Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

  1. #31

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    If Christ is The Law, The Law 'completely cover(ed) sin' and 'eternal redemption only came through' Him The Law and Word of God, Jesus Saviour of his people, Christ The Anointed of God.

    Salvation and or redemption never came in another way than through "I-AM The Way". Never!
    My point, Gerhard, is that Christ was *not* the Law of Moses. I could say he was the Law of God in the generic sense of "law." But I could never say Christ is equal to the Law of Moses. He was merely the verbal source, or origin, of this Law, but certainly not the Covenant itself, which was meant to be a combination of Israeli obedience and divine acceptance. Since Jesus was sinless, he could never have been equal to a Covenant that included sinful people.

    Otherwise, we are certainly agreed that Jesus is the *only* Way!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My point, Gerhard, is that Christ was *not* the Law of Moses. I could say he was the Law of God in the generic sense of "law." But I could never say Christ is equal to the Law of Moses. He was merely the verbal source, or origin, of this Law, but certainly not the Covenant itself, which was meant to be a combination of Israeli obedience and divine acceptance. Since Jesus was sinless, he could never have been equal to a Covenant that included sinful people.

    Otherwise, we are certainly agreed that Jesus is the *only* Way!
    And 'my point, Randyk, is, that Moses was not 'the Law of Moses', but the Law of God, Christ in first and last analysis always having been both its Beginning and End, and Substance and Essence. For Christ has been the Law of God in the Divine sense of "The Law."

    Therefore, what I have said is not that 'Christ is equal to the Law of Moses'. That is your use of words; not mine; neither is it the Scriptures'.

    Moses was merely the 'verbal' medium, not 'the source or origin of this Law', 'the law of Moses'. "The Law of Moses" in the Scriptures was God's Law given through Moses. It does not differentiate between, nor is 'meant to be a combination of Israeli obedience and divine acceptance'. Again, that completely is your conception nowhere found in the Scriptures.

    Since Jesus was sinless and God, He became a Man and was "made sin for us", so that He became the Realisation of the Covenant that God had made in the (private) Council of his Tri-Une Being "before the foundation of the world" for the redemption and salvation of his elect who 'included', none but 'sinful people'.

  3. #33

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    And 'my point, Randyk, is, that Moses was not 'the Law of Moses', but the Law of God, Christ in first and last analysis always having been both its Beginning and End, and Substance and Essence. For Christ has been the Law of God in the Divine sense of "The Law."
    I agree that Moses was not the Law of Moses, and have never said so. But to say Christ is the "substance" of the Law of Moses I don't agree with, and have said why. The Law was a combination of obedience by Israel and God's instructions to Israel. Inasmuch as Christ was sinless he was not party to the Covenant of Law. He ministered under the period of the Law. He fulfilled the Law. But he was not, himself, the Law!

    I know you may be saying that because the Law of Moses was the Word of God, and that because Christ is the Word of God, that therefore Christ must be the Law of Moses. But I've explained why I disagree. The Law of Moses was indeed the Word of God. But it was strictly a temporary covenant, and not the eternal Word of God made flesh. Christ was the origin of the Law of Moses, but he was more than the Law of Moses--he was the fulfillment of that Law. In other words, to say Christ was the Law of Moses would not be enough. If anything if he was the Law of Moses he would also have to be, at the same time, its fulfillment in the New Covenant.

    To say Christ was the Law of Moses alone would be extremely misleading. That would be validating the Law of Moses as a continuing covenant, and it is not!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Therefore, what I have said is not that 'Christ is equal to the Law of Moses'. That is your use of words; not mine; neither is it the Scriptures'.

    Moses was merely the 'verbal' medium, not 'the source or origin of this Law', 'the law of Moses'. "The Law of Moses" in the Scriptures was God's Law given through Moses. It does not differentiate between, nor is 'meant to be a combination of Israeli obedience and divine acceptance'. Again, that completely is your conception nowhere found in the Scriptures.
    Of course it is given in the Scriptures! What you seem to require is something written explicitly the way you demand. But there is no question that the Law was given to Israel for the purpose of their *obedience.* And it was given explicitly for the purpose of God *blessing their obedience.* That is clearly in Scriptures, brother!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Since Jesus was sinless and God, He became a Man and was "made sin for us", so that He became the Realisation of the Covenant that God had made in the (private) Council of his Tri-Une Being "before the foundation of the world" for the redemption and salvation of his elect who 'included', none but 'sinful people'.
    Indeed, both the OT and NT were for "sinful people." However, I'm talking about whether Christ was the Law of Moses in "substance." He was the Word of God. But he can only be *both* the OT and NT as they are related to one another. He was never under the Law of Moses, being sinless. But being divine he was the source of the Law and, as you say, the substance of God's Word.

    But I can only say that if Christ is viewed as the substance of the Law at all, it must be at the same time revealed that this Law was temporary and meant to be eternally fulfilled in Christ's own eternal righteousness. Therefore, the Law, if it represents Christ at all, was meant to be fulfilled under the NT, and not by the Law of Moses, which did not complete God's covenant with Israel.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree that Moses was not the Law of Moses, and have never said so. But to say Christ is the "substance" of the Law of Moses I don't agree with, and have said why. The Law was a combination of obedience by Israel and God's instructions to Israel. Inasmuch as Christ was sinless he was not party to the Covenant of Law. He ministered under the period of the Law. He fulfilled the Law. But he was not, himself, the Law!

    I know you may be saying that because the Law of Moses was the Word of God, and that because Christ is the Word of God, that therefore Christ must be the Law of Moses. But I've explained why I disagree. The Law of Moses was indeed the Word of God. But it was strictly a temporary covenant, and not the eternal Word of God made flesh. Christ was the origin of the Law of Moses, but he was more than the Law of Moses--he was the fulfillment of that Law. In other words, to say Christ was the Law of Moses would not be enough. If anything if he was the Law of Moses he would also have to be, at the same time, its fulfillment in the New Covenant.

    To say Christ was the Law of Moses alone would be extremely misleading. That would be validating the Law of Moses as a continuing covenant, and it is not!



    Of course it is given in the Scriptures! What you seem to require is something written explicitly the way you demand. But there is no question that the Law was given to Israel for the purpose of their *obedience.* And it was given explicitly for the purpose of God *blessing their obedience.* That is clearly in Scriptures, brother!



    Indeed, both the OT and NT were for "sinful people." However, I'm talking about whether Christ was the Law of Moses in "substance." He was the Word of God. But he can only be *both* the OT and NT as they are related to one another. He was never under the Law of Moses, being sinless. But being divine he was the source of the Law and, as you say, the substance of God's Word.

    But I can only say that if Christ is viewed as the substance of the Law at all, it must be at the same time revealed that this Law was temporary and meant to be eternally fulfilled in Christ's own eternal righteousness. Therefore, the Law, if it represents Christ at all, was meant to be fulfilled under the NT, and not by the Law of Moses, which did not complete God's covenant with Israel.
    I agree that ‘Moses was not the Law of Moses’, and have not said so. But to say Christ is the "substance" of the Law of Moses I have said, and why.

    Re:
    The Law was a combination of obedience by Israel and God's instructions to Israel.’

    Incomprehensible for me.

    Re:
    I know you may be saying that because the Law of Moses was the Word of God, and that because Christ is the Word of God, that therefore Christ must be the Law of Moses.’

    You ‘know’, wrong. I am not saying what you, are saying here, sorry. I say, the Law of Moses was and is to this day, the Written Word: of God. And I say that because Christ is the Substance of the Word of God, He must have been and to this day still is, the Substance of ‘the Law of Moses’.

    Re:
    Inasmuch as Christ was sinless he was not party to the Covenant of Law.’

    Christ was ‘not party to the Covenant of Law inasmuch as he was sinless’ but inasmuch as or because He forever was ‘Party’ to God’s only ever and eternal, New, Covenant of Grace (unilaterally) closed within the unencroachable Council of the FULL Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit which was “before the foundation of the world”, long before the incarnation or pre-incarnation epiphany, of Christ.

    Moses ministered the Law ‘under the period of the Law’—not Christ. Christ in Moses’ time, did not ‘fulfill the Law’—He gave it to Moses who gave it to Israel whom the LORD commanded, Obey it! But Christ was, Himself, the Substance of the Law then—and when having become the Son of Man in the flesh, Christ the Anointed of God became The Word-Law of God Incarnate forevermore.

    Re:
    The Law of Moses was indeed the Word of God.’

    That’s WHY the Law of Moses indeed is being called “the covenant” in the Law, and never had been called or viewed by the LORD or by the people of God as ‘a temporary covenant’, or as the covenant of man with God, but as God’s Eternal Covenant forever to be obeyed by everyone, Israelite and non-Israelite irrespective of person or nationality.

    Re:
    to say Christ was the Law of Moses would not be enough. If anything if he was the Law of Moses he would also have to be, at the same time, its fulfillment in the New Covenant.’

    That’s exactly what I’m saying— ‘its fulfillment’ and, or, its Substance and Essence! But not only in Old Testament times before Christ became God with us in Jesus, but in and for all times and dispensations and priesthoods of man’s existance. Because not Moses or the Law of Moses was ‘(T)he (E)ternal Word of God made flesh’. Thus was Christ ‘the origin of the Law of Moses, but he was more than the Law of Moses--he was the fulfillment of that Law’. Exactly!

    Re:
    To say Christ was the Law of Moses alone would be extremely misleading.

    Who said so? But if Christ forever be “the same” and Substance and Essence and Fulfilment of the Law of Moses— that would be validating the Law of Moses as a continuing covenant, what it indeed is, because ‘Of course it is given in the Scriptures!’… (T)here is no question that the Law was given to Israel for the purpose of their *obedience.* And it was given explicitly for the purpose of God *blessing their obedience.* That is clearly in Scriptures, brother!

    Amen, brother!

    Re:
    Indeed, both the OT and NT were for "sinful people." However, I'm talking about whether Christ was the Law of Moses in "substance." He was the Word of God. But he can only be *both* the OT and NT as they are related to one another. He was never under the Law of Moses, being sinless. But being divine he was the source of the Law and, as you say, the substance of God's Word.’

    Just don’t forget that Christ became man in all things just like us—like us who are under the Law, even the Law of Moses, else Jesus needed not to make Sacrifice of Himself for us and our sins. Jesus was under the extremist penalties the Law has, for us ‘sinful people’. Were Jesus not “made sin for us” under the Law to the last, death, we, would have suffered the reward of sin, which is eternal death.

    Re:
    ‘But I can only say that if Christ is viewed as the substance of the Law at all, it must be at the same time revealed that this Law was temporary and meant to be eternally fulfilled in Christ's own eternal righteousness. Therefore, the Law, if it represents Christ at all, was meant to be fulfilled under the NT, and not by the Law of Moses, which did not complete God's covenant with Israel.’

    Sela—Peace, God’s will be done!

  5. #35

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    I agree that ‘Moses was not the Law of Moses’, and have not said so. But to say Christ is the "substance" of the Law of Moses I have said, and why.

    Re:
    The Law was a combination of obedience by Israel and God's instructions to Israel.’

    Incomprehensible for me.
    You may be over thinking this. If you think about it the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel, and 2) the response of obedience by Israel.

    And my point was that this is not the "substance of Christ." Rather, these were imperfect men seeking to have their sins covered so that they could have fellowship with God. Christ, on the other hand, is always in fellowship with God, because he *is* God!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Re:
    I know you may be saying that because the Law of Moses was the Word of God, and that because Christ is the Word of God, that therefore Christ must be the Law of Moses.’

    You ‘know’, wrong. I am not saying what you, are saying here, sorry. I say, the Law of Moses was and is to this day, the Written Word: of God. And I say that because Christ is the Substance of the Word of God, He must have been and to this day still is, the Substance of ‘the Law of Moses’.
    The Law was indeed God's words, but they were written to construct a temporary system. Yes, we worship the God behind the Law of Moses. But no, that God no longer honors that system today! Are you saying we worship God or follow the Law? I pick A but not B.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Re:
    Inasmuch as Christ was sinless he was not party to the Covenant of Law.’

    Christ was ‘not party to the Covenant of Law inasmuch as he was sinless’ but inasmuch as or because He forever was ‘Party’ to God’s only ever and eternal, New, Covenant of Grace (unilaterally) closed within the unencroachable Council of the FULL Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit which was “before the foundation of the world”, long before the incarnation or pre-incarnation epiphany, of Christ.
    See above. The Law of Moses was for sin-infected Israel. It was not for Christ because he was sinless, and had no need for remedies under the Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Moses ministered the Law ‘under the period of the Law’—not Christ. Christ in Moses’ time, did not ‘fulfill the Law’—He gave it to Moses who gave it to Israel whom the LORD commanded, Obey it! But Christ was, Himself, the Substance of the Law then—and when having become the Son of Man in the flesh, Christ the Anointed of God became The Word-Law of God Incarnate forevermore.
    Jesus did indeed fulfil the Law during the era of Moses' Law. His earthly ministry took place under the era of Law, and thus he fulfilled the Law during the era of Moses. I do agree that the preincarnate Christ gave Moses the Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Re:
    The Law of Moses was indeed the Word of God.’

    That’s WHY the Law of Moses indeed is being called “the covenant” in the Law, and never had been called or viewed by the LORD or by the people of God as ‘a temporary covenant’, or as the covenant of man with God, but as God’s Eternal Covenant forever to be obeyed by everyone, Israelite and non-Israelite irrespective of person or nationality.
    I think you're making a logical error here. Just because the Law was the product of God's Word and can be called "God's Word" does not mean that it was an eternal covenant. Paul said just the opposite in Galatians. And the writer of Hebrews said the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Re:
    to say Christ was the Law of Moses would not be enough. If anything if he was the Law of Moses he would also have to be, at the same time, its fulfillment in the New Covenant.’

    That’s exactly what I’m saying— ‘its fulfillment’ and, or, its Substance and Essence! But not only in Old Testament times before Christ became God with us in Jesus, but in and for all times and dispensations and priesthoods of man’s existance. Because not Moses or the Law of Moses was ‘(T)he (E)ternal Word of God made flesh’. Thus was Christ ‘the origin of the Law of Moses, but he was more than the Law of Moses--he was the fulfillment of that Law’. Exactly!

    Re:
    To say Christ was the Law of Moses alone would be extremely misleading.

    Who said so? But if Christ forever be “the same” and Substance and Essence and Fulfilment of the Law of Moses— that would be validating the Law of Moses as a continuing covenant, what it indeed is, because ‘Of course it is given in the Scriptures!’… (T)here is no question that the Law was given to Israel for the purpose of their *obedience.* And it was given explicitly for the purpose of God *blessing their obedience.* That is clearly in Scriptures, brother!

    Amen, brother!

    Re:
    Indeed, both the OT and NT were for "sinful people." However, I'm talking about whether Christ was the Law of Moses in "substance." He was the Word of God. But he can only be *both* the OT and NT as they are related to one another. He was never under the Law of Moses, being sinless. But being divine he was the source of the Law and, as you say, the substance of God's Word.’

    Just don’t forget that Christ became man in all things just like us—like us who are under the Law, even the Law of Moses, else Jesus needed not to make Sacrifice of Himself for us and our sins. Jesus was under the extremist penalties the Law has, for us ‘sinful people’. Were Jesus not “made sin for us” under the Law to the last, death, we, would have suffered the reward of sin, which is eternal death.

    Re:
    ‘But I can only say that if Christ is viewed as the substance of the Law at all, it must be at the same time revealed that this Law was temporary and meant to be eternally fulfilled in Christ's own eternal righteousness. Therefore, the Law, if it represents Christ at all, was meant to be fulfilled under the NT, and not by the Law of Moses, which did not complete God's covenant with Israel.’

    Sela—Peace, God’s will be done!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You may be over thinking this. If you think about it the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel, and 2) the response of obedience by Israel.

    And my point was that this is not the "substance of Christ." Rather, these were imperfect men seeking to have their sins covered so that they could have fellowship with God. Christ, on the other hand, is always in fellowship with God, because he *is* God!



    The Law was indeed God's words, but they were written to construct a temporary system. Yes, we worship the God behind the Law of Moses. But no, that God no longer honors that system today! Are you saying we worship God or follow the Law? I pick A but not B.



    See above. The Law of Moses was for sin-infected Israel. It was not for Christ because he was sinless, and had no need for remedies under the Law.



    Jesus did indeed fulfil the Law during the era of Moses' Law. His earthly ministry took place under the era of Law, and thus he fulfilled the Law during the era of Moses. I do agree that the preincarnate Christ gave Moses the Law.



    I think you're making a logical error here. Just because the Law was the product of God's Word and can be called "God's Word" does not mean that it was an eternal covenant. Paul said just the opposite in Galatians. And the writer of Hebrews said the same.
    Re:
    'the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel, and 2) the response of obedience by Israel.'

    Yes, 'the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel', but absolutely certain, was NOT: '2) the response of obedience by Israel.'

    Unless we can get past this issue, we can forget of progressing any further.

  7. #37

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    Re:
    'the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel, and 2) the response of obedience by Israel.'

    Yes, 'the Law of Moses was 1) God's instructions to Israel', but absolutely certain, was NOT: '2) the response of obedience by Israel.'

    Unless we can get past this issue, we can forget of progressing any further.
    What I'm saying, my friend, is that God's *intent* was to give a rule of law to Israel by which they could be instructed in how to *obey* God. He did *not* give them laws so that they could *disobey* it!

    I know what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I know Israel over the long haul failed to keep the Law. That is NT doctrine--we *all* fail in this scenario.

    But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that the Law was not equal to Christ because Christ was sinless, and the Law was for sinful Israel to help them obey God.

    Unless we can get on the same page I suppose we will be going in circles?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    This thread concerns the question, 'Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?'

    For me the answer lies before hand, Ephesians 1:23, "Christ the Head ... the ALL in all fulfilling FULLNESS OF GOD ... given to the Church."

    For me it is unthinkable to think that because typical sacrifices or and typical feast times fell during different seasons of the year, they cannot all be typical of one and the same, the "once for all" fulfilment through Jesus Christ.

    But another facet of the diamond is the historical truth that the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles DERIVED AND ORIGINATED from the passover, and in spirit and meaning were just the passover reminder in mid-year. In principle and for all practical purposes the two feasts were no different. Christ was (and to this day is) "the Essence"-"the BONE-etsem" of all and every "Essential Day"-"BONE-Day": "etsem Yom" of SPECIFICALLY THE PASSOVER-IN-"ESSENCE".

    All 'holy days' that were "BONE-Days" -- "Days of the Essence" in the Scriptures were kind of 'passover days' at the same time salvation-days; in other words, days typical of Jesus Christ.

    There are only about one and halve a dozen of times that Old Testament days-of-redemption are called "BONE-days": all, typical of the Salvation through the Promised Messiah.

    That's Why Jesus died during Passover the same as on the Day of Atonement.

  9. #39

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    This thread concerns the question, 'Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?'

    For me the answer lies before hand, Ephesians 1:23, "Christ the Head ... the ALL in all fulfilling FULLNESS OF GOD ... given to the Church."

    For me it is unthinkable to think that because typical sacrifices or and typical feast times fell during different seasons of the year, they cannot all be typical of one and the same, the "once for all" fulfilment through Jesus Christ.

    But another facet of the diamond is the historical truth that the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles DERIVED AND ORIGINATED from the passover, and in spirit and meaning were just the passover reminder in mid-year. In principle and for all practical purposes the two feasts were no different. Christ was (and to this day is) "the Essence"-"the BONE-etsem" of all and every "Essential Day"-"BONE-Day": "etsem Yom" of SPECIFICALLY THE PASSOVER-IN-"ESSENCE".

    All 'holy days' that were "BONE-Days" -- "Days of the Essence" in the Scriptures were kind of 'passover days' at the same time salvation-days; in other words, days typical of Jesus Christ.

    There are only about one and halve a dozen of times that Old Testament days-of-redemption are called "BONE-days": all, typical of the Salvation through the Promised Messiah.

    That's Why Jesus died during Passover the same as on the Day of Atonement.
    The essential holidays are not construed in my mind to be days representing God's "essence." This is confusing to me. As I said, God can author things that are temporary. Just because He authors the system does not mean that the system He authors has to be eternal like himself--like His own "essence."

    But I agree with you. All the Feasts represented the central truth of Christ. Thinking about it some more, I think that Jesus died on Passover specifically because he was presenting himself as the fulfillment of the Lamb of Passover.

    This did not mean that the Day of Atonement, or the Feast of Booths, had nothing to do with Christ's death. It just means that Christ wanted to be associated with the Lamb at Passover in the Spring time. It was, in other words, a beginning point. It launched the age of Israel's redemption, as well as the Church age.

  10. #40

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    What I'm saying, my friend, is that God's *intent* was to give a rule of law to Israel by which they could be instructed in how to *obey* God. He did *not* give them laws so that they could *disobey* it!

    I know what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I know Israel over the long haul failed to keep the Law. That is NT doctrine--we *all* fail in this scenario.

    But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that the Law was not equal to Christ because Christ was sinless, and the Law was for sinful Israel to help them obey God.

    Unless we can get on the same page I suppose we will be going in circles?
    For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
    What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, (Of the flesh?) and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

    The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

    But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

    Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

    What does redeem mean?

  11. #41

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by percho View Post
    For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
    What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, (Of the flesh?) and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

    The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

    But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

    Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

    What does redeem mean?
    As you probably know, redemption involves the purchase of men who were sold to death, who lost eternal fellowship with God. Under the Law this failure of man did not change. They obtained limited fellowship with God, and yet were not allowed *beyond the curtain,* as it were, to obtain eternal, unbroken relationship with God.

    The Law was a system of obedience--not disobedience. The rules were given Israel to obey them so they could enjoy limited fellowship with God. They would still die.

    The Law was a constant reminder of what had happened in the Garden, that man had sinned, and could now only enjoy limited fellowship with God, because he would die. And so, the Law was a continuation of the ability of man to please God and enjoy fellowship with God, with the understanding he would still die, and have that fellowship with God broken.

    The Law was not given so that man would be wicked and fail continuously to please God, incurring God's constant wrath against him. That is purely a misnomer--a misunderstanding of the theology of the Law. The Law magnified sin by showing through obedience the things also that would amount to failures to obey. For every righteous thing a person did there would be evidence of numerous human flaws, indicating that sin continued to legally bar him from eternity.

    But the Law was actually a system of righteousness, to please God despite man's sins. It was a preview of NT grace in which man serves Christ in righteousness and has his many flaws covered and forgiven, allowing him to experience eternal life.

    Redemption in the NT covenant of Christ redeems man from the system of Law that did not yet have the means of obtaining eternal life. Being given a new system--the NT system--we do have eternal life in the grace of Christ.

  12. #42

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As you probably know, redemption involves the purchase of men who were sold to death, who lost eternal fellowship with God. Under the Law this failure of man did not change. They obtained limited fellowship with God, and yet were not allowed *beyond the curtain,* as it were, to obtain eternal, unbroken relationship with God.

    The Law was a system of obedience--not disobedience. The rules were given Israel to obey them so they could enjoy limited fellowship with God. They would still die.

    The Law was a constant reminder of what had happened in the Garden, that man had sinned, and could now only enjoy limited fellowship with God, because he would die. And so, the Law was a continuation of the ability of man to please God and enjoy fellowship with God, with the understanding he would still die, and have that fellowship with God broken.

    The Law was not given so that man would be wicked and fail continuously to please God, incurring God's constant wrath against him. That is purely a misnomer--a misunderstanding of the theology of the Law. The Law magnified sin by showing through obedience the things also that would amount to failures to obey. For every righteous thing a person did there would be evidence of numerous human flaws, indicating that sin continued to legally bar him from eternity.

    But the Law was actually a system of righteousness, to please God despite man's sins. It was a preview of NT grace in which man serves Christ in righteousness and has his many flaws covered and forgiven, allowing him to experience eternal life.

    Redemption in the NT covenant of Christ redeems man from the system of Law that did not yet have the means of obtaining eternal life. Being given a new system--the NT system--we do have eternal life in the grace of Christ.
    I agree the law shows the Holiness of God, but was the first man Adam created with the ability of being holy or was he created and subjected to futility, in hope?

    I guess I am asking, was this man; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7, going to need to be born again in order to inherit the kingdom of God? Was the man of Genesis 2:7 this man? Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:50 The first man is of the earth, earthy: V 47 1st part. Of the flesh?

    Considering in the mind of God the Lamb was already slain, for redemption, before the first man, in whose figure the Lamb would come, was created.

    Was the first man created. sold under sin, for a purpose?

    Where was the devil, the sinner from the beginning, when Adam was created?

    What was he, the devil doing? Do you think at the time Adam was created the devil had been doing any works? See 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

    Did the works of the devil have anything to do with the creation of Adam in whose figure the Son of God would be manifested?

  13. #43

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by percho View Post
    I agree the law shows the Holiness of God, but was the first man Adam created with the ability of being holy or was he created and subjected to futility, in hope?

    I guess I am asking, was this man; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7, going to need to be born again in order to inherit the kingdom of God? Was the man of Genesis 2:7 this man? Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:50 The first man is of the earth, earthy: V 47 1st part. Of the flesh?
    A legitimate question! Personally, I think Paul uses the word "flesh" as a synonym for carnality, for sin, and not for the human body. Although the body is flesh, I don't think Paul meant that. By "flesh" he meant the man of sin, and not the human body.

    So yes, Adam could've obtained eternal life in his human body. He had not sinned at the beginning, and could've eaten of the tree of life. This was actually a choice for eternal relationship with God, in which there can be no sin. However, we know Adam made the wrong choice, and mixed his good choices with his bad choices. So he can be saved, but only through redemption.

    I would add that Adam certainly had the power to be holy and to do good. He had the ability to obey God's 1st command to live in His image and likeness. Every good act takes place through the aid of the Holy Spirit. Christians who do good have the added benefit of having the Holy Spirit reside within them on an eternal basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by percho
    Considering in the mind of God the Lamb was already slain, for redemption, before the first man, in whose figure the Lamb would come, was created.
    I'm not sure that's true. To say that God had in mind a remedy for sin even before sin took place does not mean that God anticipated He would have to use that remedy. But once Adam sinned God knew from that point on that He would provide redemption of His creation--man.

    Quote Originally Posted by percho
    Was the first man created. sold under sin, for a purpose?
    Man was not sold under sin from his creation! He was created not for sin but for righteousness, for obedience to God's word.

    Quote Originally Posted by percho
    Where was the devil, the sinner from the beginning, when Adam was created?
    Good question! I don't know whether the Devil sinned before the Garden or in the Garden? The Devil may have fallen even before the creation of the universe or before the creation of man? I just don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by percho
    What was he, the devil doing? Do you think at the time Adam was created the devil had been doing any works? See 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
    The reference here is to the fact Satan was in sin before Adam sinned. He was the *cause* of Adam's sin. Therefore, his sins were already active before Adam fell.

    Quote Originally Posted by percho
    Did the works of the devil have anything to do with the creation of Adam in whose figure the Son of God would be manifested?
    I have considered the possibility the creation of man was a strategic response to Satan's rebellion. Create mankind as a pawn, inferior to the angels, so that in falling to Satan under duress Satan would be convicted of sin, and man could be redeemed as a victim.

    But I don't think so. Probably Satan fell sometime after creation, and showed up in the Garden to oppose God's word on earth, thinking man a possible victim, being inferior to him. Man unfortunately made a bad decision, but it was indeed under duress. Therefore man can be redeemed, whereas Satan cannot, having already clearly and consciously chosen against God.

    Your reference to Adam being in the figure of the Son of God means something else, I think. I think it refers to the fact that Adam's sin impacts his posterity--it is a legal consequence that affects innocent people. They carry the burden of the sin nature, as well as the sentence of death. Jesus came to bear that burden, without the sin nature. He died.

    In the same way Adam impacted all of his posterity Christ comes in the same figure as one who impacts the whole human race. His grace extends to all of mankind, even though some people reject salvation. All can do good. All can experience God's presence and power, if they obey Him. Obedience, however, does not necessarily translate into salvation. The impact Christ brought to the world is therefore as universal as Adam's influence upon men. In this way they share they same "figure."

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Why did Jesus die during Passover and NOT on the Day of Atonement?

    What has all the above over the Law, got to do with the thread's subject?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. IMPORTANT Atonement: Did Jesus pay for sin debt?
    By LookingUp in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Apr 10th 2013, 06:47 PM
  2. Day of Atonement
    By keck553 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Oct 7th 2008, 03:59 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Apr 17th 2008, 09:20 PM
  4. Jesus' atonement
    By Owen in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Aug 24th 2007, 07:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •