Absolutely, though the blood functioned in another way. It didn't simply please God it destroyed sin. Reading Leviticus with the idea that through their actions they were accomplishing something changes how both sin and atonement are seen. Sin, though not an object, is a power and it contaminated all it touches. Sins power was destroyed on the cross, it no longer can spread and infect things requiring them to be cleansed through the daily sacrifices. Now we're left to deal with the more abstract aspects of it, and that is done through repentance and making restitution. There was one offering linked with wrath, the burnt offering, but it was the smoke not the blood that was instrumental in that. As far as I know, Jesus is never directly linked with the burnt offering though He is said to be a fragrant aroma. In either case, the wrath was never directed at the victim that was simply the medium necessary for attaining the blood and the smoke.
DID GOD FORSAKE HIS SON?
- Thread starter watchman333
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
While I agree in "spirit" here Post, I think you are missing what the full reality of the cross entailed.
(Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.)
We all die, so what kind of death did Jesus partake in? There must be more happening that just His physical death.
I think the answer lies with the 1st Adam in that when he ate of the fruit he day in that very same day.
(Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.)
We all die, so what kind of death did Jesus partake in? There must be more happening that just His physical death.
I think the answer lies with the 1st Adam in that when he ate of the fruit he day in that very same day.
-
1
- Show all
Except there are some key differences. Firstly though Jesus became sin for us he himself never sinned Adam did. Secondly Adams act separated mankind from God Jesus's act brought us to him. At the moment I am at a stand still on the whole forsaken thing because the word forsaken means to abandon or to disown give up on ect. However this word doesn't seem to fit the following days of the cross does it? If God had indeed forsaken him then why would he resurrect him and why would Jesus be able to perform all those miracles in acts and be taken to heaven to sit at the right hand of father? if you forsake something that is it no if and's or buts you don't take it back or go back to it it's as if it never existed.
I am waiting for a friend of mine to respond to my message so that she might be able to help me understand because I am not ashamed to admit I am wrong however if I am correct then I believe it might actually be an issue of translation after all the english language is not the same as the original text. fort instance lets say that the word forgotten is used as I have read in one version of the bible that is not the same as forsaken because even if you forget something or someone you can remember them again or in the case of willingly forgetting someone they still can be brought back to your memory in your heart.
I am waiting for a friend of mine to respond to my message so that she might be able to help me understand because I am not ashamed to admit I am wrong however if I am correct then I believe it might actually be an issue of translation after all the english language is not the same as the original text. fort instance lets say that the word forgotten is used as I have read in one version of the bible that is not the same as forsaken because even if you forget something or someone you can remember them again or in the case of willingly forgetting someone they still can be brought back to your memory in your heart.
P
Jesus is our mediator but who was his?
Imo the forsakeness is that Jesus stood alone at the gates of death and hell. Only the testamony was his defence.
The father was far from helping him so it could be said that there was no special favor given because he was the son of God.
When the law (God) examined him it found no fault no shame no guilt he was naked which silenced his accuser (Satan).
He then was stripped of mortality and clothed with immortality declared righteous to bare the scares of humanity.
Death could not keep him....the grave could not hold him...Abraham's bosom was then emptied as the prophecy had now been fulfilled.....God himself will provide a ram.
Imo the forsakeness is that Jesus stood alone at the gates of death and hell. Only the testamony was his defence.
The father was far from helping him so it could be said that there was no special favor given because he was the son of God.
When the law (God) examined him it found no fault no shame no guilt he was naked which silenced his accuser (Satan).
He then was stripped of mortality and clothed with immortality declared righteous to bare the scares of humanity.
Death could not keep him....the grave could not hold him...Abraham's bosom was then emptied as the prophecy had now been fulfilled.....God himself will provide a ram.
-
1
- Show all
Boy did you speak a mouth full. this very subject has always bothered me, not about what the bible say but about what man has come up with. Now days the word is that "God turned His back on His Son" but years ago the word was that "God forsook His Son" because God can't look upon sin. This is something man came up with because of scriptural ignorance and a misunderstanding of what Christ said while on the cross.
First of all this idea that God can't look upon sin is a false man made belief because scripture tells us that God did look upon sin.
Many times when man is not able to make sense of what the Word of God says, man will make something up that at the very least sounds good.
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
So by these verses we know God did infact look upon the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which means that God could look upon His Son while He was on the cross and God never turned His back on or forsook His Son on the Cross
In the days of Christ there were very few bibles/manuscripts and when folks would gather at the the temple or synagogue the custem was to recite the verses out loud to be discussed that day and the manuscript or scroll would be shut.
Watchman333 is correct. Christ was bringing attention to the prophetic psalm 22, reminding folks that the whole event was prophesied long before it happened. But there is one more thing we should consider about what Christ said while He was on the cross.
Christ took on the past, present and future sins of the world and we all know that the more sin we have in our lives the farther away from God we are and feel. It could be that Christ only felt like the Father had forsaken Him because of all of the sin that was heaped upon Him.
If God is willing to turn His back on His son, Who knew no sin then God would be willing to turn His back on us who sin daily.
First of all this idea that God can't look upon sin is a false man made belief because scripture tells us that God did look upon sin.
Many times when man is not able to make sense of what the Word of God says, man will make something up that at the very least sounds good.
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
So by these verses we know God did infact look upon the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which means that God could look upon His Son while He was on the cross and God never turned His back on or forsook His Son on the Cross
In the days of Christ there were very few bibles/manuscripts and when folks would gather at the the temple or synagogue the custem was to recite the verses out loud to be discussed that day and the manuscript or scroll would be shut.
Watchman333 is correct. Christ was bringing attention to the prophetic psalm 22, reminding folks that the whole event was prophesied long before it happened. But there is one more thing we should consider about what Christ said while He was on the cross.
Christ took on the past, present and future sins of the world and we all know that the more sin we have in our lives the farther away from God we are and feel. It could be that Christ only felt like the Father had forsaken Him because of all of the sin that was heaped upon Him.
If God is willing to turn His back on His son, Who knew no sin then God would be willing to turn His back on us who sin daily.
-
1
- Show all
if i was begging the question, i would be doing something like assuming Christ isn't forsaken and using that assumption to prove that He wasn't -- circularly.
but we know God doesn't condemn the innocent:
Jesus willingly took upon Himself the iniquity of His accusers -- i believe He's 'shouldering a load' not taking blame; He's blameless -- and there is no stronger back for a burden.
Yom Kippur ((Leviticus 16)) is a picture of what He does on the cross. in this, one goat is chosen by lot to be sent into the wilderness alive - the priest puts his hands on this goat, and confesses all the sin of all the people, laying it on the goat.
it is the same question here -- is this goat being treated as though it is guilty of all the sins confessed over it and 'laid upon it' ?
i.e. -- is this substitutionary atonement penal substitution: is the innocent being punished for the crimes of the guilty?
because that's what the most common teaching about Christ on the cross essentially is. preachers everywhere say, God treated Christ like Christ was guilty of all the sin of the world.
does that make sense? does it make sense, what is taught?
but we know God doesn't condemn the innocent:
Behold! God will not cast away the blameless
(Job 8:20)
that is what Evil does:(Job 8:20)
Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law,
have fellowship with You?
They gather together against the life of the righteous,
and condemn innocent blood.
(Psalm 94:20-21)
so there is a theological issue with saying that God pours His wrath out on the righteous - it maligns the goodness of God. it makes Him unjust. that's why i pointed out, it is mankind who condemns Christ. God was not with the Sanhedrin when they called Him a blasphemer, to put Him to death for it. (Psalm 94:20-21)
Jesus willingly took upon Himself the iniquity of His accusers -- i believe He's 'shouldering a load' not taking blame; He's blameless -- and there is no stronger back for a burden.
Yom Kippur ((Leviticus 16)) is a picture of what He does on the cross. in this, one goat is chosen by lot to be sent into the wilderness alive - the priest puts his hands on this goat, and confesses all the sin of all the people, laying it on the goat.
it is the same question here -- is this goat being treated as though it is guilty of all the sins confessed over it and 'laid upon it' ?
i.e. -- is this substitutionary atonement penal substitution: is the innocent being punished for the crimes of the guilty?
because that's what the most common teaching about Christ on the cross essentially is. preachers everywhere say, God treated Christ like Christ was guilty of all the sin of the world.
does that make sense? does it make sense, what is taught?
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure where you are going with this Post, are you saying "substitutionary atonement" is a correct doctrine or not?
(2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.)
I still don't think you have really addressed "why hast thous forsaken me" - I think you are saying that he was not.
(2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.)
I still don't think you have really addressed "why hast thous forsaken me" - I think you are saying that he was not.
-
1
- Show all
substitutionary atonement, i.e. 'propitiation' certainly is correct. He took death in my place, so that i could live
i'm questioning whether it is 'penal substitution' or not -- for example say i break some city code and i am fined for it. you graciously offer to pay my fine. does the fact that you pay my fine mean that your name gets put on the police record as having been the one who committed the crime? that's penal substitution; instead of punishing the guilty, the innocent is condemned.
i'm questioning whether it is 'penal substitution' or not -- for example say i break some city code and i am fined for it. you graciously offer to pay my fine. does the fact that you pay my fine mean that your name gets put on the police record as having been the one who committed the crime? that's penal substitution; instead of punishing the guilty, the innocent is condemned.
An interesting sidenote, there's some debate about the name of Barabbas being Jesus Barabbas in early manuscripts and one of the copyists deciding such a holy name couldn't have been and thus shortening it to barabbas. This brings the Yom Kippur imagery even more into picture since we have two lambs presented, both named Jesus(One being son of Joseph and the other son of the high father) and the sins of Israel being placed on one to wander and the other being sacrificed to the Lord. Of course, this wouldn't be something to base doctrine.
-
1
- Show all
These concepts all all attempts at coming to an understanding of the scripture.
Lets say I commit a murder in a state/country that has the death penalty and I'm found guilty and the verdict is death. But my older brother comes to plead with the judge for him to take my place because he loves me. The judge agrees and I go free and my brother pays the price for my sin. Yet I'm still guilty of the murder while my brother was not guilty but innocent.
But this brings us to the nature of Christ's death on the cross - if he died in my place, why as a Christians do we still end up in the grave. Was Christ's death insufficient to save a Christian from physical death?
Lets say I commit a murder in a state/country that has the death penalty and I'm found guilty and the verdict is death. But my older brother comes to plead with the judge for him to take my place because he loves me. The judge agrees and I go free and my brother pays the price for my sin. Yet I'm still guilty of the murder while my brother was not guilty but innocent.
But this brings us to the nature of Christ's death on the cross - if he died in my place, why as a Christians do we still end up in the grave. Was Christ's death insufficient to save a Christian from physical death?
You have missed it a wee bit brother. I as a very young Christian at 25 {30 years ago} almost slipped up with a young lady before I got married to my current wife. And I felt my heart beating a 1000 times a minute it seemed, the Holy Spirit was very grieved, and I myself stopped what I was about to do. God can not ABIDE SIN.
So naturally, God had to LEAVE Jesus on the cross alone when all of our sins were upon him. God can not abide sin, His Glory would destroy the Sin in His Holy presence. This is why I say, God doesn't really condemn men to hell {Separation from God} MEN condemn themselves to hell by refusing the free gift of Salvation. In other words, if a Warden/Gov. gave a Pardon to a death row inmate and all he had to do was claim it by signing a document, and he refused to accept it, that man would have condemned himself to death. We as human sinners can not come into the presence of God with Sin, God can not abide sin.
Thus, on the cross, with all our sins upon him as our Sacrifice, God had to leave Jesus' presence, and of course Jesus then asks, My God, My God, why have you forsaken {LEFT} me?
It has a real meaning brother, it's not just said to fulfill Psalms 22.
So naturally, God had to LEAVE Jesus on the cross alone when all of our sins were upon him. God can not abide sin, His Glory would destroy the Sin in His Holy presence. This is why I say, God doesn't really condemn men to hell {Separation from God} MEN condemn themselves to hell by refusing the free gift of Salvation. In other words, if a Warden/Gov. gave a Pardon to a death row inmate and all he had to do was claim it by signing a document, and he refused to accept it, that man would have condemned himself to death. We as human sinners can not come into the presence of God with Sin, God can not abide sin.
Thus, on the cross, with all our sins upon him as our Sacrifice, God had to leave Jesus' presence, and of course Jesus then asks, My God, My God, why have you forsaken {LEFT} me?
It has a real meaning brother, it's not just said to fulfill Psalms 22.
