DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
It seems like verses 21 talk about the common and true aspect of the atonement that Christ is our example of how we should live, specifically when dealing with suffering. Verse 22 talks talks about the fact that he himself had committed no sin which qualifies him as a perfect sacrifice, and in addition it continues the theme of how he functioned as an example to us. Verse 24 flat our says he bore our sins in his body on the cross which is penal substitution. And it says we can die to sin, which we symbolize in baptism when we say buried in believers baptism, raised to walk in newness of life. (I might be accused of eisegesis by saying that the only reason we can say that is because he bore our sins in his body on the tree, but the words "he bore our sins in his body on the tree are direct quotes.) Anyone who keeps saying that doesn't also mean he bore our sins in his body instead of us having to bear our own sins in my opinion is just being deliberately obstinate. The whole passage also ties in our salvation to the passage familiar to everyone in Isaiah.
One problem I see on here is that if one thing is brought up that is now assumed to be "the thing". For instance, the idea of the atonement as being Christ providing an example and a motivation is clearly true, and also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitution. The idea of the necessity of us having a "union" with Christ is also a true teaching as being necessary for our salvation. The idea of us being "ransomed" by Christ is also true, and also taught, even in the larger catechism by Owen for example. The idea that Christ achieved a victory over the powers of darkness, sin and Satan in the atonement is also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement.
If you like to exegete, how about Hebrews 8,9, and 10 which I agree, the best way to do this is not really to exegete at all, just read all three chapters at once, several times. Then ask yourself, can I really get away with saying that this is all about solidarity, or providing an example, or do I have to deal with the concept that I am helpless and totally dependent on Christ acting on my behalf by taking care of my sin with the application, somehow of his own blood. Is Christ doing something for me that I am not even allowed to be in on or is this a joint effort of solidarity. And if I refuse that, am I going to fall under the warning in chapter 10: 29-31?
One problem I see on here is that if one thing is brought up that is now assumed to be "the thing". For instance, the idea of the atonement as being Christ providing an example and a motivation is clearly true, and also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitution. The idea of the necessity of us having a "union" with Christ is also a true teaching as being necessary for our salvation. The idea of us being "ransomed" by Christ is also true, and also taught, even in the larger catechism by Owen for example. The idea that Christ achieved a victory over the powers of darkness, sin and Satan in the atonement is also clearly taught by those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement.
If you like to exegete, how about Hebrews 8,9, and 10 which I agree, the best way to do this is not really to exegete at all, just read all three chapters at once, several times. Then ask yourself, can I really get away with saying that this is all about solidarity, or providing an example, or do I have to deal with the concept that I am helpless and totally dependent on Christ acting on my behalf by taking care of my sin with the application, somehow of his own blood. Is Christ doing something for me that I am not even allowed to be in on or is this a joint effort of solidarity. And if I refuse that, am I going to fall under the warning in chapter 10: 29-31?