U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-28-2018, 02:12 PM
 
20,620 posts, read 9,952,570 times
Reputation: 1701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
That would be retribution or an eye for an eye, not redemption where one is freely forgiven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4 View Post
Seems to me your definition of ' eye for eye ' is vengeance instead of scripturally equally balancing the Scale of Justice.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life,etc. was that the punishment should fit the crime. Not go beyond justice.

Adam tipped or weighed down the balancing scale. We being imperfect can't balance the balancing scale.


Only a sinless person, as Adam started out, could be placed on the opposite side of the scale and balance the scale for us.

Jesus ransom was freely given (No one forced or made Jesus to what he did) - 1st John 1:17.
However, Not everyone will accept Jesus' ransom so that is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers 'MANY' and does Not say everyone. That is Not retribution, but justice for righteous ones - Matthew 25:37,40.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjw47 View Post
God is a God of justice. He applies justice to every dealing-Deut 32:4-- One is freely forgiven if they have repented--so repentance comes first which means its not free-The mortal must repent (first) to get forgiveness-Acts 3:19
Justice is that of a man paying for his own crimes, not merely for the sake of punishment itself (i.e., an eye for an eye). Rather, the focus is restorative, that of having the opportunity of rehabilitation in order to reconcile the offender back into the community. Whereas, vengeance is that of taking your anger or wrath out on someone for their offense which amounts to self-gratification or a feeling of temporary satisfaction.

You cannot balance the scale through that of crucifying the innocent, it does nothing to repair the damage or harm which has been done by the offender or perpetrator. It is his love, mercy and grace that focuses on the rehabilitation of the offender through that of forgiveness. As there is no love without forgiveness, and no forgiveness without love; for what power does love have, but that of forgiveness. His sacrifice was never about appeasing the anger or wrath of God, or paying the price for that which another man has sown. It was, and is about redeeming the offender through that of conciliation, after he has paid the price for his own thoughts, deeds and actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2018, 04:34 AM
 
1,382 posts, read 494,239 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
That would be retribution or an eye for an eye, not redemption where one is freely forgiven.

Apparently, one's forgiveness is limited to "forgive us as we forgive others" (Matthew 6:12). As for Justice, as one does to others, so shall be done to them.


New American Standard Bible Obadiah 1:15
"For the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2018, 12:25 PM
 
Location: New Zealand
4,339 posts, read 687,696 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndpillar View Post
Apparently, one's forgiveness is limited to "forgive us as we forgive others" (Matthew 6:12). As for Justice, as one does to others, so shall be done to them.


New American Standard Bible Obadiah 1:15
"For the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.
nations.... houses......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 07:05 AM
 
30 posts, read 4,650 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4 View Post
Right, I agree that Christ had yet to die for those people. They died before Jesus' died - John 3:13. Even King David does Not yet have a resurrection - Acts 2:34. That is why Acts 24:15 uses the ' future tense ' that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection.....' That future resurrection for those people will take place on Resurrection Day ( meaning Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth for a thousand years ). Take place Not in the heavens, but right here on Earth when the humble meek will inherit the Earth. The heavenly resurrection hope was only offered to those who died after Jesus died - Luke 22:28-30. They are the ones who can have that first or earlier resurrection of Rev. 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10. So, even John the Baptist who died before Jesus died will have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection - Matthew 11:11.
I agree there will be a future resurrection (John 5:28-29). And it will be on Earth (Psa 37:22). I don't agree that there is a resurrection in "heaven" in the sense it's not on Earth (John 5:28). Jesus said "ALL" in their graves will hear and this includes those dying after Christ died.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4 View Post
God created the law, but we choose whether we want to keep the law. We are all free to act responsibly toward God. Adam misused his freedom.
"Free will" is a subject for another day. However I'll just leave this subject today with these questions. What "choice" do those "appointed" to "being disobedient" have (1 Pet 2:8)? What choice do those predestined to condemnation (Jude 1:4) have? Who is it that directs man's steps (Pro 16:9; 20:24)? Who causes men to err (Isa 63:17; Mat 6:13)?

As for Adam:

Gen 2:17 has God telling Adam that he would die in the day he ate of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" (TKGE). At first glance, this appears to say that Adam would be immortal as long as he didn't eat from the TKGE. But notice a literal
translation of this verse:

YLT Genesis 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

Instead of God telling Adam he will die in the day he ate of the TKGE, He's saying by eating of the TKGE, "dying" he will die. If you have a KJV with the margin, you will see a note at this verse saying God is actually saying "dying you shalt die."

As I understand it, a person of God can only be in one of two states while existing physically. One is the state of "life." The other is the state of "death." Unfortunately whenever we "Christians" see those words in the Bible we tend to equate them to our physical existence. But what did Christ mean when he told one of His disciples, "let the dead bury the dead (Mat 8:22)?" What did Paul mean when he said, "...she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth (1 Tim 5:6)?

Paul explains it thusly:

KJV Ephesians 2:1 And you...were dead in trespasses and sins;

KJV Ephesians 2:5...we were dead in sins...

So, we see that living in sin is the same as being "dead." Can we equate the TKGE to death? I think so. Because partaking of it puts one in the "dying" or "death" category (Gen 2:17). This also would contrast with the Tree of Life (TL).

When Adam disobeyed God and "ate" of the TKGE, was he obeying something other than God? If he was then wouldn't it stand to reason he was breaking the First Commandment? I believe I can show how Adam broke all ten of the Commandments of God, but will not do that here. Therefore Adam was sinning because sin is breaking the Commandments of God (1 John 3:4) and he clearly did that.

Since obeying God gives one the right to the TL (Rev 22:14) and obedience to God is life (Pro 13:14), the way of the TL (Gen 3:24) is the Law of God. And since partaking of the TKGE results in death (Gen 2:17) and sin is disobedience to God (1 John 3:4) and sin results in death (Rom 6:23) then the TKGE must represent death.

So, when Adam partook of the TKGE, he didn't physically die that day. I'm sure you've seen how some try to explain this by saying a day to God is like a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8). But I don't think this what is meant here. The day that Adam partook of the TKGE, he didn't just sin. He "chose" to live in sin.

This means if Adam had not eaten of the TKGE, he would have still physically died, but instead of dying he died, it would have been LIVING he died. God's way is LIFE (Deut 30:15). This was the same situation in the garden. The "choice" of the way of life vs. the way of death. So the "death" that was foisted upon Adam's lineage was not physical death, but a way of "living" that was the way of death.

Remember when God gave His Law to Israel, He said, "I have set before you life and death... choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" (Deu 30:19). If they had chosen LIFE would they have lived forever physically? Of course not! I believe God removed Adam from the Garden in order to cause him to repent and change his ways and to prevent him from turning God's people into lukewarm by mixing the Tree of Life with the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:22; 1 Kings 18:21; Rev 3:16).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 07:41 AM
 
30 posts, read 4,650 times
Reputation: 17
I realize this post is very long, but it seemed, since this would be the last exchange according to Mike I needed to elaborate as to why I believe as I do. I apologize for the length.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13),
The "curse of the Law" spoken of here is the forbidding of a divorced woman from remarrying her former spouse (Deut 24:5). God gave the House of Israel a written bill of divorcement (Jer 3:8). He also gave the House of Judah, that was sold into Assyrian captivity a bill of divorcement (Isa 50:1). The written bills of divorcement are in Hosea 1. So most of Israel had been divorced by God and could not come back into a covenantal or marriage relationship with God because they were defiled (Deut 24:4). They were outside the Covenant of God with no way to get back in. That's why Christ came. To redeem His people (Mat 1:21; Luke 1:68).

What Christ's death did was create a new covenant that allowed His people to be cleansed (Acts 10:15; 11:9; 1 John 1:7-9). This would allow God to remarry His people as He had promised (Hosea 2:19-20). What was nailed to the cross were the divorce decrees God gave the House of Israel and most of the House of Judah. The death of Christ (YHWH) set the divorced free from the Law that would not allow God to remarry her (Rom 7:1-4). This is the curse of the Law Christ redeemed His people from. With His introducing the NC they now were free to remarry God as God promised would happen (Hosea 1:10-11; 2:19-20; Rom 9:3-5, 24-26).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
from the penalty/wages of sin which is death (Romans 6:23) [spiritual death/separation from God]. ],
This verse says nothing of Christ paying the price for anyone's sin. What it says is unrepented sin leads to death. Repented sin is forgiven and has no sting (1 Cor 15:55-56; 1 John 1:9). This was not a form of paying the price of anyone's sin. It was the result of Christ making the NC possible by His death. This is the salvation spoken of by the angel of the Lord (Jesus) to Joseph (Mat 1:21). As mentioned the divorced Israelites had no way to have their sins forgiven because they were outside a covenantal relationship with God.

Therefore they were dead in their sins (Eph 2:5). However, once Christ "the way (John 14:6) prepared "the way" of salvation for his people (Mat 1:21) by redeeming or buying them back (Luke 1:68) they still had to repent (Acts 2:38) in order to have their sins forgiven. Christ didn't pay the price for their sins, but via of the NC He made it possible for them to be forgiven by giving them the knowledge or understanding that they could now have their sins forgiven (Luke 1:77).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The purchase price was His blood which is a metaphor for His spiritual death on the cross. There was a price to be paid. Jesus paid that price by dying on the cross, paying the price for our sins.
There is sin, which is the breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4). There is repentance, which is turning from sin (Eze 14:6; 18:30). And there is forgiveness which is having the penalty of sin removed (Pro 28:13; Isa 55:6; 59:20; Eze 18:27-30). If a person is forgiven his sin there is no penalty to pay. We know that Abraham was not counted as a sinner because he kept God's Law (Gen 26:5). Abraham died before the Old Covenant (OC) was implemented on Sinai. Therefore his righteousness (Rom 4:3) was not dependant upon animal sacrifice or its substitution.

The animal sacrifices as sin offerings (Lev 4 & 5) were not instituted until the Old Covenant was agreed upon by Israel and God (Ex 19:8; Jer 7:22). The animal sacrifice of the OC is what is known in the New Covenant (NC) as "the works/deeds of the law" or OC and the Ten Commandments is the Law of Faith (Rom 3:27). The works of the Law were added so the sinner could "acknowledge" his sin (Rom 3:19-20). The forgiveness of God in the OC was genuine and complete (Lev 5:17-18).

Yes, there was a price to be paid because of Israel's sins but that didn't come into play until Israel was divorced by God and sold into slavery. We know that God divided the Kingdom of Israel into two houses, Judah and Israel (2 Chron 11:1-4). He later divorced the House of Israel (Jer 3:8). He also divorced most of the House of Judah (2 Kings 18:13). Those of the House of Judah in Jerusalem were spared (2 Kings 18:35). Therefore all 12 tribes of Israel was sold into Assyrian captivity and divorced by
God. It was later that those in Jerusalem were taken, but not sold into Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:10-12).

The remnant of the House of Judah were now God's people alone. Everyone else had been divorced by God. God divorced the House of Israel, but kept a remnant of the House of Judah (Hosea 1:5-7). But do notice that The KINGDOM of the House of Israel was to CEASE (Hos 1:4). Those Israelites who were sold into slavery were the only ones that needed to be bought back or redeemed. Until then there was no reason for Israel to be redeemed (Isa 52:3). God was quite capable of forgiving their sins before and during the OC. It wasn't a temporary forgiveness. It was authentic, complete and forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
This does not say anyone's sin was paid for. It says a people was bought. What people was Christ to buy back or redeem? His people (Luke 1:64)! Who were His people for whom He came ONLY? Israel (Mat 15:24)! Who was to be many nations? Israel (Gen 35:11; Isa 41:8; Eze 37:22)! The next verse says:

KJV Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

To whom did God say that? Israel (Ex 19:6)! What people was sealed in the book to which the verse you gave? Israel (Rev 7:4)! The Greek word translated "tribes" in this verse could also be translated "nations." The number 144,000 is symbolic of complete perfection of the government of Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus bore our sins in His own body on the cross. The reason for bearing our sins was to be judged for those sins in our place. Jesus gave His life, meaning that He died for us as our substitute.
I must disagree that "bearing" or "having bore" something is not synonymous with paying the price of something. The Greek word translated "bear/bare" in Heb 9:28 and 1 Pet 2:14 is "anaphero." It is defined by Strong's as "to take up." I do agree that Christ did bare, take up or carry the sins of Israel by dying. Not to pay the price, but to make way for the NC so they could work repentence for their own sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Mark 10:45 states the following.
Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for (??t?; anti) many."
The Greek word avnti which is translated into English as 'for' has the primary meaning of 'instead of,' 'in place of.' It denotes substitution. Jesus gave His life in our place, as our substitute.
"Instead of" is a secondary meaning according to Thayer/BDB which defines that word as:

G473 avnti, anti {an-tee'}
a primary particle; TDNT - 1:372,61; prep
AV - for 15, because + 3639 4, for ... cause 1, therefore + 3639 1, in the room of 1; 22
1) over against, opposite to, before 2) for, instead of, in place of (something) 2a) instead of 2b) for 2c) for that, because 2d) wherefore, for this cause

It has been translated "for" the most by far and never "instead of" in the NT, but it is translated "instead of" or "in place of" many times in the English translation of the LXX. However Mark 10:45 would not qualify for those two options because Jesus would have to actually be exchanged which would make those redeemed now sinless and Christ a sinner. However if Christ's death made a NC with them, they could be forgiven their sins and Christ would not be taking their place making Him a sinner and putting evil in and taking good out of Israel which is the opposite of the intention of the Law of God (Deut 17:2-7).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
He born our sins in His own body (1 Peter 2:24), tasting death for every man (Hebrews 2:9).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19] but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
Redemption has to do with Jesus paying the price for our sins with His blood. The very thing that you are denying.
Redemption does not mean paying the price in the stead of another. Redemption means to buy back something. In this case divorced Israel was sold and bought back. (Isa 52:3). If their sins were paid for, why would Peter tell the redeemed Israelites to repent and be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:36-38)? According to your understanding there would be no sin to be forgiven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The Levitical animal sacrifices could only cover sin, and they were not a permanent solution to the sin problem. Those animal sacrifices were pictures of the future redemptive work that Jesus would do on the cross. The writer of the book of Hebrews states that the animal sacrifices had to be continually offered year after year and that they could not make perfect those under the law, and that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. On the other hand, Jesus died once for all and perfected all who are sanctified. (Hebews 10:1-18).
The concept in Isaiah 53 of the suffering servant paying the price for our sins is clear in that he is said to offer himself as a guilt offering, be pierced through for our transgressions, bear the sins of many and intercede for the transgressors.

It's a poor argument to say that because the words ''to pay the price'' don't appear that the concept is not there.

Any sin is deserving of spiritual death, but under the Mosaic Law not all sin called for capital punishment. The animal sacrifices were meant to illustrate the serious of sin. The fact that in some cases, such as in Leviticus 5:11 where a person didn't have the means to provide two turtledoves or two young pigeons, he could offer fine flour doesn't change the fact that animal sacrifices were done under the Mosaic law for sin offerings.

As has already been shown from the Bible, Jesus did die to pay the price, to redeem us from the curse of the law, from the penalty of sin. And Isaiah 53 clearly shows the suffering servant offering himself and interceding for others and dying.

Deuteronomy 24:16 has to do with the issue of crime and punishment under the Mosaic law. A person was responsible for his own actions under the law. This has nothing to do with God's plan to provide a Savor to come into the world and die for the sins of the world. Scriptural references that Jesus did die for our sins have been given.

From the beginning of human history anyone who believed the promise of God regarding the future Messiah was forgiven for their sins. That faith looked forward to the future coming of the Savior. Jesus, knowing that He was going to go to the cross to die for their sins, was able to forgave the sins of those who expressed faith in Him,

At the Last Supper Jesus said that the wine represented His blood which was to be poured out for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Again, Isaiah 53 answers that question. Both Jesus and the apostle Philip said that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus. See Luke 22:37 and Acts 8:26:35.

It wasn't lawful for the Jews to put anyone to death because Judea was under Roman rule which forbade them to use capital punishment.

You've already been shown that your statement simply isn't true. I'm not going to repeat what I've posted above.

It was Jesus' spiritual death on the cross while He was still physically alive that paid the penalty for our sins. Because Jesus is both God and man, his death as a man had infinite value. The separation that Jesus endured while he was bearing our sins on the cross from noon to 3 pm satisfied the justice of the Father and secured eternal salvation for all who simply place their faith in Christ. By the way, it was his humanity that died. Not his deity. He died as a man, not as God.

Jesus died both spiritually and physically on the cross. His spiritual death involved the separation from the Father that he endured while being judged for our sins. That is what paid the penalty for our sins. Once his redemptive work had been accomplished he then died physically.

God used both the Jews and the Romans to put Jesus on the cross where in accordance to the Father's plan he needed to be in order to die for our sins.
Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to eath.
Jesus died for all men. Not just for Israel. And the only reason God can forgive sin is because all sin was judged at the cross where Jesus bore our sins in His own body. It was on the cross where Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and redeemed us.

And that is all the time I am going to spend on this. I've stated the issue clearly enough. Jesus died for our sins in order to redeem us from the curse of the law by paying the wages of sin; by taking the penalty of our sin on Himself.
Nothing in the Bible says "animal sacrifices" only covered sin and weren't a permanent solution. The Bible is clear that sins were forgiven under the OC. Animal sacrifices weren't symbolic of dying in the sinner's stead. As I have pointed out, not all sins required the death penalty. The sacrifices were to cost the sinner in order to make them acknowledge their sin (Rom 3:20).

No blood, including Christ's can forgive sin. It's just not possible. Blood is an inanimate object. It has no power in and of itself. If no one had repented and was baptized, then would any sin have been forgiven? I mean His blood would have still be shed, but if no one obeyed Acts 2:38 would there have been forgiveness?

We're told, in the Bible, that the OC had provision for the forgiveness of sin (Lev 5:17-18). Now either that passage is true or it's not! That's how John the Baptist's parents walked blameless in the law (Luke 1:5-6). Yet we know they had to have sinned. But if they were blameless they had to have their sins forgiven.

No the blood of these animals did not give the forgiveness. It was God. But the forgiveness was dependant upon obeying God and presenting the proper sacrifice properly. We must understand this letter named "Hebrews" is to Hebrews or Israelites if you will. It's to no one else. In Hebrews we have the NC. And that NC is with Israel ONLY (Heb 8:8-10). And as that passage clearly shows, these Israelites are physical Israelites. Do you see the covenant as spoken of in Heb 8:8-10 or Jer 31:31-33 being with anyone else? If so, please explain.

After mentioning the NC, the author begins to speak about the "Old" or "First" Covenant (Heb 9:1). He explains a bit about the OC and how the Tabernacle was setup (Heb 9:2-6). Then in v. 7 we're told that the high priest entered the inner room once a year to offer the sacrifice for the atonement of the nation. This action was symbolic that the way to the "Most Holy" was not found until as long as the first Tabernacle stood illustrating that the offerings themselves did nothing for the "conscience" because they mere rituals until the time of rectification (v.v. 8-10).

In v.v. 11-14 the author tells of NC which is by Christ and through that NC the Hebrews would have their "conscience" purged from "dead works." We have to take this in the context of Hebrews. It's to Hebrews and it says that the NC is with Hebrews. And now we see for some reason Christ had to come in order to purge the conscience of some Hebrews so they could serve God.

The question is now why couldn't some Hebrews serve God? We find some hints in v. 15. We're told that Christ came to make a new covenant for the "redemption" of sins under the Old Covenant. Now think about this for a moment. This verse does not say that the New Covenant was to be made with anyone except Hebrews and for the "redemption" of sins that were under the OC. Now who was under the OC? Non-Israelites? I don't think so! What does the word "redemption" mean? It means "ransom." And "ransom" means to buy something back.

Who does the Bible say would be bought back or redeemed? Israel (Isa 52:3). This is about the divorce of Israel from God (Jer 3:8). As the Law would not allow a husband to remarry a former spouse, Israel was without God in the world (Hos 3:4) with no way to get back in. But we're told that even though God was no longer the God of the House of Israel, there would come a time when she would once again be His wife forever and rejoined with the House of Judah under one King (Hos 1:9-11).

This is where Christ comes in and the need for the NC. The author says this new covenant would require the death of the testator (v. 16). The OC did not require the death of the testator. This covenant covered those that were "dead" and required the testator to die (v. 17).

Then the author goes back to discussing the first covenant and how Moses dedicated it with blood (v.v. 18 - 21). Now please notice a very important point made in v. 22. The author says of the First Covenant, "...almost all things are by the law purged with blood..." This is very important. Almost all things are purged or cleaned by the sacrificial law. Since almost but not all things were cleansed by the law, what do you suppose wasn't? The redemption of the sins under the First Covenant!

Now in v. 23 we see another very important statement! "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly thingsthemselves with better sacrifices than these." The author is saying because something wasn't covered under the physical sacrificial law of works, it was necessary that a better sacrifice be offered because the sacrificial law could not cleanse or purify the sins of divorced Israel because she was no longer in a covenantal relationship with God which required Him to be married to her, but the Law prevented it. So there had to be a better sacrifice! That's where Christ comes into the picture!

Verses 24-28 tell of this sacrifice by Christ. Please do notice in v. 28 that His sacrifice was for "many", not the entire globe. And remember this is a redemption of sins under the First Covenant! And remember that only Israel had the Law (Psalm 147:19-20) and God knew only Israel (Amos 3:1-2). This new covenant could not be for anyone but Israel. Think about it! If God had wanted to make the whole globe His people, He needed only to make a covenant with them as He did Israel at Sinai. That covenant required no death of any person. For Christ to have to die to pay the price of sins, when provision was already made in the OT would make Christ's death in vain.

Then in the next verse (Heb 10:1) we're told that Christ's death was necessary because the law of works of the First Covenant could not redeem the sins of the First Covenant. In the KJV the word "comers" is used to describe the people spoken of in this verse. In the NASB, the same Greek word is translated "draw near." Who would be drawn near by Christ's sacrifice? Those Israelites that were afar off. Daniel speaks of them:

(Dan 9:7 KJV) "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto ALL ISRAEL, that are near, and THAT ARE FAR OFF, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, BECAUSE OF THEIR TRESPASS THAT THEY HAVE TRESPASSED AGAINST THEE."

If you will notice the Israelites that were afar off were scattered, diasporaed, into other countries because of their sins. This is the divorce of Israel spoken of by Jeremiah (Jer 3:8). They were sold into slavery to other nations.

These were the people being drawn near! Paul shows this in his letter to the Galatians when he states Christ died to redeem those under the Law:

(Gal 4:4-5 KJV) "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, {5} TO REDEEM THEM THAT WERE UNDER THE LAW, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

This can apply to no one but redeemed Israel. Only Israel was sold and only Israel can be redeemed as redemption means to buy back. For something to have been lost, it must have been had before it was lost else it was never lost. You can't lose something you don't have. And Israel was lost (Mat 15:24). The non-Israelites were never lost because they were not God's ever before. Therefore they could not be redeemed.

That's why Paul says this to those Israelites at Ephesus:

(Eph 2:13-18 KJV) "BUT NOW IN CHRIST JESUS YE WHO SOMETIMES WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. {14} For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; {15} Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; {16} And that HE MIGHT RECONCILE BOTH UNTO GOD IN ONE BODY BY THE CROSS, HAVING SLAIN THE ENMITY THEREBY: {17} AND CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHICH WERE AFAR OFF, AND TO THEM THAT WERE NIGH. {18} FOR THROUGH HIM WE BOTH HAVE ACCESS BY ONE SPIRIT UNTO THE FATHER."

This is the fulfilling of Hosea 1:9-11. This is why Paul quoted that very passage in Rom 9:25-26. Now in the next verse (Heb 10:2) we're told if the OC had been able to cleanse these divorced Israelites, that Covenant would not have ceased.

In v.v. 3-4 the author tells us that it was not possible for these sacrifices to redeem these people. The reason being is because the Law would not allow them to be remarried to God. Therefore the need for a new covenant with Israel by God.

Reading the remainder of ch. 10 we see that God made a new covenant to write His Law on the hearts of these people (v. 16). Checking whom these people are we see they are Israelites (Heb 8:8-10). That's why the blood of bulls and goats failed in this case. It wasn't because forgiveness was not available under the OC, it was because Israel was out from under a covenantal relationship with God with no way back in. And that's why Christ died.

Christ was the sacrificial Lamb of Passover. It was symbolic of the blood of Christ when they took the blood and put it over their households. By taking that blood death, has no hold on you. The blood of the Passover lamb in the Exodus did not forgive any sins. Nor did the lamb die in the stead of the Israelites. It was symbolic of who were the people of God and it was a shadow of what was to come in Christ. It symbolized the redeeming of Israel from sin (Egypt). It didn't give the people eternal life, but it redeemed them from sin in order that they may follow God and keep His Laws. The same thing is what Christ did in the NT:

(Psa 106:9-10 KJV) "He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness. {10} And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy."

I have enjoyed the exchange and I appreciate your hard work presenting your rebuttal. I truly believe iron sharpens iron (Pro 27:17).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA
15,829 posts, read 12,350,695 times
Reputation: 16839
Um, wow, brnd......impressive!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 01:19 PM
 
Location: New Zealand
4,339 posts, read 687,696 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn View Post
Um, wow, brnd......impressive!!!
I agree ... awesome post brndnms
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 01:37 PM
 
Location: equator
3,680 posts, read 1,615,482 times
Reputation: 9165
I always thought heaven was up in the air somewhere. Somehow I never learned in church that it will be right here on earth. A new heaven brought down to a new earth. I find that consoling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 01:42 PM
 
Location: New Zealand
4,339 posts, read 687,696 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand&Salt View Post
I always thought heaven was up in the air somewhere. Somehow I never learned in church that it will be right here on earth. A new heaven brought down to a new earth. I find that consoling.
Yes, me too .... the will of God being done on earth as it is in heaven is what we are told to pray for
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2019, 01:45 PM
 
Location: equator
3,680 posts, read 1,615,482 times
Reputation: 9165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn View Post
Um, wow, brnd......impressive!!!
Longest post EVAH, in C-D. I admire those who could wade through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top