How can Jesus have born future sins?

[A_Thinker]

I was out walking today, thinking about the sacrifice of Christ. Then this question arose, how Jesus could have born all sins that hadn't even been committed yet. How do you reason around this?

God (i.e. Christ) is not bound by time or space ...

 

[zoidar]

I don't even understand how Jesus could bare any sin at all anyway.

Why would God want to hurt someone who sins?
What would that achieve?
Nothing good comes directly from it that I can see?
It doesn't solve anything that I see?

Also, if true, it doesn't sound like a very good God or a God I would care to follow?
How could He punish the wrong person for sins? That's just wrong

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi friend,

Evil needs to be destoyed for there to be heaven. If God destroys evil He also destroys man, since man has evil (also called sin) within, no man is all good, but all are part evil (if you agree with that?). So God needs to find a way to remove evil from man without destroying him. God sends His Son, to bear the consequence of evil, which is destruction/death. By rising from the dead Jesus conquers evil, evil plays out it's full force on the sacrificed Son, so evil is rendered numb. Since all death/destruction hanging over the world has been laid on Jesus, man can go free, not be destroyed.

There is an a term of condition however, the sacrifice needs to be received or else man is still part of evil heading for destruction. He needs to be united with Christ through the sacrifice, so he becomes part of Jesus' nature, which is without evil. Being united with Christ means this man's destruction has been rendered void, since the force of evil has allready been done with in Jesus, now the man in Christ is truly free, and can be fully cleansed on the day of judgement and enter heaven.

Is this answering your concerns?

 

[fhansen]

But I do know, and I do have a way of knowing, it's the word of God written.

No, you have your opinion. And it's on quasi-solid ground at best, not particularly firm. Just another opinion that's becoming rather tiring to be honest.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Hi friend,
........ Is this answering your concerns?

Thanks for the time you took in answering this.

Someone who really cares about God and loves Jesus would try like you just did, so thank you

 

[Clare73]

But I do know of what I speak and I do have a way of knowing of what I speak, it's the word of God written.
I know 1 Corinthians 11:26 -- that we proclaim the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper, that it's about atonement, not a "real presence,"
I know Colossians 1:27 -- that the living Christ is in me, my hope of glory, there is no need for a magic "real presence,"
I know that in the light of the OT sacrificial system, which is the pattern for Jesus' sacrifice, there is no Biblical warrant for a
living "real presence" in the Lord's Supper,
I know that nowhere does the NT ever present such a notion, it is an invention of man.
I know in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 God does not respond "favorably" to man's idea of how to worship him, it being not authorized by him.
That is a rather conclusive Bilblical demonsttration of the matter.

No, you have your opinion. And it's on quasi-solid ground at best, not particularly firm. Just another opinion that's becoming rather tiring to be honest.

NT teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:26 and Colossians 1:27 is more than opinion.
The sacrificial meal in the OT sacrificial system being the pattern for the NT sacrificial meal is more than opinion.
The absence of any NT teaching or support for "real presence" is more than opinion.
That God is not "indifferent" to man's (Biblically) unathorized addition to how to worship him in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 is more than opinion.

Biblical teaching is the only true and authoritative way of knowing the will of God.

And it's on quasi-solid ground at best, not particularly firm.

So what would firm, solid ground on the matter look like?

 

[fhansen]

Clare, you have some reasonable Scripture-based arguments. And you think they're superior to the arguments of others, who, like it or not, also have reasonable Scripture-based arguments opposing yours in this case-and who also think theirs are superior. But ultimately none of this is about scholarship or exegesis, no matter how well done, but about the truth of the matter. And historical evidence also largely opposes your view as well-as to how the early church thought and taught and practiced regarding the matter. So I love you dear but remain with your arguments-I'm just not interested in hearing more opinions on it.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, you have some reasonable Scripture-based arguments. And you think they're superior to the arguments of others, who, like it or not, also have reasonable Scripture-based arguments opposing yours in this case-and who also think theirs are superior. But ultimately none of this is about scholarship or exegesis, no matter how well done, but about the truth of the matter. And historical evidence also largely opposes your view as well-as to how the early church thought and taught and practiced regarding the matter. So I love you dear but remain with your arguments-I'm just not interested in hearing more opinions on it.

Keeping in mind that "early church" refers to the 300-400's A.D., and with all due respect, what they thought is only as valid as its agreement with Scripture. Those of the "early church" hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles used the Latin Vulgate and were in no better position to understand Scripture than we are today who have them in their original language, koine Greek.

 

[BBAS 64]

Keeping in mind that "early church" refers to the 300-400's A.D., and with all due respect, what they thought is only as valid as its agreement with Scripture. Those of the "early church" hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles used the Latin Vulgate and were in no better position to understand Scripture than we are today who have them in the koine Greek.

Good Day,

Just to add a historical primary source for that factual reality:

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.


In Him,

Bill

 

[fhansen]

Keeping in mind that "early church" refers to the 300-400's A.D., and with all due respect, what they thought is only as valid as its agreement with Scripture. Those of the "early church" hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles used the Latin Vulgate and are in no better position to understand Scripture which we have in the koine Greek today.

The early church in the west may've used Latin writings -they also could've used Greek at that time- while the east spoke Greek and other languages. Many-most?- of the ECFs wrote in Greek. The Vulgate wasn't even available until the 4th century and ECFs go back to the 2nd at least. And the early church simply practiced the matter a certain way and continued to carry that down through time, in both the east and west, apparently not Clare's way tho. And Scripture is rather vague on it. What else is new?

 

[Valletta]

Sounds like an idea of the RCC. They view the eucharist as a sacrifice, like an extension (?) of the one sacrifice. But I'm not fully clear how they understand it.

God is above time. The sacrifice of Jesus becomes present at each mass.

 

[BBAS 64]

Were all Jews the sacrifice was made for saved?

Good Day, Zoidar

This begs a question..

Was the purpose of the OC sacrificial system that God instituted for the Jewish people for their (redemption) Salvation.

Clearly the answer is no.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.


That is the function of Christ under the NC he secures an eternal redemption. Some thing that the Hebrews to who the letter is written cleary understood.

Go though and reread 7-10 of Hebrews it give a really full picture of the OC vs. the NC. You can find the work of J. Owens on line and that may assist you.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Valletta]

Keeping in mind that "early church" refers to the 300-400's A.D., and with all due respect, what they thought is only as valid as its agreement with Scripture. Those of the "early church" hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles used the Latin Vulgate and were in no better position to understand Scripture than we are today who have them in their original language, koine Greek.

Readings at masses from area to area were similar but there were some differences. The Catholic Church set out to determine which text was God breathed and which was not. The process spanned centuries and it was not until the late 300s when the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, those same 73 books in the very same order we use today. By the time of Jerome Latin had supplanted Greek as the most common language of Christians. For the vast majority of Christians who could read of write--you knew Latin. Thus Jerome was commissioned to do a Latin translation, called the Latin Vulgate because Latin was the common, or "vulgar" language of the people. As more centuries passed Latin morphed into various languages such as French, Italian, and Spanish and Catholics translated Biblical text into many of the new languages.

 

[BBAS 64]

Readings at masses from area to area were similar but there were some differences. The Catholic Church set out to determine which text was God breathed and which was not. The process spanned centuries and it was not until the late 300s when the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, those same 73 books in the very same order we use today. By the time of Jerome Latin had supplanted Greek as the most common language of Christians. For the vast majority of Christians who could read of write--you knew Latin. Thus Jerome was commissioned to do a Latin translation, called the Latin Vulgate because Latin was the common, or "vulgar" language of the people. As more centuries passed Latin morphed into various languages such as French, Italian, and Spanish and Catholics translated Biblical text into many of the new languages.

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.



Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

 

[pescador]

God is above time. The sacrifice of Jesus becomes present at each mass.

God is above time. Agree.
The sacrifice of Jesus becomes present at each mass. Disagree. Jesus was sacrificed once. Period.

 

[pescador]

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.



Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

IMHO this is way off-topic. However...

1) There is no evidence in the Bible (or anywhere else) that Jesus founded the Catholic church. The word "Catholic" doesn't appear in the Bible.

2) Papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority as practiced by Catholics are not scriptural. No pope, no cardinals, no bishops... Sacraments and teaching authority as practiced by Catholics are not scriptural.

3) Nowhere in Scripture does it say (or even hint at) the Catholic Church is infallible. Indeed, history shows that the Catholic church has made many serious errors, including the Inquisition and murder of many Protestants.

4) "Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book" is simply wrong. The Bible is inspired in and of itself. It doesn't need verification by an "official" group to be taken as holy, sacred, and inspired.

Many of us are Protestants that believe in the righteousness and authority of God, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. There is no need for some human "authority" to verify what the Trinity and the Bible make plain.

Now, back to the subject of the OP...

 

[bling]

I don't even understand how Jesus could bare any sin at all anyway.

Why would God want to hurt someone who sins?
What would that achieve?
Nothing good comes directly from it that I can see?
It doesn't solve anything that I see?

Also, if true, it doesn't sound like a very good God or a God I would care to follow?
How could He punish the wrong person for sins? That's just wrong

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Very Good!!!

It is flat out wrong to see to the torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent to allow the guilty to go free!

God does not have a weakness or problem with forgiving His children and thus needs help from Christ and how would torturing Christ help God?

Man has the problem and the big problem is with humility, humbling one’s self to the point of being willing to accept pure undeserved charity.

This is a huge topic requiring lots of understanding, but we might start with:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but find great understanding in Ro. 3:25, but there is Godly logic in what happened.

Try just this small part of it:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay His satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[bling]

I was out walking today, thinking about the sacrifice of Christ. Then this question arose, how Jesus could have born all sins that hadn't even been committed yet. How do you reason around this?

I almost do not want to bring this up because it sheds a different light on the subject. Scripture is to be used to define scripture and Matthew was certainly inspired when he wrote:

Matt. 8: 14 When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. 16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”

This comes from the verse:

Is. 53: 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,

Now reading Matt we have “took up our pain and bore our suffering = “…demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick”. meaning: Jesus took away (bore) our pains and suffering.

 

[BBAS 64]

I will add all who would find repentance. That could be anyone who has been born.
Sin factor has been dealt with , but only those who repent will reap the reward. The rest will weep and gnash their teeth when Jesus comes again a second time.

They let a majestic salvation slip through their fingers.
God bless.

Good Day, Jeffweedaman

Funny you did not deal with Hebrews in a wider context at all...

All to whom God grants repentance will for sure are lead to the knowledge of truth, and come to their senses, and escape the Devil, because he has taken them captive.

That is the purpose of God granting repentance, if he does not grant it they have no possibility of any of this. The granted repentance is the effective cause of those things happening He purposed it that way.

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Clare73]

Thats speaking of the Hebrew priests, whose main job was offering animal sacrifices...not the sacrifice which was once, for all.

"He (as High Priest) sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself," (Hebrews 7:27) is not referring to Hebrew priests.

"Christ (our High Priest) was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people," (Hebrews 9:28) is not referring to Hebrew priests.

 

[Clare73]

The early church in the west may've used Latin writings -they also could've used Greek at that time- while the east spoke Greek and other languages. Many-most?- of the ECFs wrote in Greek. The Vulgate wasn't even available until the 4th century and ECFs go back to the 2nd at least. And the early church simply practiced the matter a certain way and continued to carry that down through time, in both the east and west, apparently not Clare's way tho. And Scripture is rather vague on it. What else is new?

Scripture is clear on the meaning of the Lord's Supper--"we proclaim his death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Scripture is clear that the living Christ is in me. (Colossians 1:27) -- no need for a magical living "real presence" in the Lord's Supper.
Scripture is clear regarding the OT sacrificial system being the pattern for the NT atoning sacrifice.
Scripture is clear that the OT sacrificial meal on the sacrificed body was not of a living body.

What is "vague" (as in non-existent) is anything Scriptural about a living and "real presence" in the NT sacrificial meal of the Lord's Supper.
That notion is 100% an invention of man, and that he invented it 2,000 years ago does not give it credibility nor authority.

Christ's authority was always according to the word of God written. He spoke and did nothing that was not from the word of God.
There is no authority apart from the word of God written.
The word of God written is the judge of all truth and doctrine.
What is not in agreement with Scripture is not of God and is in error.

But I still love you.