Spiritual Death II

[Aaron]

JonC said:

I never tried to get around that. Although another topic, what I rejected was (to borrow from the "radical reformers") the "romish" residue of your tradition. Consider how often Scripture deals with the Scapegoat. What we can say is it symbolizes Christ removing the sins of the people. Now look at what you've added from those few verses.

What you have done is used Scripture to justify your position rather than derive your position from that text. The Scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins, but never suffered (biblically....in practice the Jews often killed the animal anyway so it couldn't return).
Spiritual Death

Lol. You ain't gettin' away with that one.

Consider how often Scripture deals with the Scapegoat. What we can say is it symbolizes Christ removing the sins of the people. Now look at what you've added from those few verses
​

Consider what it says about that 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 all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, 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 unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

No, not Christ merely removing the sins like a doctor can remove a mole. Christ BEARING their sins, becoming guilty of them Himself, and being taken away by a strong man into the Wilderness, to be punished for them.

What did Israel learn in the Wilderness? God's breach of promise, Numbers 14:34. The evil generation wandered in the Wilderness and bore their whoredoms Numbers 14:33 and died Numbers 14:35.

Some modern translations make it more clear:

• And you shall know My rejection. NKJV
• Then you will discover what it is like to have me for an enemy. NLT

My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?

What you have done is used Scripture to justify your position rather than derive your position from that text.
​

 

[JonC]

I understand your reasoning. My observation, however, is that verses concerning tbe "scapegoat" do not state or prove Jesus suffered wrath. It was symbolic (to the Hebrew people) of their sin's being removed. The scapegoat was released, not slaughtered.

I have never objected to the truth that Jesus bore our sins, that it was God's will to "crush" Him; that Christ suffered the consequences of sin and dued for us as a Propitiation for our sins so that we would escape the wrath to come.

But the verses about the "scapegoat" do not contain those truths. I think it obvious Christ "bore our sins", and did not state the obvious.

We need to have a greater respect for Scripture than to toss out one verse or idea and regurgitate our entire theological perspective on top of it.

 

[Aaron]

You need to have a greater respect for Scripture than to postulate what you just did.

 

[Aaron]

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.​

Must be a sign of God's favor.

 

[JonC]

You need to have a greater respect for Scripture than to postulate what you just did.

How so?

I agreed with you that the "scapegoat" symbolized the removal of sins and also that this is an image of Christ bearing our sins.

But you just added other stuff without provideng Scripture. I am saying Scripture is enough. Why the addition's?

 

[JonC]

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.​

Must be a sign of God's favor.

You are wrong.


Deuteronomy 21:22-23
“If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed s of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Galatians 3:10-14
For as many as are of the works of the o Law are under a curse; for it is written, “ CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM .” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "The RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "He WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, "Cursed IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON a TREE"- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come w to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Christ became a curse for us. Your stated belief that this was an indication of favor is a heresy that mocks the Cross.

Jesus took upon Himself our sin, our curse, and He bore our sins in His flesh on the Cross. He suffered for us - and by His stripes we are healed.

Your notion this was "God's favor" misunderstands the nature of sin itself. It flips the wages of sin as being death to a positive notion (if it was favor then we never needed redemption).

And you have failed to provide even one verse supporting your belief when Deut. 21 flately shows your error.

My suggestion is for you to stop guessing and read your Bible. You severely misunderstand not only the consequences of sin but what it was for Christ to become a curse for us.

 

[Aaron]

Well, if not God's favor, then it must be His wrath.

I knew you'd come around. There's no better teacher on the meaning of Christ's sacrifice than the Law.

 

[MB]

JonC said:

Lol. You ain't gettin' away with that one.

Consider how often Scripture deals with the Scapegoat. What we can say is it symbolizes Christ removing the sins of the people. Now look at what you've added from those few verses
​

Consider what it says about that 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 all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, 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 unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

No, not Christ merely removing the sins like a doctor can remove a mole. Christ BEARING their sins, becoming guilty of them Himself, and being taken away by a strong man into the Wilderness, to be punished for them.

What did Israel learn in the Wilderness? God's breach of promise, Numbers 14:34. The evil generation wandered in the Wilderness and bore their whoredoms Numbers 14:33 and died Numbers 14:35.

Some modern translations make it more clear:

• And you shall know My rejection. NKJV
• Then you will discover what it is like to have me for an enemy. NLT

My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?

What you have done is used Scripture to justify your position rather than derive your position from that text.
​

The last sentence in your post goes around and ends up no where. You seem to be saying that he has proven his position by scripture and it's some how wrong. It's either right or wrong it can't be both.
MB

 

[JonC]

Well, if not God's favor, then it must be His wrath.

Your reply is a logical fallacy (it is called "either/or fallacy", "false dilemma", or "excluded middle").

You are assuming that if the Cross was not God's favor then it must have been God's wrath. But this assumes the presupposition that the Cross is God's act of punishment or blessing and is therefore a contextualization of Scripture within your own tradition. While we agree that it was God's will to "crush Him", that the Cross was all along God's plan of redemption, I have not accepted your theory that the Cross is an instance of God pouring out an action upon Christ.

 

[JonShaff]

I was thinking about this conversation last night and the realities of Christ taking on our sin.

One of the best Scriptures that speaks explicitly to that is in 1 Peter:

1 Peter 2:24 (KJV) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

So, did he/how did He take on the "sins of the world"?

I believe The Scriptures speak of Christ doing something as a result of the sin of the world, in order to have the effects God desires. Namely, reconciliation. That's why He says, whose stripes we are healed. The shame and guilt that separated God and Man was done away with as Christ's death brought healing to mankind. Peace and reconciliation was brought to us through His death. By His stripes our relationship was healed.

And if you break the text down it says Christ's body was afflicted to the point of death so that the guilt and shame of our sins would be dealt with, bringing reconciliation. It says by His stripes, not "by God turning His face from Him..."

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:10-11 (KJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Of course Peter quotes..

Isaiah 53:4-5 (KJV) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

He bore the results of us sinning.

So, Christ bore the guilt of our iniquities and died as a result of our sin, who knew no sin.

The wages of sin is death. Christ never sinned but He took on death and the wages of everyone else who did.

 

[Aaron]

Your reply is a logical fallacy (it is called "either/or fallacy", "false dilemma", or "excluded middle").

You are assuming that if the Cross was not God's favor then it must have been God's wrath. But this assumes the presupposition that the Cross is God's act of punishment or blessing and is therefore a contextualization of Scripture within your own tradition. While we agree that it was God's will to "crush Him", that the Cross was all along God's plan of redemption, I have not accepted your theory that the Cross is an instance of God pouring out an action upon Christ.

One either has God's favor or wrath. What else is there?

 

[Aaron]

The last sentence in your post goes around and ends up no where. You seem to be saying that he has proven his position by scripture and it's some how wrong. It's either right or wrong it can't be both.
MB

The last sentence in my post is a quote of JonC

 

[JonC]

One either has God's favor or wrath. What else is there?

That was not what you said.

You said that if God was not showing favor to Christ then He was showing wrath in the context of the Cross.

That is a logical fallacy....no wiggling out of it.

 

[JonShaff]

That was not what you said.

You said that if God was not showing favor to Christ then He was showing wrath in the context of the Cross.

That is a logical fallacy....no wiggling out of it.

I believe this is another aspect of the paradoxes found in Scripture.

Christ was not under the wrath of God. It actually pleased God to bruise Him probably because of Christ's faithful obedience to the will of God. Isaiah said that the pleasure of the Lord would prosper in His hand.

The writer of Hebrews says that Christ endured the cross, despised the shame for the Joy that was set before Him.

We bring in this narrative that God is finding pleasure in the ACT of humiliation and mistreatment. That doesn't sound like my God. My God delights in faithful obedience. It's the same way with trials in our lives. God does not laugh when we get critically hurt in a car accident. He delights in His child when they trust and depend upon Him faithfully, regardless of the circumstance -- Hebrews 11:6.

 

[Dave G]

I was thinking about this conversation last night and the realities of Christ taking on our sin.

One of the best Scriptures that speaks explicitly to that is in 1 Peter:

1 Peter 2:24 (KJV) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Jon,
Take a closer look at 1 Peter 2:24:

" who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ( 1 Peter 2:24 )

He bare our sins in His own body on the tree, so that we being dead to sins ( Romans 6:1-2 ) should live unto righteousness ( Galatians 2:19, Colossians 3:3 )

So, did he/how did He take on the "sins of the world"?

Yes, how did He do that?
" All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." ( Isaiah 53:6 )

I believe The Scriptures speak of Christ doing something as a result of the sin of the world, in order to have the effects God desires. Namely, reconciliation. That's why He says, whose stripes we are healed.

Who was reconciled?

Romans 5:11,
2 Corinthians 5:18-19,
Ephesians 2:15-16,
Colossians 1:19-22

By His stripes, who is healed?
Isaiah 53:4-8.

He bore the results of us sinning.

Amen.

I believe this is another aspect of the paradoxes found in Scripture.

There are no paradoxes, my friend... only truths that bear looking into, and Scripture that needs going over, again and again.

May He bless you richly.

 

[Yeshua1]

That was not what you said.

You said that if God was not showing favor to Christ then He was showing wrath in the context of the Cross.

That is a logical fallacy....no wiggling out of it.

SOMEONE must take and suffer in themselves the due penalty for our sins, which would be wrath and God and eternal Judgment. Either Jesus bore it all, or else we still do!

 

[JonShaff]

SOMEONE must take and suffer in themselves the due penalty for our sins, which would be wrath and God and eternal Judgment. Either Jesus bore it all, or else we still do!

No, eternal judgment is the white throne judgment and the subsequent lake of fire. There is wrath to come that will be meted out on an unbelieving world. But God wasn't angry with His Son. He was well pleased with His Son. He delights in His Son. Christ took on himself the wages of sin, death. And then God raised Him from the dead to prove His obedience was acceptable. The innocent Lamb of God took on death to be the succourer and giver of Eternal Life. He was punished for our disobedience but not by taking on the wrath of God, but by taking on death.

 

[Aaron]

That was not what you said.

You said that if God was not showing favor to Christ then He was showing wrath in the context of the Cross.

That is a logical fallacy....no wiggling out of it.

Lol. Your calling it a logical fallacy doesn't make it so. And you've already argued my case. If Christ was on the Cross, He was cursed. And He was cursed for my sin. As you said. That's not a sign of favor. That leaves nothing but wrath.

 

[Aaron]

No, eternal judgment is the white throne judgment and the subsequent lake of fire. There is wrath to come that will be meted out on an unbelieving world. But God wasn't angry with His Son. He was well pleased with His Son. He delights in His Son. Christ took on himself the wages of sin, death. And then God raised Him from the dead to prove His obedience was acceptable. The innocent Lamb of God took on death to be the succourer and giver of Eternal Life. He was punished for our disobedience but not by taking on the wrath of God, but by taking on death.

Well, there was something that Christ feared, and it wasn't the fact that He was pleasing to His Father. Was He unable to not fear them who could kill the body, like He commanded His disciples? It wasn't physical death and suffering that He feared, and from which He was raised. It was the pains of death. Acts of the Apostles 2:24 .

 

[percho]

Well, there was something that Christ feared, and it wasn't the fact that He was pleasing to His Father. Was He unable to not fear them who could kill the body, like He commanded His disciples? It wasn't physical death and suffering that He feared, and from which He was raised. It was the pains of death. Acts of the Apostles 2:24 .

I disagree.

Acts 2:24 says nothing about fear.

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Heb 5:7,8

Suffered unto death. Obedience, with definite article preceding. What obedience did the dying Jesus, even though the very Son, learn?

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, (saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.) Jesus said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46 with Matt. 27:45-48 chronologically inserted.

Suffered unto death and his sufferings began before that.

Also from the other thread.

How could the scapegoat be considered as sacrificed?