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

[cygnusx1]

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!

The two goats have direct reference to two aspects of Christs saving work , it is way off to think of any Old Testament sacrifice being for anyone other than Jehovah , unless it is in direct opposition to God , an example being the worshipping of idols .
Your understanding will find few who hold it , it is not an Evangelical Doctrine and I am almost certain no main branch of Christians hold it , it smells like heresy.
Show me what branch of Christendom believes this .

 

[cygnusx1]

Two young goats were selected "for a sin-offering;" though there were two animals, it was but one offering. Two goats were selected in order that a fuller representation might be given: the one being designed more expressly to exhibit the means,the other the effect of the atonement. They were brought and presented together before the Lord (v. 7), the Lord determining by lot which of them was to be slain. The other animal stood by and was atoned for (Hebrew of verse 10) by the dying victim, and then bore away the sins laid upon it into the land of eternal forgetfulness (vv. 21,22): a blessed figure of that remission of our sins when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.

Passing by what was done with the bullock, we confine our attention unto the two goats. After the one had been killed, the high priest took its blood within the veil and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat not once, but seven times "before" Him to provide a perfect standing ground for His people. The antitype of this is seen in Hebrews 9:12, "But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12). The consequence of this is that "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us" (Heb. 10:19, 20).

After the high priest had finished his work inside the sanctuary, we are told, "he shall bring the live goat, 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 shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited" (vv. 20-22).That was a continuation and completion of the ceremony concerning the sin-offering, so that this symbolic transfer of their sins to the head of the scapegoat, which bore them away, plainly signified that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the first goat was the complete removal of all their transgressions from before the face of God.

"And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there" (Lev. 16:23). Why? To denote that his work was finished.The blessed antitype of this we see in Luke 24:12: on the resurrection morning, those who came to Christ’s empty sepulcher "beheld the linen clothes"lying there, a token that He was risen from the dead, and so of atonement completed, and accepted by God.

One other important feature in the types, often overlooked, claims our notice, namely, the burning of the victim’s body on the altar (Lev. 1:10 etc.). The animal was first slain as a just judgment for the sin which had been transferred to it by the laying on its head of the hand of the offerer; and then, after guilt had been borne, its flesh was laid on the altar and burned, and went up with acceptance unto God, a "sweet-smelling savor." In this was represented the glorious truth that, not only was Christ our sin-bearer, but that He is also our righteousness before God (Jer. 23:6; 2 Cor. 5:21). We are identified with Him not only in His death for us, but also in the fragrance of it before God.

In Numbers 19 there is yet another most important type upon which we can only now say a few words. In it we see how the death of Christ has made full provision for those defilements which His people contract while passing through this evil world. In it too we behold again the steady progress in the types, and the deeper instruction which God gave to Israel from time to time. They were yet in the land of Pharaoh when the passover was instituted: the doom of Egypt and their own deliverance therefrom were the thoughts then presented to their souls. Later, they were brought nigh to God, Himself tabernacling in their midst, and in Leviticus 16 they are shown the high demands of His holiness. Now in Numbers 19, they are taught that even the unavoidable contact with death (the world lying in the Wicked one) defiles. But God has provided cleansing from it.

In closing, we call attention to one other deeply important value of the types and the use to which they may be put: they furnish an infallible rule by which can be tested any man’s (our own included) interpretation of the New Testament Scriptures concerning the Atonement! He who denies the penal and vicarious nature of Christ’s death, repudiates the clear testimony of the types; he who sets aside the efficacy of His sacrifice by reducing it to a merely "making possible" the salvation of men does likewise, for the types know nothing of an ineffectual sacrifice. So too in them we see plainly the limitation of God’s love to His elect people, for no lamb was provided for the Egyptians, nor did Aaron make any atonement for the sins of the Midianites and Ammonites!

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Satisfaction/sat_21.htm

 

[Reformationist]

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.'

I do not believe this text applies to either Adam or Jesus. The doctrine of imputation lies at the heart of the believers faith. If the sin and guilt of Adam is not imputed to us at birth then we are not born in need of a Savior. Likewise, if our sins are not imputed to Christ and, conversely, His righteousness to us, we have no hope.

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.

This is certainly true. Just as the righteousness of Christ that justifies us before God is not our own. It was an alien righteousness. Thus, the biblical doctrine of imputation. We who bear the name of the Lord are priviledged to be partakers of a forensic justification. That is, we are declared righteous though we, in ourselves, are not righteous. The confusing thing to me is that you here acknowledge that Christ was sacrificed in our stead and that He bore the sins, and its punishment, for us. I don't think anyone is contending that Christ was personally guilty of committing our sins but, rather, that just as God reckons us righteous for Christ's sake and solely on the basis of His obedience, He reckoned Jesus guilty in account and punished Him for transgressions that He had not committed. This is the very teaching expressed in Romans 5:6-8:

Romans 5:6-8
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

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.

I am not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that it was solely Christ's obedience in life that sets us free from the penalty of death to the exclusion of His propitiatory death or have I just misunderstood you?

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.

While this has many biblically accurate elements, I cannot truly say that I know it to be true. It doesn't mean it's not true. I'm just saying that I am not learned enough to submit that Christ was forsaken in the flesh alone. Can you help me by providing some Scriptural support for this?

By the way, this is a very well written post. I have not taken the opportunity to read the rest of your posts in this thread but if they are all so eloquently written I'm sure that it will be edifying to me. Please forgive me if you've already answered my questions in subsequent posts.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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.

Great post Van (I can't believe I just said that ). However, I just want to comment, if you'll indulge me, on one portion of your post. You say, "...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." I, like cygnus, believe it to be both. If there were no legal reconciliation through the blood of Christ then our sins still bear a legal requirement for which we remain unable to account. I think that the justice of God that Christ satisfied on the Cross makes it fitting for God to extend His mercy to those who rest their faith in His atonement.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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?

I think that is the case because the justice of which Jesus was deprived was not God's justice but man's. The plan of redemption, of which the atonement is surely a substantial and vital part, was ordained in eternity by the Godhead Who were, as always, in full agreement. To say that Jesus was deprived of that which was due to Him is to state the obvious. However, it is the very condescension of God in the incarnation and atonement that shines forth His great love for the objects of His holy work. You seem to be making a blanket statement regarding the injustice committed against Jesus but you fail to take into account the will of the Godhead in redemption. If God were guilty of injustice against His Son in bruising Him then God is unjust and, essentially, not God. It is unwise to speak of the work of Christ on Calvary without acknowledging the legal aspect of it.

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.

I fully agree but, again, this is speaking specifically of the justness of man's actions against the Savior, not God's will in the atonement. Jesus was a sacrifice without stain but He willingly took upon Himself the stain of His elect thereby making Himself a sacrifice for them, and a worthy sacrifice at that.

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.

I agree that that is surely true but, again, it was His own personal perfect obedience that laid low any claim death had over Him.



Again, good post.

God bless

 

[Van]

Reformationist, I agree with you. God had mercy on us, rather than punish us justly for our sins. God is just and His requirement to act justly was not violated by His act of mercy because He accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as propititation for our sins, and not only ours but of the whole world.

 

[Reformationist]

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!

First off, let me say that this post is very edifying. With that said, I will merely comment on the last statement in this post. I agree that Jesus was unblemished by sin and in full communion with the Father. However, that speaks only of His person, not His atonement. It was His perfect righteousness which vindicates Him before the judgment seat and removed any right that death had over Him. However, Jesus did bear the eternal guilt and punishment due the iniquity of those for whom He atoned. It was not His own but He did account for it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I, for one, am greatly edified and will prayerfully consider all that you have said.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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.

Jerusalem, I understand the value in recognizing God's motive in sending His Son but I don't see the necessity, or the biblical basis for pitting one of God's attributes against another. It was God's love for us that compelled Him to provide what we could not, a sacrifice that would appease His requirement that justice be served. Unless you are contending that it was unjust for God to punish Jesus for transgression which He was not personally liable, I fail to see the wisdom in separating God's love in redemption from God's justice in the atonement.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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.

I agree completely. (What is going on here?)

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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

As always, great post.

God bless

 

[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.

I don’t disagree with what you are saying here. It is a matter of how we interpret. The propitiation of Jesus is available for the whole world, but we have to turn to Christ in repentance in order to benefit.



We need to offer our lives to God as living sacrifices in perfect faith and obedience - but of ourselves we cannot because of sin. - We receive acceptance by the Father only when the offering that Jesus made on our behalf is accepted for us. Our lives need to be covered by the blood of the Lamb (symbolizing His life) if we are to be found acceptable to God. We cannot stand before the Almighty depending upon our own righteousness. God has provided - Jehovah Jireh - through the Lamb: 'The LORD our Righteousness' (Jer.23:6). The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ did not incur God's wrath. He was not the embodiment of sin upon the cross, but the embodiment of righteousness. He, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God for the sake of all who turn to Him in repentance and faith. His offering of Himself for us was beautiful, fragrant and without corruption of any kind.



How can we propitiate God - gain the favour of God - when we have sins? It is only by exercising living faith like Abraham - trusting in God's Word and in His great provision. Sins are the cause of separation from God. The unspiritual condition of man can never please God - no matter how hard one may try to follow the letter of the law. 'The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked' (Jer.17:9, KJV). 'The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh can never please God' (Rom.8:7, KJV).



If we are saved from sins, it is not because of our love for God, but because of God's love for us. - As the apostle John put it: 'In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins' (1 John 4:10). Jesus offered the life that we cannot give. He is the One who came to rescue us from all unrighteousness: ' ... who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father' (Gal.1:4). Indeed, 'God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us' (Rom.5:8). His One righteous sacrifice is sufficient for all to be a covering for sins. By His blood we are justified and saved from wrath: '... having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him' (Rom.5:9). Figuratively, His blood - representing His sacrificial life - covers over and blots out all our sins, as we turn to God in living faith. It is by the impartation of grace that we are saved, forgiven and accounted righteous. It is not because of good deeds: '... just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin" ' (Rom.4:6-8). As Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, 'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves. It is the gift of God - not of works, so that no-one can boast' (Eph.2:8-9). Even faith itself is a gift from God, for without His intervention on our behalf, we could have no faith. Truly, no-one can boast.



Jesus suffered the cross as the One burdened with all the sins of humanity - the Righteous died for the unrighteous - giving His life as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sake of all repentant believers. However, the burden of sin that He carried was not one judicially imposed. The burden of sin was a natural experience and effect of the inherent love of a loving God. Indeed, if we feel burdened by the sins that are all around us in the world, how much more so is God, who sees all?



Man's sins against God were also against Jesus, who became the bodily focus of all man's sins against God at the cross. Nevertheless, at the darkest hour, God's love in Christ never shone more brightly. His love for mankind never waned. He said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34).



It can also be said that He asked forgiveness because they did not know what they were saying. The same is true today. Much is said about the cross and the reasons for Jesus dying as He did, and much is said in error. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Jesus continues to forgive, because many people still don't truly know what they are saying when they speak of His death upon the cross. The Scriptures do not contradict. Jesus told Pilate that being taken for punishment was a 'sin': 'Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin' (John 19:11). He was 'deprived of justice' (Acts 8:33), 'but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously' (1 Pet. 2:23). His forsakenness at the cross was physical. God did not, as many say, turn away from Him, as the psalmist declares: 'For He 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, NKJ). Nor did the Holy Spirit abandon Him: '... Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God' (Heb.9:14). Jesus was received by God 'without spot'. Only from a worldly point of view can one imagine Jesus as 'sin' upon the cross. The Holy Bible testifies that the opposite was true - as many Scriptures indicate.



The suffering 'Righteous Servant' (Isa.53:11) endured cruelty and death at the hands of mankind, for the sake of making the perfect sacrifice of His life to God for us - that we who believe and repent should be accepted with Him. In this sense, His sacrifice was substitutionary. - He gave what we cannot give because of sin: a truly righteous life.

 

[Reformationist]

The propitiation of Jesus is available for the whole world, but we have to turn to Christ in repentance in order to benefit.

And why do those who turn to Christ in repentence do so when so many others clearly do not?

We need to offer our lives to God as living sacrifices in perfect faith and obedience - but of ourselves we cannot because of sin. - We receive acceptance by the Father only when the offering that Jesus made on our behalf is accepted for us. Our lives need to be covered by the blood of the Lamb (symbolizing His life) if we are to be found acceptable to God. We cannot stand before the Almighty depending upon our own righteousness. God has provided - Jehovah Jireh - through the Lamb: 'The LORD our Righteousness' (Jer.23:6). The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ did not incur God's wrath. He was not the embodiment of sin upon the cross, but the embodiment of righteousness. He, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God for the sake of all who turn to Him in repentance and faith. His offering of Himself for us was beautiful, fragrant and without corruption of any kind.

If what you are saying is true then the wrath of God is yet to be satisfied and we are all condemned. It is unbiblical to assert that we stand righteous before God on account of the righteousness of Christ but completely divorce yourself from acknowledging that His wrath against our sin has been appeased in the propitiation of Christ. What you are contending is no less than that we are made worthy by our union with Christ but God's wrath simply dissipates having never been exercised. What happened? Did He just forget that He was holy and just and, as such, sin must be punished?

How can we propitiate God - gain the favour of God - when we have sins? It is only by exercising living faith like Abraham - trusting in God's Word and in His great provision.

You place the credit at the feet of the wrong champion by turning faith into a meritorious work. Faith is the vehicle by which we lay hold of the righteousness of Christ, which alone is the grounds of our justification. It is never the grounds for our justification. The obedience of Christ even unto death is what appeases the wrath of God. If we propitiate God by exercising our faith then we clearly have something to boast about over those who pridefully chose not to.

Sins are the cause of separation from God. The unspiritual condition of man can never please God - no matter how hard one may try to follow the letter of the law. 'The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked' (Jer.17:9, KJV). 'The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh can never please God' (Rom.8:7, KJV).

Now this I agree with.

If we are saved from sins, it is not because of our love for God, but because of God's love for us. - As the apostle John put it: 'In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins' (1 John 4:10). Jesus offered the life that we cannot give. He is the One who came to rescue us from all unrighteousness: ' ... who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father' (Gal.1:4). Indeed, 'God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us' (Rom.5:8). His One righteous sacrifice is sufficient for all to be a covering for sins. By His blood we are justified and saved from wrath: '... having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him' (Rom.5:9). Figuratively, His blood - representing His sacrificial life - covers over and blots out all our sins, as we turn to God in living faith. It is by the impartation of grace that we are saved, forgiven and accounted righteous. It is not because of good deeds: '... just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin" ' (Rom.4:6-8). As Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, 'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves. It is the gift of God - not of works, so that no-one can boast' (Eph.2:8-9). Even faith itself is a gift from God, for without His intervention on our behalf, we could have no faith. Truly, no-one can boast.

I'm totally lost. How can you so eloquently state the clear and gracious truth of the Gospel as you have above as well as the other things which you claim? I think I must just be misunderstanding you.

I don't know Jerusalem. You clearly know the Word and your posts are quite edifying. I think you are simply beyond my level of knowledge and I am just misunderstanding you.

I need to read your posts slowly and carefully so please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

God bless

 

[jerusalem]

The two goats have direct reference to two aspects of Christs saving work , it is way off to think of any Old Testament sacrifice being for anyone other than Jehovah , unless it is in direct opposition to God , an example being the worshipping of idols .
Your understanding will find few who hold it , it is not an Evangelical Doctrine and I am almost certain no main branch of Christians hold it , it smells like heresy.
Show me what branch of Christendom believes this .

Cygnus, I agree with you. The rites of the Day of Atonement look forward to the events of the cross. All Old Testament sacrifices have their reality in Christ. But, the 'goat for Azazel' was not a sacrifice.

The term was translated as 'Azazel' - a proper name - in all the Bible translations that I quoted. That most scholars understand the term in this sense is what the New Bible Dictionary states. I accept their view.

Thank you for your comments. They are much appreciated.

Blessings!

To God be the glory!
(Even when I forget to add this footnote!)

 

[Van]

Even faith itself is a gift from God, for without His intervention on our behalf, we could have no faith. Truly, no-one can boast.

If by this you mean our capacity to choose is a gift of our creator, and the information upon which we choose is a gift of God, then I agree. If you mean God manipulates the minds of the preselected elect to enable them to believe, if you mean irresistible grace, the inner call, then we disagree.

I do not agree that Jesus only bore the "burden" of sin, he became sin for us. Christ was offered up to bear the sins of many. Just as the sin of the one (Adam) was imputed to all mankind (and this did not remove the sin from Adam - he was still in a sinful state) by the righteousness of the One (Jesus) the many were made righteous. I think when scripture says Jesus tasted death, both physical and spiritual death - seperation from God - are in view, in order for our mediator to have experienced all that we experience.

I think when Christ went to the cross the Spirit was still anointing Him, thus Hebrews 9:14 - Christ went to the cross by the power of God. But just before He died physically, He tasted spiritual death, and therefore cryed our My God, My God, why have you foresaken me...

Jerusalem, you say God received Jesus without one spot. That may be true. What is the scriptural reference.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Van]

Jerusalem, in doing a little more study on the subject, I came across the following argument. You may have made it and I missed it. But it seems to support the possibility that your view is sound. Don't get me wrong, I am sticking with the traditional understanding, but I thought this argument was helpful.

When Jesus cryed out My God, My God, he was bring to the minds of those in earshot, Psalm 22. Hence He was making a final argument from scripture that He was the Messiah. Therefore His statement was rhetorical and does not necessarily indicate Jesus felt the Holy Spirit had pulled back and sin had been imputed.

Now I still think my traditional view is the best understanding of scripture, but I will now concede your understanding is a viable alternative, even though as discussed I think many of your supporting arguments are invalid.

 

[jerusalem]

I need to read your posts slowly and carefully so please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

God bless

As it happens, I need more time to read yours. 'Iron sharpens iron' (Prov.27:17).

Thank you.

Blessings!

To God be the glory!

 

[jerusalem]

Jerusalem, in doing a little more study on the subject, I came across the following argument. You may have made it and I missed it. But it seems to support the possibility that your view is sound. Don't get me wrong, I am sticking with the traditional understanding, but I thought this argument was helpful.

When Jesus cryed out My God, My God, he was bring to the minds of those in earshot, Psalm 22. Hence He was making a final argument from scripture that He was the Messiah. Therefore His statement was rhetorical and does not necessarily indicate Jesus felt the Holy Spirit had pulled back and sin had been imputed.

Now I still think my traditional view is the best understanding of scripture, but I will now concede your understanding is a viable alternative, even though as discussed I think many of your supporting arguments are invalid.

Van, I have to say that I respect your views and comments also. Thank you for taking part in these exchanges.

I didn't make that argument, but of course I agree with it. Thank you for having the integrity to display it.

Blessings!

To God be the glory!

 

[jerusalem]

If by this you mean our capacity to choose is a gift of our creator, and the information upon which we choose is a gift of God, then I agree. If you mean God manipulates the minds of the preselected elect to enable them to believe, if you mean irresistible grace, the inner call, then we disagree.

I do not agree that Jesus only bore the "burden" of sin, he became sin for us. Christ was offered up to bear the sins of many. Just as the sin of the one (Adam) was imputed to all mankind (and this did not remove the sin from Adam - he was still in a sinful state) by the righteousness of the One (Jesus) the many were made righteous. I think when scripture says Jesus tasted death, both physical and spiritual death - seperation from God - are in view, in order for our mediator to have experienced all that we experience.

I think when Christ went to the cross the Spirit was still anointing Him, thus Hebrews 9:14 - Christ went to the cross by the power of God. But just before He died physically, He tasted spiritual death, and therefore cryed our My God, My God, why have you foresaken me...

Jerusalem, you say God received Jesus without one spot. That may be true. What is the scriptural reference.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

I agree with your first statement: '... our capacity to choose is a gift of our creator, and the information upon which we choose is a gift of God.'

'Christ was offered once to bear (take away, NIV) the sins of many' (Heb.9:28, NKJ). The concept of forgiveness is conveyed through metaphor in the Holy Bible. Let us consider the phrase 'He bore the sin of many':

Without doubt, the Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Matt.26:28; John 3:16). By His suffering, there comes healing and salvation. In making the perfect sacrifice of His life to God for our sakes, it was necessary for Him to suffer and die. Surprising as it may seem, the Hebrew word translated 'bore' in Isaiah 53:12 - the primitive root 'nasa', meaning literally 'to lift' or 'lift away' can mean 'bear', but it is also one of several scriptural metaphors that can convey the concept of forgiveness. Notice:

'The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, ..' (Ex.34:6-7, NKJ).

'.. Look on my affliction and my pain, and forgive all my sins' (Ps.25:16-18, NKJ; 'take away all my sins', NIV).

'You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people; You have covered all their sin' (Ps.85:2, NKJ).

Also, notice from Psalm 32:1-5:

'Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. .. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord" - and you forgave the guilt of my sin' (NIV).

In all the above examples, the word conveying forgiveness is the same Hebrew word 'nasa'. Consequently, Isaiah 53:12 can be understood as meaning that 'He,' the Lord Jesus, 'forgave the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.'

Jesus transforms lives. If we truly believe and repent, He will forgive all that is past, adorn us with His righteousness and renew our hearts through the gift of the Holy Spirit. As children of God of the Spirit, the righteousness of Christ is attributed to us. He is 'The Lord Our Righteousness': Jeremiah 23:6. In Christ, we are no longer condemned by our sins and failings (Rom.8:1), but are led on in the righteousness of Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, to reflect, repent and overcome. - We '.. are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit' (2 Cor.3:18). For as long as we abide in Christ, we have the promise that He will complete the work that He has begun in us: 'Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith' (Heb.12:2, NKJ). 'We know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is' (1 John 3:2). When Jesus came, it was to be the One who would take away our sins once and forever, through the one offering of His life: He was 'sacrificed once to take away the sins of many' (Heb.9v28).

The sacrifice of Jesus provided the answer for man's fallen condition. This was something the Old Covenant sacrifices under Moses could not do. Past sins were forgiven under the law given to Moses, but the unrighteousness of man remained unchanged. Each year, the rites of the Day of Atonement were a reminder to the people of their sins (Heb.10:3). The sinful condition of man could not be dealt with through the mere forgiveness of past sins. It required the sprinkling of the blood of Christ 'to cleanse our consciences' (Heb.9:14). His blood, symbolic of His own righteous life, covers over the lives of all who believe. This is the covering grace of God by which we are made righteous - being justified through faith in Jesus: 'This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (Rom.3:22-24). Jesus came to do the will of God 'and by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all' (Heb10v10) - 'because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy' (Heb.10:14).

Blessings!

To God be the glory!