-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Death FOR Sin
- Thread starter Anthony Pritchard
- Start date
- Status
Christ Himself is indeed the Propitiation for the sins of the Whole World.
My point is "the Just for the unjust" does not define redemption.
The Just redeemed the unjust. You still leave "redemption" as some abstract thing. You never defined it.
KenH
Well-Known Member
To redeem someone is to accomplish their redemption.
In order for redemption to take place, there must be a redeeming.
As usual, you miss all that is significant in the text. Stauros is the Greek word rendered 'cross' in the N.T., and you are right to indicate that crosses were made of wood. Wood, as you appear to know, comes from trees. So far so banal.
But Deuteronomy 21:23 tells us that 'he who is hanged is accursed of God,' and Paul adds to this in Gal. 3:13, 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law [the curse of Deut. 27:26], having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), that the blessing of Abraham [c.f. Gal. 3:6-7] might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.' So Christ became a curse for us by hanging on the cross, and He became a curse so that you and I (Gentiles, I assume) might be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. Without our Lord becoming a curse, we could not be saved.
So when Peter uses the word xulon instead of stauros in 1 Peter 2:24, he is making a point of the utmost theological and salvific importance. When the Lord Jesus was bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, and suffering the penalty for them, He was also bearing the curse attached to them - that is the curse of Deut. 27:26 - and by His bearing of that curse in His suffering on the cross, our sins, and the curse attached to them, are fully paid for and expiated. 'He shall see the labour of His soul and be satisfied.' Penal substitution.
For your information, in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew (written c.130 A.D.),Trypho is very well aware that to be crucified meant to be cursed. He said,
"Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him. Moreover, I do admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has also inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear indeed that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."
So the cross is shown to be a 'stumbling block to the Jews,' and also, it appears, to you.
Luke uses ξύλον (wood, tree, club)
Peter uses ξύλον (wood, tree, club)
In Deuteronomy the word used is עֵץ (wood, tree, stick)
The reason translators use "tree" in Deuteronomy instead of "wood" or "stock" is the context (obviously it is a tree, although it could be a pole).
The reason translators use "cross" in 1 Peter is the context (looking back to the Mosaic Law)
The reason translators use "cross" in Acts for the very same word they rendered as "tree" is the context.
Justin Martyr is wrong. The Law does not say "whoever is crucified is cursed". Crucifixion is not a prescribed execution method in the Law. You and @SovereignGrace once again are wrong because you treat Scripture too lightly.
Under the Law hanging a DEAD body on a tree indicated the person was esteemed as stricken or cursed by God. Jesus hanging on the cross after He gave up His Spirit is the point where He is (under the Law) considered cursed.
"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear. 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 of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:21-23)
You are dodging the word. Why?
You cannot define "redemption" as "the act of redeeming" and pretend to have have said anything (the deginition cannot contain a form of the word).
If you use a dictionary it will direct you back to the verb, but you then have to go to the verb.
If you ask me to define "averred" and I say "it is the past tense of aver" I demonstrate that I most likely do not know.
To define the word I would say "averred is the past tense of "aver", which means to positively declare something, to state with confidence".
How do you define redeem?
@Anthony Pritchard
We can go even futher back (before the Catholic doctrine). We can go to the beginning.
God told Adam "in the day you eat of it [the fruit] you shall die (literally dying you shall die"
After Adam are of the fruit God told him the consequences. Adam would "return to the ground" , turn "to dust".
What is the plain reading of this death?
Some say the "plain reading" of "in the day your eat if it you shall surely die (lit dying you shall die)" is "you shall die spiritually on the dat you eat of it".
They reject allowing the accompanying passage, which states the consequences after Adam are of the fruit, to define what the consequences would be.
Personally, I believe Scriptire interprets Scripture. So when God told Adam what would happen if he eats of the fruit I believe we must consider what God told Adam he would experience as a consequence having eaten the fruit.
I also believe we should take the plain meaning of the verse.
In the day Adam eats of the fruit he shall surely die. Death would be certain. He would return to the ground. He would return dust.
Likewise, I believe that Jesus bore our sins bodily means He bore our sins in His body. This is the plain meaning of the text. The text says nothing of us.
The biblical text is limiting. When we add to the biblical text, ignore the limiting God puts in place, we go astray.
We can go even futher back (before the Catholic doctrine). We can go to the beginning.
God told Adam "in the day you eat of it [the fruit] you shall die (literally dying you shall die"
After Adam are of the fruit God told him the consequences. Adam would "return to the ground" , turn "to dust".
What is the plain reading of this death?
Some say the "plain reading" of "in the day your eat if it you shall surely die (lit dying you shall die)" is "you shall die spiritually on the dat you eat of it".
They reject allowing the accompanying passage, which states the consequences after Adam are of the fruit, to define what the consequences would be.
Personally, I believe Scriptire interprets Scripture. So when God told Adam what would happen if he eats of the fruit I believe we must consider what God told Adam he would experience as a consequence having eaten the fruit.
I also believe we should take the plain meaning of the verse.
In the day Adam eats of the fruit he shall surely die. Death would be certain. He would return to the ground. He would return dust.
Likewise, I believe that Jesus bore our sins bodily means He bore our sins in His body. This is the plain meaning of the text. The text says nothing of us.
The biblical text is limiting. When we add to the biblical text, ignore the limiting God puts in place, we go astray.
KenH
Well-Known Member
To buy back.
Yes. To buy back.
And in what context (biblically)?
In the Bible the redeemer buys back a family member from bondage. The redeemer has to be a relative (hense "the Word became flesh", "shared our humanity")
What is bought back (what is redeemed) by Christ? His relatives (the Elect).
A redeemer does not buy back a relative from himself or from another relative. We were held in bondage of sin ans death (which is the oppression of the Adversary).
KenH
Well-Known Member
The price to be paid for sin is eternal separation from God. Christ Jesus paid that price, in full, for God's elect during the three hours on the cross when the sun did not shine. The unregenerate can never fully pay that price.
Last edited:
KenH
Well-Known Member
The book of Ruth says otherwise. Boaz bought the land and Ruth from a fellow relative, a kinsman.
Ruth 4:3-10
And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's:
and I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.
Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
(emphasis mine)
First of all, it was Trypho the Jew who said, "Whosoever is crucified is said by the law to be accursed," not Justin, unless you suppose that Trypho was a fictional character.
Secondly, when Luke represents Peter and Paul as using the word xulon with reference to the cross (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29), he is doubtless making the same point - that Christ died a cursed death. Luke uses stauros for 'cross' three times in his Gospel, so he can have no aversion to using the word.
Thirdly, you have studiously avoided quoting Paul in Galatians 3:13. It is he who declares, under the inspiration of the Spirit, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree,' and Galatians is as much Scripture as is Deuteronomy. We don't agree on much, but I assume that we agree that crosses were made of wood, and that wood comes from trees. But in any case, Paul declares that Christ 'Has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - and here he references the curse of Deut. 21:23 - that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus......'
There is simply no way around this. The curse applies to those who are hanged on a tree made of wood , and our Lord suffered and died on a cross made of wood which came from a tree, and He suffered the curse of the law as a result. So when Peter declares that He 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' he is undoubtedly referring to the curse which our Lord took upon Himself for His people. Penal Substitution.
Who cares? Just more smoke.
Like @Anthony Pritchard pointed out, we need to trust the biblical text.
Here is why your theory is wrong:
1. The earliest use of crucifixion was by the Persians long after the Law was given.
2. Under the Law the one who committed a crime worthy of death was killed in a manner prescribed by the Law (executed by the community, stoning). Then the dead body was hung on a tree.
3. "Crucifixion" is a 15th century word (combining "cross" and "to fasten"). I doubt Trypho or Martyr used that word. They probably used "tree" as it got to the point.
I was not arguing against using "cross" for "tree" as the context demands that Christ was made a curse by hanging on a tree (under the Law the a dead body hung on a tree was considered accursed).
Why object to using "cross" instead of "tree" when speaking of Christ's crucifixion and "tree" instead of "cross" when linking to to the Law??
Do you believe that Christ was crucified on a tree rather than a cross???
Biblically there is no price paid for sin. There is a wage earned.
Biblically "sin begats death" as a "wage" and "the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil".
Biblically "it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment".
Biblically at Judgment (after death) the wicked "will be cast into the outter darkness".
You have mixed up and consolidated verses you lifted out of the biblical text.
Ahem! 1 Cor. 6:20. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body.' Christ has paid the price of our redemption.
You have mixed up and consolidated verses you lifted out of the biblical text.
Obviously, you don't care. But you should.
@Anthony Pritchard is quite right. The Biblical text says that Christ crucified is 'To the Jews, a stumbling block' (1 Cor. 1:23): that is, it is something that keeps them from believing in Him. Why is that? Well, in the Dialogue with Trypho, we have a statement, purporting to be from a 2nd Century Jew, saying that Christ having been crucified is what keeps him from becoming a Christian, and the reason is Deut. 21:23. Now of course this is not Scripture, and it maybe that Justin made Trypho up, or changed his argument. But if you believe that (and you cannot prove it one way or the other), you are left with the question of why Christ crucified is a stumbling block to the Jews.
Not relevant. The question is, what did Trypho believe?
You have conflated Deut. 21:18-21, which deals with a rebellious son, with verses 2-23. Not all criminals were stoned (e.g. Deut. 19:11-12). But in any case the Lord Jesus died on the cross, and was dead on the cross until they took down His body.
The translation I used says 'crucified.' I don't have access to the Greek version.
So you agree that the context demands that Christ was made a curse by hanging on a tree. Is that right?
Stauros is used 28 times in the N.T. and each time it is translated as 'cross' in the Bible versions I have looked at. Therefore I presume that when the Holy Spirit uses xulon instead of stauros, He has a point to make: namely that our Lord 'became a curse for us' (Gal. 3:13). I find it rather droll that you are desperately trying to avoid Gal. 3:13 which makes this whole matter perfectly clear. We are not only to 'trust the Biblical text; we are to trust all the Biblical text (2 Tim. 3:16f), even the bits we find inconvenient for our argument.
I do not have to care what Trypho believed. The question is NOT what Trypho believed for what Martyr believed but what God has said.
I have repeatedly said that no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith" and Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree".
I have never denied that He redeemed them in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
I do not know why you cannot accept thar "hung on a tree" is referring to the Crucifixion (that "tree" IS the cross). They did not remove Christ's body from the cross and then hang His body on a tree. The cross IS the "tree". This has nothing to do with Trypho or Martyr.
BUT this IS important -
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Who is the "us"? Those who were under the Law.
Why were they redeemed from the Law? In order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles.
You start with a secular philosophy. Then you go to the biblical text and you deconstruct God's words, removing bits and pieces you believe will make your theory "biblical".
You have taken that failed 16th century idea "all crimes must be punished; punishment satisfies the law; the judge avenges the law" and adopted it as your central faith bt "Christianizing" it as "all sins must be punished; punishment satisfies divine justice; God as Judge avenges His Law".
You will never be able to comprehend God's Word as long as you mere use His words as a support for your secular theories.
You tell me - based only on the biblical text - what this text means (just the text, not your theory):
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
You (and @Anthony Pritchard ) use the plain meaning of the text.
In this passage was God was Christ redeeming the Jews and Gentiles from the curse of the Law to pay their debt of sin OR was God redeeming the Jews (who were under the Law) from the curse of the Law so that the blessings given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ?
God has said that the cross is a stumbling block to Jews. I think you should care about that.
The question is, what does it mean that Christ redeemed us? And also, what is the 'curse of the law'?
How did He redeem them, and what do you think is the blessing of Abraham?
The point about the use of 'tree,' is, as you very well know, that 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' You have said above that you agree with that, so the point has become moot.
No. The 'us' is everyone who is redeemed by Christ. 'And in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' We are not redeemed to try and keep the law to be saved; we are redeemed to keep the moral law because we are saved (Gal. 5:14).
The blessing of Abraham needs to come to the Jews as well.
No. You do all that and then accuse others of doing it.
I use God's words to explain the Gospel to you but you are not listening. God set Christ forth as a propitiation so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
You are correct; we do.
You need to explain first what you understand by 'redeem,' what you think the 'curse of the law' is and what you think it means that Christ became a curse. You keep saying that you just believe the Biblical text, but so do Unitarians, J.W.s, Mormons and others. If you want to distinguish yourself from them you need to tell us what you think the Biblical text means.
My ambivalence towards Trypho has nothing to do with Scripture. I simply do not care about what he thought. He is dead. He cannot defend his beliefs or change his mind. His time has passed.
Which "us"? "Us" in the passage were Jews He redeemed from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse under the Law so that in Christ the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles.
Jesus fulfilled the Law, was completely obedient, is righteous. But He redeemed the Jews by becoming the curse under the same Law. This applies not to us but so that in Him the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles.
He was made as the Jews, under the Law, a curse under the Law but without ever transgressing the Law Himself. He freed then from the bondage of the Law.
He redeemed humanity the same way. He was made as us but did not sin, came in the likeness of sinful flesh, shared our infirmity, shared our humanity, was made sin for us, freed us from the bondage of sin and death, died once for all and defeated the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil.
Redemption is the same. It is the model of the kinsman redeemed in the book of Ruth. He came not only as a man but also as a Jew. He redeemed the Jews from the bondage of the Law and humanity from the bondage of sin snd death.
Trypho would teach you if you would let him. He would teach you why the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews. In that respect, he is a little like Abel: 'He, being dead, still speaks.'
No. Paul is writing 'To the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace.....' Grace and peace to whom? To the members of the churches of Galatia. So when Paul writes 'you,' he is addressing all the people to whom he is writing, and by extension to us, whether or not we are Jews. When he writes 'we' or 'us,' he is including himself along with the Galatian Christians.
I disagree. Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men....' Proverbs 3:33. 'The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked...' Romans 2:9-10. '...Tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first, and also on the Greek [or 'Gentile'] ; but glory, honour and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.' And where in the non-Christian world to we find those people who work what is good? We don't! Romans 3:9. 'For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.'
Yes. "He redeemed humanity the same way."
You have still not explained what you think redemption is.
- Status