It Bears Repeating...

by AGuest 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

  The phrase in bold actually says that "god set forth (pro-te'-tha-me) Christ to be a propitiation (he-lä-sta'-re-on) through faith in his blood."
  
  Faith in his bloody sacrifice as a fulfillment of the Atonement day ritual is what leads to righteousness with god. It was on that day that the High Priest confessed the sins of the nation over the head of a goat and then cut its throat and offered its blood in the Most Holy. A second goad, the goat for Azazel or scapegoat, was chased off into the wilderness.
  
  It was not simply that god knew the method that the Romans would use to kill Jesus, the shedding of Jesus' blood was an essential requirement for the forgiveness of sin.
  
  Now lets take a closer look at the two Greek words I have highlighted above.
  
  According to Strong's lexicon pro-te'-tha-me means "to set forth to be looked at, to expose to view; to expose to public view; of the bodies of the dead"
  
  It was common practice in the ancient world to leave the bodies of executed criminals exposed to public view as a warning to others. Paul uses precisely this imagery in describing what god did to Jesus. It was not the Romans or the Jews who made a public spectacle of Jesus' broken and bloody body it was god himself.
  
  Further, according to Paul, the purpose of this gruesome scene is to act as a propitiation - he-lä-sta'-re-on. Again according to Strong this word was used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory.
  
  In summary the picture that Paul presents is that of the wrath of an angry god appeased by the sight of Jesus bloody body hung on the cross.
• 

  tec

  I didn't mean to come off as harsh as I sounded in that above post, Cofty. Sorry. Though I do stand by what I said.

  Tammy
• 

  trevor

  AGuest, thank you for your expanded explanation of your being a slave of Christ. The confusion centers on the understanding of the word slave. You choose to follow Christ but are free to leave if you choose.

  Slavery involves the loss of the freedom to choose to stay or leave. That is the privilege of servants or those that have won their freedom. To follow Christ is understandable but to be a slave of Christ infers a lack of choice.

  Being a king or a priest of Christ could appeal to appeal to my ego but the idea of slavery scares me. I guess I am just made of the wrong stuff.

  Your humble servant Trevor
• 

  tec

  Cofty -

  Christ did not have to die, in the sense that God ordered it and had Him beaten. Christ could have called on an army of angels to stop his execution. People could have chosen to leave Him be, instead of dragging Him off to be beaten and executed.

  Christ also did for us what we have been and/or are unable to do. He remained faithful to God, even to death, and carried the weakness/wrongdoings of those He loved - making amends for them with His own actions. Like saying, "Let me carry their sins, and let me make the amends that they are unable to make for themselves." (Like say you have two friends and you love them both... one friend owes the other a debt and you KNOW that for whatever reason -weakness or whatever - that friend is unable to pay the debt, so you pay it for him. Out of love for him.)

  He could have also refused. He could have left us on our own. God gave Him the authority to do whatever He wanted, but just because knew that His Son would remain faithful and act in love and mercy, and also knew that men would beat, betray and kill Him... does not mean that God took away free will and made all of those things happen, Himself.

  But because Christ came, we can SEE God through Him. Because Christ came and died, we can have confidence that He loves us, because there is no greater love than if a man lay down his life for his friends. If we trust Him, then we can also follow His example and NOT fear death (or beatings, including verbal ones), especially not for remaining faithful to Him and God.

  Tammy
• 

  cofty

  That's Ok Tammy, but I have explained fully why I said what I did above. It is the real heart of the gospel message according to Paul devoid of all the evangelical platitudes that he would not have recognised.

  Truth is I am a bit of a geek on the bible's teaching regarding the work of Christ and how it contrasts with WT nonsense. What I said was not pretty but it is 100% biblical. I understand why you find it unpalatable.
• 

  MrFreeze

  poppers, in that case nobody will ever be free.
• 

  tec

  We keep posting at the same time, lol.

  But I kind of tend to care more about the gospel message according to Christ over Paul.

  One might consider that even Peter said that many twist and misunderstand the things that Paul wrote in his letters.

  Tammy
• 

  cofty

  I take your point but the repeating motif of the scarificial nature of Jesus' death being necessary for god's forgiveness is inescapable
• 

  tec

  Yes, it is - but it is the meaning and nature of that sacrifice that I think people misunderstand (and that I have also not understood at all until recently).

  Christ also did for us what we have been and/or are unable to do. He remained faithful to God, even to death, and carried the weakness/wrongdoings of those He loved - making amends for them with His own actions. Like saying, "Let me carry their sins, and let me make the amends that they are unable to make for themselves." (Like say you have two friends and you love them both... one friend owes the other a debt and you KNOW that for whatever reason -weakness or whatever - that friend is unable to pay the debt, so you pay it for him. Out of love for him.)

  Not a tit for tat. Something much deeper, born of love. (For us and for His Father)

  Tammy
• 

  cofty

  OK but "payment of debt" is a euphemism for bloody violent death that god required as a vicarious punishment.

  Its like the way people try to avoid saying that somebody has died, they use so many odd euphemisms instead. Likewise Jesus is said to have been a ransom and to have carried our sin and to have been an atonement etc etc. The reality is that god required his bloody death in the same way he required Israel to offer the blood of thousands of animals to appease his wrath at sin.

  God decided that " without shedding of blood is no remission." God "set forth" Jesus' bloody and broken body on the cross. Its an ugly story not a beautiful one as I used to beleive