing to the Romans (ch.5), declared the disobedience and unrighteousness of man in contrast to the obedience and righteousness of Christ. There is absolutely no suggestion of the transference of sins and guilt from mankind to Jesus. It is not that Jesus is made impure by accepting us, but the opposite – that all who enter into Jesus are purified and become covered by His righteousness. Jesus – the same, yesterday, today, and forever - is be THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.



Blessings. ( I will reply to your latest post shortly.)




To God be the glory!

 

[cygnusx1]

"Of old the question was asked, "Who ever perished being innocent?" (Job 4:7), to which we may, without the slightest hesitation, answer, None. God never has and never will smite the innocent. Therefore before His punitive wrath could fall upon Christ, the sins of His people must first be transferred to Him, and this is precisely what Scripture affirms."

Thank you, Cygnus, for submitting the article on the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. It is so long and touches upon so many points; I hardly know where to begin. I humbly ask that we allow the Bible to reveal the truth. Verses of Scripture never contradict each other. Too often, apparent conflicts are called ’mysteries’, when in fact they are simply problems of understanding that can be resolved when the correct interpretations are applied.

God was satisfied , pacified and Glorified in the death Of His Son.

Let’s first have a look at the idea that Jesus suffered God’s wrath. The plain teaching of Scripture is that those who suffer God’s wrath are those who refuse to repent. Jesus did not die for these, as I think you will agree. We cannot become beneficiaries of the cross without repentance; as Jesus said: ‘Unless you repent you will all likewise perish’ (Mat.13:3).

are you saying Jesus did not die for the reprobate , or Jesus did not die for all types of sin ?

Occasionally, one hears the claim that the cup of communion symbolizes not just the blood of Christ but also the cup of God's wrath - of which, it is said, Jesus drank on our behalf when He suffered and died. It is necessary to study the biblical application of these figurative terms and the context in which they are used.

I haven't heared it called that but I can see why ......

In both the Old and New Testaments, 'cup' is employed in metaphorical expressions, such as: 'cup of consolation' (Jer.16:7, NKJ); 'cup of salvation' (Ps.116:13); 'cup of blessing' (1 Cor.10:16); 'my cup overflows' (Ps.23:5), etc.. Most often, the metaphor refers to suffering, e.g.: 'the cup of ruin and desolation' (Ezek.23:33, NIV); 'the cup of His fury' (Is.51:22); 'the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath' (Rev.16:19). - The 'cup of the Lord' (1 Cor.10:21; 11:27), however, spoken of by Paul, refers not to the cup of God's wrath, but to the 'cup of blessing' used in Holy Communion (1 Cor.10:16). 'The cup of demons' (1 Cor.10:21) is the opposite phrase - denoting the ceremonial food or drink of false religion. One cannot receive the blessings of the Lord, imparted through Holy Communion, if one is also partaking of elements presented in the counterfeit worship of devils (1 Cor.10:20-22).

It is not the cup of God's wrath that Christians drink that is obvious , what is much less obvious is that Jesus didn't suffer the cup of God's wrath ........ when Christ became sin (not a sinner) God's anger was indeed poured out , such was it that Christ was cut off , which is precisely the point of His death , to be cut off as though HE were wicked.

For what reasons and upon what persons was the wrath of God poured out on Israel and Judah in Old Testament times? Was it not poured out for reasons of national apostasy upon the incorrigibly wicked who refused to repent? God sent His servants, but few listened and took heed of their warnings. Jeremiah wrote: 'Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return. I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Everyone turned to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle' (Jer.8:5-6, NKJ). Also: 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster that I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshipping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew. Again and again I sent my servants the prophets,who said, "Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!" But they did not listen or pay attention; they did not turn from their wickedness or stop burning incense to other gods. Therefore, my fierce anger was poured out; ..' (Jer.44:2-6, NIV).

I fail to see how you can claim that because some men were saved and others faced the wrath of God (in both Testaments) that this supplies evidence against Christ suffering the wrath of God for sinners , indeed what you seem to be implying is that there is something less deserving for which Christ died than those for whom he doesn't die , like we had not fallen under God's wrath so therefore Christ need not suffer under God's wrath , this is flatly rejected all over the scriptures ,were we not AS OTHERS CHILDREN OF WRATH , so the equation still stands , Christ in our place in suffering the anger and rejection of God instead of us!

It is the revelation of Scripture that the 'cup of God's wrath' represents God's judgement upon the incorrigibly wicked who refuse to turn from their evil ways. This cup of His fury is not poured out or given to those who are willing to repent. Indeed, the repentant are promised life: 'For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!' (Ezek.18:32). It is theologically incorrect, therefore, to claim that Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath on our behalf when He suffered and died. Jesus died to save all who are willing to repent - not those who refuse to repent, for whom the cup of His wrath is justly reserved. The cup of suffering that He drank was not the outpouring of God's anger, but was the witness He had to endure for our sakes, in order to fulfil all that was written. Only those who elect to follow the way of evil and refuse correction suffer the wrath of God. This will be the fate of the wicked at the end of the age: 'We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. The nations were angry; and your wrath has come' (Rev.11:17, NIV).

we were as others , by nature under God's Wrath .

The statement: 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2) does not mean that Jesus atoned also for the sins of the incorrigibly wicked. The English preposition 'for', translated from the Greek word 'peri' can simply mean 'concerning' (Strong's). Through Jesus, therefore, atonement for the sins of the whole world is available, but only those who turn to Christ in faith will benefit. Universal salvation is not the teaching of Scripture. Other such statements, e.g.: 'Jesus Christ ... gave Himself a ransom for all' (1 Tim.2:6), need to be understood in a similar manner. His payment of the perfect sacrifice on our behalf is available for all, but to take advantage of God's gracious gift we have to repent in faith. Likewise, John the Baptist's comment: 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!' (John 1:23) does not mean that the whole world, including the wicked, are now exonerated and forgiven, but that Jesus is the One through whom the world can find forgiveness. Throughout the Old and New Testaments it is clear that it is the wilfully sinful who suffer God's wrath, not those who repent.

I don't believe in Universal salvation or General redemption , my belief is Definite Atonement with an emphasis on Security and Propititiation.

The cup of suffering that Jesus drank was a cup that we, as Christians, might also be called upon to drink. To James and John, Jesus put the question: 'Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?' (Matt.20:22, NIV). 'We can,' they answered. Jesus then replied: 'You will indeed drink from My cup ...' (Matt.20:23). The two disciples sought a place of honour by their Master's side in His coming kingdom, but Jesus explained that such honour is given only to those who are prepared to suffer as He. By using the metaphor of drinking from His cup, He also prophesied that they would indeed suffer. James, in fact, suffered martyrdom in the early days of the Church, as recorded in Acts (12:2); while John, the writer of Revelation - if we accept the testimony of the early Church, received banishment on the isle of Patmos (Rev.1:9). Paul expressed these sufferings this way: 'Now I rejoice in what I suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church' (Col.1:24, NIV). He wrote: 'The sufferings of Christ overflow into our lives ...' (2 Cor.1:5, NIV). As disciples of Christ, we must be prepared to take up our cross and follow Him (Lk.14:27). The cup of communion that we drink reminds us that He suffered to bring us His peace. He did not suffer God's wrath and we are not called upon to suffer God's wrath; but, for the sake of the Church, like the apostles, we may be called upon to suffer in the likeness of Christ.

sure Christ spoke clearly about the Apostles drinking from Christs cup , but you can stretch a thing too far , He was speaking about Martydom (the world will hate you) NOT ATONEMENT.

As for the interpretation of Leviticus 16, please view my next submision. Be as the Bereans.

To God be the glory!

Amen!

Time for some sleep now Brother it's 3:00am , I leave you with a read .......... Bye

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is why the Lord could say in the Garden of Gethsemene, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death . . .” (Matthew 26:38), and why Luke could tell us our Lord’s sweat in the Garden became as “drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). Who more than our Lord knew the wrath of God toward sin and sinners? Yet He was obedient to the will of the Father to suffer that wrath in the sinner’s place.

Our Lord’s greatest suffering came because He was the object of the Father’s wrath. The great agony of our Lord is seen in these words recorded in the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 22 and then spoken by our Lord as He hung upon the cross:

46 “My God, My God, Why has Thou forsaken Me?” (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46).

One of the most beautiful truths of the Bible for the sinner deserving God’s wrath is summed up by the theological term, propitiation. Propitiation speaks of the satisfaction of God’s holy wrath.

24 Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:24-26).

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

4 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

In a chapter entitled, “The Heart of the Gospel,” J. I. Packer has this to say about propitiation in the context of his comments on Paul’s teaching in Romans 3 and 5:

The wrath of God against us, both present and to come, has been quenched. How was this effected? Through the death of Christ. ‘While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son’ ([Romans] 5:10). The ‘blood’—that is, the sacrificial death—of Jesus Christ abolished God’s anger against us, and ensured that His treatment of us for ever after would be propitious and favourable. Henceforth, instead of showing Himself to be against us, He would show Himself in our life and experience to be for us. What, then, does the phrase ‘a propitiation . . . by His blood’ express? It expresses, in the context of Paul’s argument, precisely this thought: that by His sacrificial death for our sins Christ pacified the wrath of God.40

Propitiation means God’s wrath has been appeased for all who have trusted in Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that those who have placed their trust in the Lord Jesus as the “Lamb of God” are no longer under the sentence of divine wrath:

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:1-10).

9 For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=254

 

[Nichole17]

I totally understand why this might seem, if the word is anywhere close to the one I'm looking for..."contradictory." It's just like it says in the Word don't judge. But God still judges righteously, that "rule" was for us. Because God is God, the things he does is different than the ones we do. The Bible is written for us to read, it's guiding us, not Him. So as that bit was focused towards us, what God does is entirely different. Anything God does decide to do is justified, although that doesn't mean He would do anything. For instance, God allowed Satan to tempt (it could be said "punish") Jobe, but in the end there was purpose, Jobe's faith was made perfect in his weakness. That's the best answer I have to that question. The only thing I feel I didn't really go into is why whatever God does is justified, but I don't think you're inquiring an explanation on that one. God bless you.

 

[Van]

Jerusalem, scripture does not say God transferred our guilt to Christ, it says He bore our sins in His body. He was punished for our sins. This was the propitiation, not the forgiveness of sins. In order to receive the reconciliation, we must be baptized into Christ.

Your next point is that at the time of Adam's sin, God foresaw that all men would sin and therefore declared the state of mankinds spiritual condition as a sinful state. This is not what scripture says. For as through the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:19. This indicates the cause was not foreseen sin in the many, but rather the sin of the one.

A side bar here, Romans 5:18 indicates Christ's sacrifice resulted in justification of life to all men. This I think is not justification received, but justification made possible to all men. Otherwise, this verse would teach universalism.

In summary, God did not transfer the guilt, the wrath stored up, the punishment due for our sin to Jesus. We remained sinners after God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as payment in full for our sins, and not only ours, but for the sin of the whole world. He became sin for us. In order to receive this reconciliation, we must be "in Christ, that is why believers have been given the ministry of reconciliation.

 

[jerusalem]

are you saying Jesus did not die for the reprobate , or Jesus did not die for all types of sin ?

Neither. Jesus did not die for the incorrigibly wicked who refuse to repent. They will suffer the second death.


It is not the cup of God's wrath that Christians drink that is obvious , what is much less obvious is that Jesus didn't suffer the cup of God's wrath ........ when Christ became sin (not a sinner) God's anger was indeed poured out , such was it that Christ was cut off , which is precisely the point of His death , to be cut off as though HE were wicked.

Whether or not it is less obvious is a matter of opinion. Why call it God's wrath when it is evident that the suffering of Christ was the result of mankind acting under the sway of Satan? Jesus said, 'Shall I not drink from the cup which My Father has given Me?' (John18:11). Jesus did not call it the cup of God's wrath. This was a cup of suffering that the Father required He endure for our sakes. Stephen also was required to endure the pain of suffering and death - as other martyrs. However, I am not saying that the death of our Lord was only this. He, after all, was the only One to present Himself holy and truly righteous as an offering to God (Heb.9:14; 1 Pet.1:19). The sins He bore in His body were the sins of man - inflicted into His flesh by His tormentors, acting with the authority of an ungodly court.

'... as though He were wicked' - Are you trying to say that it can be just to execute a righteous person as though he were wicked?

I fail to see how you can claim that because some men were saved and others faced the wrath of God (in both Testaments) that this supplies evidence against Christ suffering the wrath of God for sinners , indeed what you seem to be implying is that there is something less deserving for which Christ died than those for whom he doesn't die , like we had not fallen under God's wrath so therefore Christ need not suffer under God's wrath , this is flatly rejected all over the scriptures ,were we not AS OTHERS CHILDREN OF WRATH , so the equation still stands , Christ in our place in suffering the anger and rejection of God instead of us!

Yes - before repentance and coming to Christ - we were children appointed to receive God's wrath. Jesus gave His life for us. He did not die for those who will receive God's wrath - because this is reserved for the ones who ultimately refuse to repent of sins.

we were as others , by nature under God's Wrath .

See above.

I don't believe in Universal salvation or General redemption , my belief is Definite Atonement with an emphasis on Security and Propititiation.

I agree.


sure Christ spoke clearly about the Apostles drinking from Christs cup , but you can stretch a thing too far , He was speaking about Martydom (the world will hate you) NOT ATONEMENT.

I agree. Jesus spoke of suffering. The cup that He drank was a cup of suffering which He endured for our sakes. It allowed Him to be the perfect atonement for our sins - but not for the reasons you state.

Blessings!

To God be the glory!

Amen!

 

[cygnusx1]

Penal Substitution

The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.



Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

Sacrifice

There is much about sacrifice in the OT and not a little in the NT. Some insist that it is this that gives us the key to understanding the atonement. It is certainly true that the Bible regards Christ's saving act as a sacrifice, and this must enter into any satisfying theory. But unless it is supplemented, it is an explanation that does not explain. The moral view or penal substitution may be right or wrong, but at least they are intelligible. But how does sacrifice save? The answer is not obvious.



Governmental Theory

Hugo Grotius argued that Christ did not bear our punishment but suffered as a penal example whereby the law was honored while sinners were pardoned. His view is called "governmental" because Grotius envisions God as a ruler or a head of government who passed a law, in this instance, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Because God did not want sinners to die, he relaxed that rule and accepted the death of Christ instead. He could have simply forgiven mankind had he wanted to, but that would not have had any value for society. The death of Christ was a public example of the depth of sin and the lengths to which God would go to uphold the moral order of the universe. This view is expounded in great detail in Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi adversus F. Socinum (1636).



Summary

All the above views, in their own way, recognize that the atonement is vast and deep. There is nothing quite like it, and it must be understood in its own light. The plight of sinful man is disastrous, for the NT sees the sinner as lost, as suffering hell, as perishing, as cast into outer darkness, and more. An atonement that rectifies all this must necessarily be complex. So we need all the vivid concepts: redemption, propitiation, justification, and all the rest. And we need all the theories. Each draws attention to an important aspect of our salvation and we dare not surrender any. But we are small minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully. Even when we put them all together, we will no more than begin to comprehend a little of the vastness of God's saving deed.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm

 

[jerusalem]

I leave you with a read .......... Bye

Sorry, I haven't fished with your first reply.

The first article you referred to touched upon a number of areas. Let me respond to the quote from Leviticus 16. It may surprise you how most biblical scholars translate this chapter.

To understand what is meant by this rite, we must consider the reason and purpose for the choosing by lot. It is generally thought that the goat not sacrificed represented the sin-bearing aspect of our Lord's work, as foretold by Isaiah; however, we need to ask why it was necessary to command the employment of the sacred lot to decide between the goats, if both represented different aspects of the one and self-same sacrifice of the Lord? If both goats typified Christ, what difference would it have made which one was to be sacrificed and which was to be kept alive? - None. It would have made no difference at all and yet the use of the sacred lot solemnly called for God's judgement: 'The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord' (Prov.16:33). We should realize, therefore, that the use of the sacred lot upon the Day of Atonement foreshadowed the enactment of God's judgement when Christ atoned for our sins. Jesus was judged by man, but 'He entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly' (1 Pet.2:23). That judgement was to accept the fragrant offering of His Son and to overturn the verdict of an earthly court through the resurrection, according to His divine will and purpose. But, also, there was another judgement exercised by God at that time, pronounced by Christ Himself: 'Now is the time for judgement on this world, now the prince of this world will be driven out' (John 12:31). - The prince of this world is in reference to Satan (cf. Jn.14:30, 16:11). Jesus foretold that the Holy Spirit, the Counsellor, would convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: '... and in regard to judgement, because the prince of this world now stands condemned' (John 16:7-11).

Inferred in the above explanation is the understanding that the two goats were representative of two persons. In verse 8 of Leviticus 16, the Hebrew uses the preposition 'for' ('lamed'): lots were cast 'for the Lord' on the one hand, and 'for Azazel' on the other. Notice:

'And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel' (as translated by Darby; also translated as a proper name in the following works: cf. RSV; ASV; Jewish Bible[1917]; New American Bible [1986]; New English Translation [1996]). Here we see that the Hebrew name 'Yehovah' refers to the Lord as a person and not to any aspect of the sacrifice He made on the cross. It is both logical and reasonable, therefore, to accept 'Azazel' as a personal name for one standing in contrast to the Lord. In examining the meaning of this noun, translators put forward various suggestions:

1. It refers to a precipice, east of Jerusalem, over which - on the Day of Atonement in NT times - the goat was thrown backwards, to be dashed on the rocks below (cf. Mishna, Yoma vi,6). However, this cannot be the original meaning as the instructions were given at the time of the first tabernacle under Moses - long before Israel had come to occupy this territory.

2. It means 'entire removal' as derived from a similar sounding Arabic term meaning 'to banish, remove'.

3. It means 'goat of departure' from the Hebrew words: 'ez' (a she-goat) and 'azal' (a primitive root meaning 'to go away', cf. Strong's). In this form the term appears in the Septuagint. Jerome used the term 'caper emmisarius' meaning 'goat that escapes' in the Latin Vulgate (c. AD400), which influenced the King James translators to use the term 'scapegoat'. The modern NIV retains this form, but we should realize the original derivation. The goat did not 'escape', but was sent away and literally driven over a cliff to its death in the time of our Lord.

4. It is a name given to a strong demon, as derived from the Hebrew 'azaz' (to be strong) and 'el' (god). - According to the New Bible Dictionary, this is the meaning that most scholars prefer.

Objections to the view that the term refers to the name of a demon are based upon the notion that it is unthinkable that an offering should be made to a demon. This is true, but there is no suggestion that such an offering was to be made. The main idea contained in this rite is that of the removal of sin. Firstly, through God's acceptance of Christ for us there is complete and full forgiveness for all who truly believe. His life becomes our covering. This is foreshadowed by the rite concerning the goat chosen by sacred lot to be slain. Secondly, there is the need for deliverance from evil - symbolized by the sending away of the goat ('as Azazel' Darby, Lev.16:10 - not 'as the scapegoat') bearing all the sins of the nation. - God's justice demands that the guilty be held responsible for sin, not the innocent (see Ez.18; Prov.17:15, 17:26). Satan is truly guilty as the instigator of all rebellion against God. Though we can be forgiven, Satan remains condemned. If one incites or tempts others to trespass against God, even if those who actually commit the crimes later repent and are forgiven, that person who provoked the offenses remains guilty. This is true justice - the justice of God.

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. He came to banish Satan from our midst. The devil's power over us and in our lives is removed when we turn to Christ. Satan is the strong 'god of this world' (2 Cor.4:4), ruling over those who live in darkness. The devil has completely departed from God's ways and is entirely removed from God's kingdom. The time for judgement on this world has begun and he is condemned. His sentence will be carried out in full when God's rule is restored on Earth (Rev.20:10, 21:4; Matt.25:41).

Blessings!

To God be the glory!