TK
I have heard you say this before [that Jesus death is what makes righteousness possible], and i dont think i disagree, but can you elucidate what it was about Christ's death on the cross that makes righteousness possible?
I cannot give a definitive answer as to how Christ’s death makes righteousness possible. But then, can those who think Christ’s death is necessary in order to receive forgiveness, explain how forgiveness is made possible through His death? I know they can state their idea that it is somehow a payment made to the Father (some say that the payment is made to the devil) for our sins so that we don’t have to pay for them, and this they call “justice”. But that still doesn’t explain why His death was necessary in order that sinners might be forgiven. Why could He not have made the required “payment” in some other way?
I, myself, have wondered why Christ’s death was necessary to give us the enabling grace that we need. But the scriptures don’t seem to reveal the reason. However they definitely tell us that the
reason for His death is that we might leave the self-life behind, and live a life of submission to Christ, and to His words, as in the scriptures I quoted from my last post.
However, I do have a thought about it. (This may be entirely incorrect). It seems that Jesus was born on this earth in order to identify with us. There are 82 verses in the NT which record that He called Himself “the son of man”, whereas there no
direct reference to His calling Himself “the son of God”. In one verse He stated that He had called Himself the son of God (John 10:36) and in one verse He admitted that He was the son of God (Luke 22:70).
Just as Christ identified Himself with humanity by being born human, it may be that He identified with humanity by dying, just as a human being dies. So somehow
His dying enables us to die self. It seems that our Lord Jesus taught this very thing:
And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who discounts his life in this world will keep it for aeonian life. John 12:23-25
Our Lord seems to give a double application to the figure of a grain of wheat falling into the earth and dying. The first application is to His own death. After His resurrection, He is glorified and “bears much fruit”. The second application is to His disciples. If they die to the self-life, they will have that permanent (aeonion) life, and will bear much fruit.
To sum up, it seems that Christ had to die so that His disciples could die to the self-life and come alive to a life of righteousness and service to Christ. I know this doesn’t give a satisfactory explanation of the logistics, but neither do the substitutionary-atonement advocates give a satisfactory explanation of the relationship between Christ’s death and forgiveness.
ELY
Just as sins were able to be forgiven before Jesus' death (see Todd's post), so also, people were able to be righteous ("Tsaddiyq" in the Hebrew and "Dikaios" in the Greek) before Jesus' death. Jesus himself said that many before him were righteous (Mat 23:35). Such people include Abel (1 John 3:12), the patriarchs Noah (Gen 6:9) and Abraham (Gen 15:6), Lot (!) (2 Peter 2:7-8 ) all the way up to both of John the Baptist's parents (Luke 1:5-6), and Jesus' step-father Joseph (Mat 1:19).
I notice you placed an exclamation point after “Lot”. I can guess the reason. When you read the account of Lot in the OT, you would never guess that he was “righteous”. We never would have known it, if it were not written in 2 Peter.
It seems to me that there was a lower standard of righteousness among God’s people “under the law”. Another example is the “man after God’s heart”, King David. He committed adultery with Bathsheba. Surely he was not sexually deprived as he already had many wives (Was it 8?). But worse, he also murdered Bathsheba’s husband.
The lower standard of righteousness seems to come out in that God never reprimanded a man for having several wives, or for copulating with his female slaves or even with prostitutes. But under the new order in Christ, an overseer or the church or a deacon was to be “the husband of one wife” as well as meeting other strict requirements.
God tolerated other things among the Hebrews, too, of which He did not approve. They wanted a king like other nations. God was disappointed: “You would not have Me to rule over you,” but He allowed it, and even told them whom to choose.
They wanted a temple for their God as other nations had for their gods. So God allowed it and even instructed Solomon how to build it. But God made it clear that He had not initially asked them to build such a structure:
1 Chronicles 17:6 In all places where I have moved with all Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"
God also tolerated their offering appeasing sacrifices to Him as other nations did to their gods. Later, He even gave them the details as how to do it. But He didn’t want sacrifices, but obedience.
The following passage is quoted in Hebrews 10:5 as being the words of the Son to His Father:
Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.
God does not want appeasing sacrifices, but obedience. He gives an open ear to hear his words, that they might be obeyed.
ELY’s signature
"there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all." 1 Timothy 2:5-6
It is important to understand that “ransom” in the New Testament, not only refers to a price paid to buy something back, but also to deliverance. For example:
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. I Peter 1:18,19
The idea here is that the precious blood of Christ was a means of
delivering them from the futile ways of their fathers. How could the other meaning of “ransom” apply here? I can understand paying a ransom to the devil (although the very idea gives the devil way too much recognition), in order to free those captivated by the devil. But how would Jesus pay a ransom to “the futile ways inherited from your fathers”?
Another consideration is that a ransom is paid
in place of the person being ransomed. But Paul did not use the preposition “anti” (in place of), but “huper” (for the benefit of). Thus the One Mediator gave himself as a means of deliverance for the benefit of all. How can all be benefited? When people repent (have a change of mind and heart) and become disciples of Christ, having died to the self life and having begun to live in submission to Christ, they are empowered by the enabling grace of God which has been made available by means of the sacrifice of Christ.
In keeping with the Greek text, the passage you quoted could be, and as I see it, should be, translated like this:
[God our Saviour] wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of reality. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and humanity, the human being, Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a means of deliverance on behalf of all … I Timothy 2:4-6
Jesus was a mediator (a means of communication) between God and man, so that man could understand what God wanted from man (righteousness). By giving Himself in death, Christ provided the means whereby man might attain to righteousness.
All of the references to Christ dying “for” us or “for” our sins use either the Greek word “huper” (for the benefit of, on behalf of) or “peri” (concerning) put never “anti” (instead of).
Nevertheless there are two references which speak of “the son of man who gave his life as a ransom for many” in which the word “anti” (instead of) is used ---- “who gave his life as a ransom
instead of many”
Because of the way we have all been taught, we assume that “gave his life” refers to Jesus’ death. I know I assumed that for most of my life. But how could Jesus use the past tense --- that he
gave His life, when He had not yet died? I’m sure we could come up with all sorts of rationalizations: “He was speaking prophetically” or “He call those things which be not as though they were” (Romans 4:17 AV). However, if we look at the context, I think we can see that Jesus was not talking about His death at all!
Now Jesus calling them forward said, “You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over the and those who are great have authority over them. Not so is it among you, but whoever wants to become foremost among you, will be your servant, just as he son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a means of deliverance instead of many.
Clearly Jesus is talking about the fact that He (the son of man) gave up his self-life (the idea of being served by others) in order to serve others as a means to deliver them from their needful state including their sicknesses, while He yet lived here on earth. Throughout the gospels there are many occasions of His having served others in these ways. But in what sense did He do this
instead of others or
in the place of others? My thought is that they were unable to cure their own diseases or to meet their own needs, and so Jesus did it for them, did these deed
in place of their own efforts.
You might say that, though I don’t believe in the substitutionary
death of Christ, I do believe, because of these words of our Lord, in the substitutionary
life of Christ.
Steve7150
If God could simply forgive sins i think the whole sacrifice system starting with the tabernacle would be unnecessary.
It was unnecessary in any case. God simply put up with it. What He really wanted was their obedience.
i think "justice" is a character trait that must be satisfied in God and this law of justice can not be compromised by God yet somehow God deemed it possible for Jesus to step in as mankind's substitute.
So sacrificing His innocent Son and subjecting Him to horrible torture,
satisfied His sense of justice!!? That seems contrary to justice as I understand it. Justice is done when the guilty are punished, and the innocent vindicated. I recommend reading George MacDonald’s chapter entitled “Justice” in
Unspoken Sermons Series III
jeff-s
without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, so he had to die.
The book of Hebrews contrasts the old sacrificial system under the law, with the new order under Christ. God went along with the Hebrews’ desire to sacrifice to their God as the heathen did to their gods, even to the extent of forgiving their sins. This passage does not express a universal truth, but is a reference to the way the Hebrew sacrificial system worked. Let’s look at this text in its context:
Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."
And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:18-26
EPH 1
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
The Greek word “aphesis” is the nounal form of the verb “aphiāmi”. One of the primary meanings of this verb is “to leave” or “to forsake” or “to release” and the other is “to permit”. Only later did the word take on the additional meaning “to forgive”.
My method of translating is that where the verb does not obviously mean “permit”, then I check to see whether the context makes sense in translating it as “leave” or “forsake”. I don’t translate it as “forgive” except where the context requires it.
The nounal form “aphesis” does not make sense if it is always translated as “forgiveness” as in your quote of Ephesians 1:7
For example Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1. Luke quoted this quote from the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah.
Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which he has anointed me to evangelize the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives and sight to the blind, to send away in
release those who are oppressed.
No translation has “forgiveness” for “aphesis” in this verse! Most of them use “release” or some similar word. Jesus would not proclaim
forgiveness to the captives, at least not if they were imprisoned unjustly. And he would certainly not send away the oppressed in
forgiveness. It was the oppressors that needed forgiveness (if they repented) not the oppressed.
I suggest that the words “the forgiveness of our trespasses” should not be the translation of the expression “tān aphesin tōn parap tōmatōn” but rather “the forsaking of our trespasses” or “the leaving of our trespasses” or perhaps” the sending away of our trespasses.” This is consistent with the scriptures I quoted in my last post which give the purpose for Christ’s sacrificial death for our benefit.
May our precious Lord be with you all in your search for truth and reality!
With love in the Altogether Lovely One,
