Atontement: Was it "necessary" for God to die?

[Paidion]

Didn't Paul say that if not for the law we would not know what sin is and James said if we break one law it's the equivalent of breaking the entierty of the law.

Yes.

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (Romans 7:7)

The Roman church contained both Jewish and Gentile believers. In his letter to them, Paul sometimes addressed Jews and sometimes Gentiles. But he wrote as a Jew, and he was brought up to think of sin as any failure to follow the Mosaic law. But let's be clear about this in our own lives. Do you think that people who know nothing about the Mosaic law don't know when they have done wrong? If a man have takes monetary advantage of a poor person, does he have no idea that he has done wrong? Does he think there's nothing wrong with killing someone, since he is unfamiliar with the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Does he think it fine to torture his enemies? And so with thousands of other evil acts.

Nikki Cruz, a street gang leader, killed many of his enemies. He put on a big front before his gang members, but he went to bed every night under deep conviction for his wrong doing. He knew nothing of the Mosaic law. But thankfully, he repented (had a change of heart and mind), because David Wilkerson wouldn't give up on him, even when Nikki threatened to kill David. Nikki then became a disciple of Messiah Jesus, and then became a spiritually-powerful evangelist. I heard him once at Bemidji, Minnesota. Hundreds of people came forward to give their lives to Messiah.

If breaking the law is not sin then what is it?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking what word(s) should be used to describe breaking the Mosaic law, if the word "sin" does not apply? Or are you asking what "sin" is, if it's not the breaking of the Mosaic law?

RE your example , my understanding of the law is that there are ritual laws which you gave an example of and there are moral laws which if broken constitute sin.

Sabbath keeping was but a ritual law of the Jews? It's one of the ten commandments. All of the others are clearly moral laws.

My understanding of sin biblically speaking is that it means "missing the mark" , the mark being God's law.

There are actually EIGHT different Greek words in the New Testament for "sin." One of them, "ἁμαρτια" ORIGINALLY meant "missing the mark." But at the time the New Testament was written, the meaning was broadened to include any kind of wrongdoing.

[dizerner]

Nikki Cruz, a street gang leader, killed many of his enemies. He put on a big front before his gang members, but he went to bed every night under deep conviction for his wrong doing. He knew nothing of the Mosaic law. But thankfully, he repented (had a change of heart and mind), because David Wilkerson wouldn't give up on him, even when Nikki threatened to kill David. Nikki then became a disciple of Messiah Jesus, and then became a spiritually-powerful evangelist. I heard him once at Bemidji, Minnesota. Hundreds of people came forward to give their lives to Messiah.

An awesome testimony I grew up hearing as a boy, if anyone has not read The Cross and the Switchblade I really recommend it.

Excerpt:

"Nicky was something else. I remember thinking, as I looked at him, That's the hardest face I have ever seen.
"How do you do, Nicky," I said.
He left me standing with my hand outstretched. He wouldn't even look at me. He was puffing away at a cigarette, shooting nervous little jets of smoke out the side of his mouth.
"Go to hell, Preacher," he said. He had an odd, strangled way of speaking and he stuttered badly over some of his sounds.
"You don't think much of me, Nicky," I said, "but I feel different about you. I love you Nicky." I took a step torward him.
"You come near me, Preacher," he said, in that tortured voice, "I'll kill you."
"You could do that, " I agreed. "You could cut me in a thousand pieces and lay them out in the street and every piece would love you." But as I said it, I was thinking, And it wouldn't do a bit of good—not with you, Nicky. There's no love on earth that could reach you.

Such an awesome illustration of Christ loving through a person, in a way none of us could. It reminds me of the verse:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

[steve7150]

But let's be clear about this in our own lives. Do you think that people who know nothing about the Mosaic law don't know when they have done wrong? If a man have takes monetary advantage of a poor person, does he have no idea that he has done wrong? Does he think there's nothing wrong with killing someone, since he is unfamiliar with the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Does he think it fine to torture his enemies? And so with thousands of other evil acts.







Certainly we have a conscience and we know right from wrong ever since Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think the "law" codified what we knew in our consciences.
Isn't it interesting that the law was given at Mt Sinai and the first three letters of Sinai is "sin." Anyway in 1st John 3.4 it says "everyone who sins breaks the law, in fact sin is lawlessness." NIV

[jriccitelli]

'I love a good sermon, but responding to an intellectual curiosity with a sermon seems a bit condescending' (Darin)
It just reminds me of the Scripture, We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep' (Diz)

Many scriptures come to mind, but that was certainly relevant Dizerner! I love it when someone reaches into the scripture hat and pulls out a rabbit!

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, doesn't Col 2.14 essentially say he paid for our sins? It says he cancelled the certificate of debt that was against us. In different words it seems like the same thing as paying for our sins. (7150)

Steve, I think that translation is misleading. With what justification can δογμα (dogma) be translated as "debt"? I know the ESV, Murdoch, and the HCSB do so, but most translators render it as "ordinances." Others translate it as "decrees." (Paidion)

The translations that use debt are not translating 'dogma' as 'debt'. The addition of the word debt seems to be defining the 'hand writing' (a conjunction). These translations illustrate what was contained in the handwriting, which is explained before and aft in the verse: to be against us. They translate the word cheirographon as handwriting - record - charges - certificate – bill - and debt translates what is implied (and the implications) in the handwriting (or the Law which was against and adverse to us). These are thought for thought translations of the text, not word for word (only an original language can truly be word for word) so this is allowable in many translations of many things, and thus ‘none’ of the 21 translations I see are ‘misleading’. I think it is misleading to say there is no justification in adding the word debt. (No pun here, but note there is no justification without a price paid for sin)

The context says it was 'cancelled' although it was 'against us'. If you do not ‘want’ it cancelled then 'whatever the decree says' is still against you (or still outstanding). The words imply that it was 'due'.

Having blotted out (exaleipsas) what was against us (kath) the handwriting (cheirographon) in the decrees (dogmasin) which were adverse (hypenantion) to us…

The words before and after dogma 'define' what the dogma (decree) Paul was speaking of. We have a definite definition of the dogma from the sentence. Dogma on its own has no real definition and is dependent on the complete clause of the sentence.

Colossians 2:14 having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;
Indeed, doesn't this verse suggest the same type of abolition of the Mosaic law as in Ephesians 2:15 above? The handwriting of these Mosaic decrees, that is, the written law of Moses, was abolished by Christ as far as their application to His disciples is concerned. Christ's disciples were thereafter under the law of Christ. I don't think the verse has anything to do with the cancellation of a debt. (Paidion, Apr 2)

'Nothing' to do with a cancellation? Then I guess the handwriting contained in the decree was 'not' against us? Or is it still?
The Law is not abolished unless we accept Christ’s 'death' was the penalty of the Law, in our place (which is what the dogma says).

If we do not believe Gods Word then we are still in our sins and under the decree and dogma of death.

The Law proved we could not keep it Law, that all men are sinners, and all are guilty.
The Laws condemnation of man was verified by men’s actions, and it proves Gods decree and judgment on man would be just. The decree and judgment on man is ‘death’ and destruction.
The Law condemned man and sin, and proved Gods judgments are just, valid and true.
The WORD, Gods Word, The Law of God, Moses and The Prophets, The Scriptures, are all One and the same. The Law of Christ is the consummation of all these and the Law of Christ is Gods WORD.

Gods Law, His Word, is truth. And what men tried to kill, Jesus, because they hated His Word, actually became Life to those who would believe His Word, and death to those who refused to believe His WORD.
Although His Word is death to some it is Life to those who believe, believe Gods Word that is.
If you believe Gods Word is ‘not’ Gods WORD, then you believe in ‘something’ that is not Gods Word, and thus you are not believing God.

[jriccitelli]

Steve, I think that translation is misleading. With what justification can δογμα (dogma) be translated as "debt"? (Paidion, Apr 1)

The idea of debt is certainly consistent with the sacrifices for atonement, as the animals and offerings the worshippers gave to the priests were not only possessions but they represented substantial monetary value, as would livestock and animals today. Especially to the common people who had not much else of value. The offerings did indeed have great value.

I looked through the verses quoted in Homers post earlier, this is the breakdown of the use of debt in the verses:

'And forgive (Aphiemi) us our debts (opheílēma), as we also have forgiven (Aphiemi) our debtors (opheilétēs) 13 And do not lead us into temptation’ (Matthew 6:12)
‘And forgive (Aphiemi) us our sins (hamartia), For we ourselves also forgive (Aphiemi) everyone who is indebted (Opheilo) to us. And lead us not into temptation’ (Luke 11:4)

Debts: 3783 opheílēma (a neuter noun) – the result of having a debt, focusing on the after-effect of the obligation (note the -ma suffix) (Debts Matt 6:12, Romans 4:4 also)
Debtors: 3781 opheilétēs (a masculine noun) – a debtor; someone under obligation to pay back (discharge) a debt.
3781 opheilétēs. Definition: a debtor, one who owes, one who is indebted, (b) one who has sinned against another (an Aramaism), a sinner (Matt 18:24, Luke 13:4, Romans 1:14, 8:12, 15:27, Gal 5:3 - Under obligation, indebted, debtors)
3781 opheilétēs: One who owes another, a debtor: properly, of one who owes another money (Plato, legg. 5, 736 d.; Plutarch; others); with a genitive of the sum due, Matthew 18:24. Metaphorically.
863 Aphiemi (Aphes): send away, release, remit, forgive, permit. Definition: (a) I send away, (b) I let go, release, permit to depart, (c) I remit, forgive, (d) I permit, suffer. (Luke 11:4)
3784 opheílō (a primitive verb, NAS dictionary) – to owe, be indebted, i.e. obliged to rectify a debt (ought to) (Luke 11:4, 16:5, 7, 17:10, 7:41, Matt 18:28, 30, 34, Matt 23:16, 18, Romans 13:8)
3784 opheílō ("owe") refers to being morally obligated (or legally required) to meet an obligation, i.e. to pay off a legitimate debt.
3784 opheílō "originally belonged to the legal sphere; it expressed initially one's legal and economic, and then later one's moral, duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men, or to their sacrosanct regulations. . . . opheílō expresses human and ethical responsibility in the NT"

'As I pondered it, I realized that the Aramaic verb for "forgiven" means exactly that. It means "forsake" in the literal sense, because in Aramaic to forgive a sin is to remit what you have coming to you in the sense of a debt. You're forsaking an obligation. Someone who holds a debt over someone else technically can collect that debt whenever he wishes. And if by dint of merciful circumstance he decides not to collect, he forsakes or abandons that right' (Old Testament professor Gary Anderson comment, from Homers post)
I think this is a great observation, the NT writers go out of their way to add the idea of indebtedness to the doctrine of forgiveness, and it was not general Greek thinking to equate sin with debt.

The idea of payment for sins is not inconsistent with this threads opening post, or the argument over whether Jesus had to be God in order to forgive us our sins, or atone for our sins, or pay the penalty due for sins. As we know Gods word tells us no man can pay for his own sins, nor can a man pay for the sins of another man, but God could because He is the only One to whom the debt was owed. No one but God could make a sacrifice that truly could pay such a debt. And nothing created had the worth or value in order to pay or cancel a debt because everything created is already in debt. Only God is without debt.

[steve7150]

because everything created is already in debt. Only God is without debt.









That's a really good thought JR.

[darinhouston]

'I love a good sermon, but responding to an intellectual curiosity with a sermon seems a bit condescending' (Darin)
It just reminds me of the Scripture, We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep' (Diz)

Many scriptures come to mind, but that was certainly relevant Dizerner! I love it when someone reaches into the scripture hat and pulls out a rabbit!

Playing a song when someone asks for bread is just pride and cruelty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jriccitelli]

So, I repeat my question... are there any Scriptural bases to suggest that man's sin is such a transgression that God Himself had to be the sacrifice? Not that a sacrifice was necessary, and not that Jesus had to die, but that the one to suffer and die MUST of necessity have been God Himself. (Darin, Mar 26)

If you want to know a scripture that exclaims how great our sin was here it is: “For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son” Giving His Son would exclaim how great our sins are, 'because' of who He is. “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” That exclaims Christ is God, as only God is just. And since this needed only to be done once, this suggests there would be no one greater, or a sin that was so great as His death. Just as God did not die, so no scripture is going to say that God needed to die, just as is not a ‘necessity’ that Jesus be God. But, if he is not, he is a blasphemer. That he died is simply a fact, what that means to you is your answer.

We gave you bread but you would not eat. The death of Christ is not an intellectual curiosity, and the cross is in fact a sermon. We made a number of good arguments, and we gave enough scriptures.

[TheEditor]

If you want to know a scripture that exclaims how great our sin was here it is: “For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son” Giving His Son would exclaim how great our sins are, 'because' of who He is. “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” That exclaims Christ is God, as only God is just. And since this needed only to be done once, this suggests there would be no one greater, or a sin that was so great as His death. Just as God did not die, so no scripture is going to say that God needed to die, just as is not a ‘necessity’ that Jesus be God. But, if he is not, he is a blasphemer. That he died is simply a fact, what that means to you is your answer.

We gave you bread but you would not eat. The death of Christ is not an intellectual curiosity, and the cross is in fact a sermon. We made a number of good arguments, and we gave enough scriptures.

Not so fast, JR. That's a little condescending of you. First of all, I read this thread from the beginning. It took Darin several posts before anyone got his question. I'm not saying my mind is any better than anyone else's (in fact, due to some health issues in the last several years, I have not as keen a mind as I did years ago), but I understood it right out of the gate. It really boiled down to whether or not there was any Scripture that stated the oft-repeated claim that only God's death could atone for man's sin. Darin got a lot of verses, but very few actually dealt with his question. In fact, this last comment of yours answers nothing and makes plenty of assertions. For instance, you write:

If you want to know a scripture that exclaims how great our sin was here it is: “For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son” Giving His Son would exclaim how great our sins are, 'because' of who He is.

The verse says nothing of the kind. It says that God gave His Son because of His love for man. It says nothing about sin.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” That exclaims Christ is God, as only God is just.

More conjecture. There are many that are "just", even prior to the atonement. Abraham comes to mind...

Just as God did not die, so no scripture is going to say that God needed to die

Okay.

We gave you bread but you would not eat. The death of Christ is not an intellectual curiosity, and the cross is in fact a sermon. We made a number of good arguments, and we gave enough scriptures.

You gave answers that were satisfying to you. That's fine. But don't take the tack that just because someone doesn't agree with your conclusions they are failing to 'take your bread'. Sounds a bit clerical. In summary, I guess it is agreed then that there is no Scripture that affirms the oft-repeated refrain mentioned in the question.

Regards, Brenden.