34 replies to this topic

[Dawn]

In my perusals about the Atonement I was wondering about the word for "for" in Romans 5:8 (Greek "huper"):

Ro 5:8 But <de> God <theos> commendeth <sunistao> his <heautou> love <agape> toward <eis> us <hemas>, in that <hoti>, while we <hemon> were <on> yet <eti> sinners <hamartolos>, Christ <Christos> died <apothnesko> for <huper> us <hemon>.

Quote

5228. uper huper, hoop-er'
Search for 5228 in KJV

a primary preposition; "over", i.e. (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding; with the accusative case superior to, more than:--(+ exceeding, abundantly) above, in (on) behalf of, beyond, by, + very chiefest, concerning, exceeding (above, -ly), for, + very highly, more (than), of, over, on the part of, for sake of, in stead, than, to(-ward), very. In the comparative, it retains many of the above applications.

Is the word "huper" in Rom 5:8 with the accusative case or genitive case? It obviously has a bearing on whether Paul meant it substitutionally or representatively? (ie: "instead of" or "on behalf of") - makes a difference, yes?

[Steven]

Hi D.

Dawn, on Jan 8 2007, 12:20 AM, said:

Is the word "huper" in Rom 5:8 with the accusative case or genitive case?

The latter:

UPER HMAS - above us
UPER HMWN - for us
ANTI HMWN - instead of us

Quote

It obviously has a bearing on whether Paul meant it substitutionally or representatively? (ie: "instead of" or "on behalf of") - makes a difference, yes?

I doubt Paul would have understood the difference between "substitutionally" and "representatively".
S

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 8 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

Quote

It obviously has a bearing on whether Paul meant it substitutionally or representatively? (ie: "instead of" or "on behalf of") - makes a difference, yes?

I doubt Paul would have understood the difference between "substitutionally" and "representatively".

He seems to have understood the difference between 'instead of' and 'leaving us an example'.

[Steven]

Fortigurn, on Jan 8 2007, 04:29 AM, said:

Steven, on Jan 8 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

Quote

It obviously has a bearing on whether Paul meant it substitutionally or representatively? (ie: "instead of" or "on behalf of") - makes a difference, yes?

I doubt Paul would have understood the difference between "substitutionally" and "representatively".

He seems to have understood the difference between 'instead of' and 'leaving us an example'.

True, but what I meant by the above was that I doubt Paul would have understood the difference between "substitutionally" and "representatively".

For example when Philemon could not minister to Paul, and Onesimus ministered in Philemon's stead, was Onesimus doing so "substitutionally" or "representatively"? It's pseudotheological gibberish (no offence Dawn, not blaming you for asking the question!).

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 8 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

True, but what I meant by the above was that I doubt Paul would have understood the difference between "substitutionally" and "representatively".

If you mean he wouldn't have understood the English, I agree. If you mean he wouldn't have understood the concept, I disagree (and that was the point of my reply).

Quote

For example when Philemon could not minister to Paul, and Onesimus ministered in Philemon's stead, was Onesimus doing so "substitutionally" or "representatively"?

If he did it in Philemon's stead, he did it as a substitute. If he did it as an example of what Philemon should do to others, he did it as a representative.

[Steven]

J
Technically, maybe, but I rather imagine that when Onesimus brought Paul his meal in prison the difference between Onesimus doing it as a "substitute" or "representative" for Philemon wasn't as important to Paul as what filling was in the bread. Yes technically it v13 has "for" (UPER) Philemon, not "instead of" (ANTI) Philemon, but UPER merges into ANTI on the borders where these two prepositions meet.

Hence you'll notice that in your Chinese Bible the word used is 替 [ti] "substituting for" Philemon v13.

So we're still left with Christ having given his life as a ransom "instead of" (ANTI) many, the same "instead of" (ANTI) as the lamb being offered "instead of" (ANTI) Isaac in the LXX.

And we're still left with the glaring anomaly of Christ who didn't sin dieing "for" (UPER) our sins, and some of us who sin being alive when Christ comes and never having to die for our sins.

Bottom line: It's not an either/or. Christadelphians should be banned from running round saying "representative not substitute" because it's meaningless, as well as not true.
WLIOL
S

PS - Just because Magdalena Kozená recorded "J'ai versé le poison" from Cléopâtre doesn't mean that Renée Fleming didn't (my little bit of happiness this lunchtime... any excuse to share it)

[Dawn]

Just had a quick read of this thread - I actually think both words (substitute and representative) are unBiblical and shouldn't be used. Isn't "reconciliation" better?

But what do you mean Steven "meaningly as well as not true" - what isn't true? That Christ is a "representative" ? What would you describe the crucifixion as and the point of it then?

[Jeremy]

Steven, on Jan 8 2007, 05:47 AM, said:

PS - Just because Magdalena Kozená recorded "J'ai versé le poison" from Cléopâtre doesn't mean that Renée Fleming didn't (my little bit of happiness this lunchtime... any excuse to share it)

Well I appreciated that at least, Steven.

Dawn, on Jan 8 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

Just had a quick read of this thread - I actually think both words (substitute and representative) are unBiblical and shouldn't be used. Isn't "reconciliation" better?

I agree that "representative" isn't the best word for describing what I think the Bible says about the sacrifice of Christ. Someone can still "represent" you instead of you doing something yourself - e.g., the Queen was represented by somebody at some function or other. HM didn't have to lift her royal pinkie.

The best word I've heard to describe the work of Christ and our response is "involvement". Christ got involved in our life, so we get involved in his. Very powerful.

[InChristAlways]

Dawn, on Jan 8 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

Just had a quick read of this thread - I actually think both words (substitute and representative) are unBiblical and shouldn't be used. Isn't "reconciliation" better?

But what do you mean Steven "meaningly as well as not true" - what isn't true? That Christ is a "representative" ? What would you describe the crucifixion as and the point of it then?

I believe that was the whole plan of the LORD since the beginning. Reconciliation is an interesting word and I have never really looked at it that much.
It appears to be a form of 3 different greek words. What a wonderfull God we have. :coffee:

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

apokatallasso (Strong's 604) occurs 3 times in 3 verses:

http://www.kingdombi...savior/SOW8.htm
RECONCILIATION IN THE HEAVENS

"For by Him were ALL THINGS created, that are IN HEAVEN, and that are IN EARTH, visible and INVISIBLE, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or PRINCIPALITIES, or POWERS: ALL THINGS were created by Him and FOR HIM: and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to RECONCILE ALL THINGS unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be THINGS IN EARTH, or THINGS IN HEAVEN" (Col. 1:16, 20).

to reconcile 604 apo-kata-llasso {ap-ok-at-al-las'-so}
from 575 and 2644; TDNT - 1:258,40; v
AV - reconcile 3; 3 1) to reconcile completely 2) to reconcile back again 3) bring back a former state of harmony

2644. kata-llasso kat-al-las'-so from 2596 and 236; to change mutually, i.e. (figuratively) to compound a difference:--reconcile.
236. allasso al-las'-so from 243; to make different:--change.
243. allos al'-los a primary word; "else," i.e. different (in many applications):--more, one (another), (an-, some an-)other(-s, -wise).

Edited by InChristAlways, 09 January 2007 - 01:46 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Jeremy, on Jan 9 2007, 01:27 AM, said:

The best word I've heard to describe the work of Christ and our response is "involvement". Christ got involved in our life, so we get involved in his. Very powerful.

Participation is another good word. In fact it's participation which we mean when we speak of representation.

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 8 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

J
Technically, maybe, but I rather imagine that when Onesimus brought Paul his meal in prison the difference between Onesimus doing it as a "substitute" or "representative" for Philemon wasn't as important to Paul as what filling was in the bread. Yes technically it v13 has "for" (UPER) Philemon, not "instead of" (ANTI) Philemon, but UPER merges into ANTI on the borders where these two prepositions meet.

Hence you'll notice that in your Chinese Bible the word used is 替 [ti] "substituting for" Philemon v13.

My point is that it really doesn't matter if we call this substitutionary or representative, it's not talking about the atonement.

Quote

So we're still left with Christ having given his life as a ransom "instead of" (ANTI) many, the same "instead of" (ANTI) as the lamb being offered "instead of" (ANTI) Isaac in the LXX.

It's not the same instead as Isaac in the LXX. With Isaac, the lamb was not given as a ransom or substitute for Isaac. God had already said 'It's ok, don't kill him'. Abraham offered the lamb instead of offering Isaac, but didn't offer the lamb to replace Isaac, or ransom him (Isaac had already been saved).

Furthermore, Christ giving his life as a ransom is either 'for the sake of many' (as Plato, 'Menexenus', 273a), or 'in return for many' (as Homer, 'Iliad', 23:650).

The problem with the substition idea (leaving aside the injustice of it), is that the Bible never describes Christ's death as substitutionary, and it cannot make any sense of the passages which describe Christ's death as representative/participatory. The Bible word for 'participation' in the atonement is 'fellowship', as in 'fellowship of his sufferings'. Equivalent phrases are 'leaving us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps', and 'take up his cross and follow me'.

Quote

And we're still left with the glaring anomaly of Christ who didn't sin dieing "for" (UPER) our sins, and some of us who sin being alive when Christ comes and never having to die for our sins.

There is no anomaly here at all. Christ didn't die as a punishment for sins, because he never sinned. On the contrary, he laid down his life for his friends. There is likewise no anomaly with some of us who sin being alive when Christ comes and never having to die for our sins, because we were forgiven. That's why sinners who are raised have the opportunity to live again, forgiveness. It's really simple.

Quote

Bottom line: It's not an either/or.

Sure it is. It's not some messy piece of dogma which the Bible writes pages about without actually ever getting to the point, or concerning which it manages to be so vague that we can believe whatever we like about it. Christ is never once called our substitute, despite the abundance of words and phrases which could have been used, but he is called our example, which is why people use the word 'representative' (though 'participation' is a better word).

It's really so simple I don't see why people have to make it complicated, or say that it's too difficult to understand or wasn't written very clearly.

[Steven]

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 04:53 AM, said:

Quote

Bottom line: It's not an either/or.

Sure it is.

Why? In the normal dictionary meaning Christ was a substitute - he died in our place, the ransom instead of [ANTI] us - he substituted for our sins by dieing on the cross so that you and I don't have to die, in exactly the same was as the ram was a substitute for [ANTI] Isaac. Or in exactly the same way that Priscilla and Aquila substituted [UPOTIQMEMI Ro.16:4] for Paul ~ although happily their necks were spared as Isaac's was. Likewise Christ can also be a representative, representing man to God, representing God to man. It's not an either/or and when we say it is we are getting into the word games Paul warns us about.

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 9 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 04:53 AM, said:

Quote

Bottom line: It's not an either/or.

Sure it is.

Why? In the normal dictionary meaning Christ was a substitute - he died in our place, the ransom instead of [ANTI] us - he substituted for our sins by dieing on the cross so that you and I don't have to die, in exactly the same was as the ram was a substitute for [ANTI] Isaac. Or in exactly the same way that Priscilla and Aquila substituted [UPOTIQMEMI Ro.16:4] for Paul ~ although happily their necks were spared as Isaac's was.

* Christ is nowhere described as having died in our place, and if you give a ransom 'instead of' someone else, then you pay the ransom which was demnaded of them but which they don't pay, whereas in Christ's case he ransomed us (paying the ransom for us), he didn't pay the ransom which ws demanded of us. You don't ask the people who are captured to pay the ransom, you ask other people to do it.

If we were in the position of having to pay a ransom for someone else, and Christ paid the ransom to release them instead of us, then we could say that Christ paid the ransom instead of us, as our substitute, but the Bible says that he was the ransom which released us, so he didn't pay the ransom as our substitute, becuase it was never asked of us in the first place.

* Priscilla and Aquila may have substituted for Paul, but you couldn't find any passages in which Christ substituted for us, dying because we couldn't die, or weren't around

* Isaac wasn't saved by the sacrifice of the lamb, he was saved before the sacrifice of the lamb, which is why the lamb was a thank offering, not a substitute to get Isaac off the hook

Quote

Likewise Christ can also be a representative, representing man to God, representing God to man.

Not just our representative in that way, but as our representative of the way we should live (hence 'If anyone would follow me, let him take up his cross', and 'leaving us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps').

Quote

It's not an either/or and when we say it is we are getting into the word games Paul warns us about.

It's an either/or because Paul never used any words to describe Christ as dying as our substitute, but he did use many words and phrases to say that Christ died as our representative (and Christ did the same). We're never once told that Christ died in our place, to take the punishment which would otherwise come to us.

Why did Christ die? To change us, not God. Have a look at the way it's described in the New Testament (there are seven verses of Scripture here, among others):

* To turn us from our sins (not 'to take the punishment for our sins as a substitute')

* To invite us to take up our cross (not 'to take up a cross instead of us')

* Leaving us an example to follow in his footsteps (not 'doing it instead of us')

* To cleanse our conscience from dead works (not 'propitiating God's wrath against us')

* To draw us unto God (not 'drawing God to us')

* So we might walk in love as Christ also hath loved us (not 'Christ loved us instead of us having to love each other')

* He laid down his life for us so we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (not 'he laid down his life as our substitute, so that we don't have to lay down our lives at all')

It couldn't be clearer. Where are all the verses saying he did it as our substitute? You cannot reconcile 'doing it instead of us' with 'leaving us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps'. They're diametrically opposed.

Edited by Fortigurn, 09 January 2007 - 09:45 AM.

[Damien]

Quote

* To turn us from our sins (not 'to take the punishment for our sins as a substitute')

* To invite us to take up our cross (not 'to take up a cross instead of us')

* Leaving us an example to follow in his footsteps (not 'doing it instead of us')

* To cleanse our conscience from dead works (not 'propitiating God's wrath against us')

* To draw us unto God (not 'drawing God to us')

* So we might walk in love as Christ also hath loved us (not 'Christ loved us instead of us having to love each other')

* He laid down his life for us so we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (not 'he laid down his life as our substitute, so that we don't have to lay down our lives at all')

Here are the other translations -

(ASV) But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

(BBE) But God has made clear his love to us, in that, when we were still sinners, Christ gave his life for us.

(CEV) But God showed how much he loved us by having Christ die for us, even though we were sinful.

(ESV) but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

(GNB) But God has shown us how much he loves us---it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us!

(ISV) But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.

(KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

(LITV) but God commends His love to us in this, that we being yet sinners, Christ died for us.

(RV) But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

(YLT) and God doth commend His own love to us, that, in our being still sinners, Christ did die for us;

Edited by Damien, 09 January 2007 - 09:58 AM.

[Dawn]

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 03:53 AM, said:

My point is that it really doesn't matter if we call this substitutionary or representative, it's not talking about the atonement.

i thought it was? What is it talking about then?

[Steven]

Hello Fort

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

Why did Christ die? To change us, not God.

Yes. So whom are you telling who doesn't know this? Dawn hasn't said this. Neither have I. So whom are you addressing this to?

We all know that Christ's blood ransomed people for God, not from God: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" So yes he died to change us, not God. Who doesn't know this?

That's why this substitute image is directed at the effect on men not on God:
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Nethertheless that ransom was paid by his blood for our sins. How is that not a substitute in the normal use in the English language? such as:

Quote

Graham Taylor substituted him for Alan Smith with Lineker still needing that one goal to equal Charlton's record

Christ was brought on as a last minute substitute to die in your place and mine.

Look again in your Chinese Bible where 1Pe3:18 义的 代替 不义的 [yide daiti buyide] the Righteous substituting the unrighteous. A pefectly literal and normal translation of what the Greek says.

You can test this in a very simple way - You sin, so, if Christ comes back tomorrow, why don't you die? You don't die because your just wage as a sinner was purchased by the blood of an innocent man. Christ substituted for you as much (or many times more) as the priest Maximillian Kolbe substituted for Franciszek Gajowniczek, a fellow inmate, in Auschwitz.

It may well be that all the baggage associated with "substitution" for those whose brain cells have been eaten away by theology makes the word unacceptable, but in terms of the actual fact, Christ substituted for sinners, in the same way that Smith was substituted for Lineker, or Kolbe for Gajowniczek. One man took the place of another, in this case millions of others.

There are statements of Christ being "a representative", but there are also verses like these:

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1 Thessalonians 5:10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.

We can read that through our Christadelpho-lenses to read to "at the right time Christ died as a representative of the ungodly." "while we were still sinners, Christ died to represent us". "Christ died to represent our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" "who died to represent us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." but this is all just playing with words, word games.

Christ died more as a substitute for me, than to represent me (represent me to myself or God?). Bottom line: I sin, Christ dies. Christ doesn't sin, I live. That doesn't mean that I believe that Christ died to sacrifice the bloodlust of an angry Zeus. Nor that analogy with God is SS Kommandant Karl Fritsch. The camp commandant in this story is Death, Thanatos, not Yahweh. And seeing as Death doesn't actually exist as a person, and originates from only one source, the Devil, the flesh, it's quite clear that Christ is saving ourselves from ourselves. Which is exactly what 1 Peter 1:18 says: "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ."

Back to last months Clean Flesh example of Eleanor of Aquitaine ransoming Richard the Lionheart from Emperor Heinrich. God is not Emperor Heinrich, Emperor Heinrich is the consequence of Richard the Lionheart's own sin. Eleanor is ransoming Richard from his own self-made destiny. (sounds like the last episode of the Prisoner where Patrick McGoohan finds out his nemesis is his twin)

So, can you see how a Christadelphian can take all those ransom verses
Matthew 20:28/Mark 10:45 "to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Timothy 2:6 "who gave himself as a ransom for all"
Revelation 5:9 "your blood you ransomed people for God"
And recognise that Christ substituted his blood for ours, and not have to believe that God is a rabid bloodfiend?

It's not an either / or. Christ was lots of things - redeemer, ransom, sacrifice, lamb, etc. etc. etc.
S

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on Jan 9 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 03:53 AM, said:

My point is that it really doesn't matter if we call this substitutionary or representative, it's not talking about the atonement.

i thought it was? What is it talking about then?

The passage I was commenting on is the passage in which Onesimus brought Paul his meal in prison. That's not talking about the atonement, it's talking about Onesimus bringing Paul his meal in prison.

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 9 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

Hello Fort

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

Why did Christ die? To change us, not God.

Yes. So whom are you telling who doesn't know this? Dawn hasn't said this. Neither have I. So whom are you addressing this to?

We all know that Christ's blood ransomed people for God, not from God: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" So yes he died to change us, not God. Who doesn't know this?

I'm not addressing it to anyone in particular, I'm pointing out that this is the whole underlying reason for the substitution idea. The whole argument rests on Jesus taking the punishment for our sins.

Quote

That's why this substitute image is directed at the effect on men not on God:
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

That's the exact opposite of substitution. Christ died for all, not instead of all. Furthermore, it says explicitly that he died for our sake so that we might live for his sake. That is participation.

Quote

Nethertheless that ransom was paid by his blood for our sins. How is that not a substitute in the normal use in the English language? such as:

Quote

Graham Taylor substituted him for Alan Smith with Lineker still needing that one goal to equal Charlton's record

Christ was brought on as a last minute substitute to die in your place and mine.

It would be a substitution if it said 'His blood was paid instead of our blood'. A ransom is not a substitution, it's the price of release. That price was paid by God and Christ, for us. As I have said, the only way you can get substitution out of a ransom situation is if person A is asked to pay the ransom, and person B pays the ransom instead of them. But we were never asked to pay the ransom.

Quote

Look again in your Chinese Bible where 1Pe3:18 义的 代替 不义的 [yide daiti buyide] the Righteous substituting the unrighteous. A pefectly literal and normal translation of what the Greek says.

Not even the evangelical NET says 'substituting the unrighteous'. That is not an accurate translation of uPER. The word 'for' (as in, on behalf of), is accurate, and that's what most Bibles have.

Quote

You can test this in a very simple way - You sin, so, if Christ comes back tomorrow, why don't you die? You don't die because your just wage as a sinner was purchased by the blood of an innocent man. Christ substituted for you as much (or many times more) as the priest Maximillian Kolbe substituted for Franciszek Gajowniczek, a fellow inmate, in Auschwitz.

I've been through this before (in this very thread). I don't die because I'm forgiven. I'm forgiven because I repented. I repented because I was converted. I was converted by Christ's sacrifice.

You have just told me that I don't die because God punished Jesus with death as my substitute, but the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. Read Matthew 18:35 to the end, and show me where someone steps in to take the punishment of the slave who couldn't pay the money. No one does - the lord forgives him freely, and that's the whole point. If God only 'forgives' us because Jesus was punished instead of us, then that's not forgiveness, that's God being bought off. That's God the wicked servant who says 'I don't care who gives it to me, I will have my pound of flesh'.

Quote

There are statements of Christ being "a representative", but there are also verses like these:

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1 Thessalonians 5:10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.

I've already been through all this - 'for' as in 'on behalf of', or 'because of'.

Quote

We can read that through our Christadelpho-lenses to read to "at the right time Christ died as a representative of the ungodly." "while we were still sinners, Christ died to represent us". "Christ died to represent our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" "who died to represent us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." but this is all just playing with words, word games.

I don't read any of those passages like that.

Quote

Christ died more as a substitute for me, than to represent me (represent me to myself or God?). Bottom line: I sin, Christ dies. Christ doesn't sin, I live. That doesn't mean that I believe that Christ died to sacrifice the bloodlust of an angry Zeus. Nor that analogy with God is SS Kommandant Karl Fritsch. The camp commandant in this story is Death, Thanatos, not Yahweh. And seeing as Death doesn't actually exist as a person, and originates from only one source, the Devil, the flesh, it's quite clear that Christ is saving ourselves from ourselves.

But you don't have Christ saving ourselves from ourselves, you have Christ saving us from the punishment which God established as the wages of sin. Like it or not, you can't say that the punishment (death), was established by the punishment (death), because the punishment (death), was in fact established by God. You can't say that 'death' asked Christ to be a substitute, to take the wages of our sins, because it was God who asked Christ to die for us.

Quote

Which is exactly what 1 Peter 1:18 says: "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ."

Ransom is not substitution.

[Steven]

Okay, so everyone who uses the word "substitute" is full of false doctrine and doesn't understand the atonement.

Christ in no way died in our place, or as the lamb provided instead of Isaac.

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Jan 9 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

Okay, so everyone who uses the word "substitute" is full of false doctrine and doesn't understand the atonement.

Not necessarily, no.

Quote

Christ in no way died in our place, or as the lamb provided instead of Isaac.

No, not at all. Remember, no lamb died instead of Isaac. Isaac was saved from death before the lamb was sacrificed. In fact, as we know, Isaac was never in any danger of death at all. He wasn't under a sentence of death from which killing the lamb as his substitute saved him. The whole purpose of the exercise was to test Abraham's faith.

[Steven]

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

Steven, on Jan 9 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

Okay, so everyone who uses the word "substitute" is full of false doctrine and doesn't understand the atonement.

Not necessarily, no.

Well that's the main thing, as long as we can allow someone to use a word and it means what it means to them according to their scripture, then its okay.

We should also bear in mind that "substitutenotrepresentative" is pure Christadelphianese anyway (like "the emblems" "arranging brethren" "to disfellowship" or "the fraternal" etc). It's not a real pair of words in English. For example search ["substitute not a representative"] on Google and you get only webpages written by Christadelphians for Christadelphians living in Christadelphaland (and an amusing article about electing Bush).

What bothers me more than the ideas is that the ringers among us who aren't properly Christadelphianized, or who weren't decanted direct from the hatcheries, might trip up, and be surrounded by Christadelphoids gurgling "sub-sti-tute-not-rep-re-sen-ta-tive, sub-sti-tute-not-rep-re-sen-ta-tive" like a pack of overvoltaged Darleks.

And seeing as how Darleks have kitchen sink plungers as left arms, that reminds me, next time you "wash the dishes for [UPER] your missus", please think while you scrub the pans whether you you are doing that as a substitute or a representative?
Good night
s

[Dawn]

Fortigurn, on Jan 9 2007, 03:53 AM, said:

Quote

So we're still left with Christ having given his life as a ransom "instead of" (ANTI) many, the same "instead of" (ANTI) as the lamb being offered "instead of" (ANTI) Isaac in the LXX.

It's not the same instead as Isaac in the LXX. With Isaac, the lamb was not given as a ransom or substitute for Isaac. God had already said 'It's ok, don't kill him'. Abraham offered the lamb instead of offering Isaac, but didn't offer the lamb to replace Isaac, or ransom him (Isaac had already been saved).

I think Fortigurn is right here and in fact Jews do not believe in subsitution at all:

Quote

No where in the text is Abraham actually commanded to sacrifice his son. He is only commanded to take his son up to the mountain as an “Olah” offering. the hebrew: וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים says that he is to be brought up to one of the mountains as an all burned offering. An Olah offering is an elevation offering not a Guilt or Sin sacrifice. Besides Deuteronomy 12:31 is one of many passages that outlaws human sacrifice. An Olah Offering is not a "substitution" offering it is an Elevation offering.

(From my "Atonement" notes - this bit is from a Jew on CARM). I don't know what an "elevation" or "olah" offering is - but it's not substitutionary anyhow.

Edited by Dawn, 09 January 2007 - 11:46 PM.

[Dawn]

Yikes Steven you don't like substitution/representation words do you!! Never mind. It's not so much the words - it's the concepts and belief behind them which I am interested in because they are fundamentally different in many ways.

If Christ was a substitute He would still be dead and I would live forever. Which plainly isn't the case. So He is NOT a substitute - nevertheless I agree within Scripture there is a kind of "substitutionary" notion - but it doesn't go any further than that - as you say, types and shadows.

However "representation" (or as we all now prefer - "reconciliation" or "participation" or "involvement") makes a lot more sense, and is much nearer the truth about the purpose of the crucifixion, yes?

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on Jan 10 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

I don't know what an "elevation" or "olah" offering is - but it's not substitutionary anyhow.

It's a burnt offering. The word 'olah' is used in the Bible to describe the burnt offering (the word 'olah' means 'to ascend', or something like that).

[InChristAlways]

Quote

It's not the same instead as Isaac in the LXX. With Isaac, the lamb was not given as a ransom or substitute for Isaac. God had already said 'It's ok, don't kill him'. Abraham offered the lamb instead of offering Isaac, but didn't offer the lamb to replace Isaac, or ransom him (Isaac had already been saved).

Quote

I think Fortigurn is right here and in fact Jews do not believe in subsitution at all:

Hi. That is the same thing the Muslims use to try and convince Jews that Jesus wasn't crucified.
I kind of viewed the LORD saving Isaac from the "wood" represented the type of "resurrection" of our dear Lord Jesus.
Notice the "ram" burnt in his place which I feel is what daniel and zephaniah are representing concerning the final "burnt offering/sacrifice" for the Consummation of the OC Jewish Nation/Priesthood. Of course that is just a view right now. Thoughts?

Gene 22:12 and He saith, `Put not forth thine hand unto the youth, nor do anything to him, for now I have known that thou art fearing God, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only one, from Me.' 13 And Abraham lifteth up his eyes, and looketh, and lo, a ram behind, seized in a thicket by its horns; and Abraham goeth, and taketh the ram, and causeth it to ascend for a burnt-offering instead of his son;

Daniel 7:11 `I was seeing, then, because of the voice of the great words that the horn is speaking, I was seeing till that the beast is slain, and his body hath been destroyed, and given to the burning fire;

Notice how the Hebrew word for "sacrifice" is used here and the one place a sacrifice was usually offered was on the Altar of Burnt Offerings. I have a rather unique "Hebrew/Jewish" view of this. Thoughts?

Zeph 1:7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD [is] at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests. 8 "And it shall be, In the day of the LORD's sacrifice,

[luke]

Fortigurn, on 09 January 2007 - 09:44 AM, said:

Why did Christ die? To change us, not God. Have a look at the way it's described in the New Testament (there are seven verses of Scripture here, among others):

I'm just trying to find where the following are from. I've added where I think below them -- have I got them right?

Quote

* To turn us from our sins (not 'to take the punishment for our sins as a substitute')

Acts 3:21

Quote

* To invite us to take up our cross (not 'to take up a cross instead of us')

Mat. 16:24 (and parallels in Mark and Luke)

Quote

* Leaving us an example to follow in his footsteps (not 'doing it instead of us')

1Pet. 2:21

Quote

* To cleanse our conscience from dead works (not 'propitiating God's wrath against us')

Heb. 19:14

Quote

* To draw us unto God (not 'drawing God to us')

John 12:32

Quote

* So we might walk in love as Christ also hath loved us (not 'Christ loved us instead of us having to love each other')

Eph. 5:2

Quote

* He laid down his life for us so we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (not 'he laid down his life as our substitute, so that we don't have to lay down our lives at all')

John 15:13

Edited by luke, 05 July 2010 - 07:26 PM.

[luke]

Is the following true?

[indent]Is it ever right to describe Jesus as our “substitute”?
Yes, although not in the mainstream Christian way (i.e. substitutionary atonement). We sin and we were going to die because of it; but Jesus died and, because of our involvement with his death (and resurrection), we no longer die, but sleep. Note that the substitution's not to do with, e.g., paying off our debt to God instead of us, but just in terms of death and no death, of who dies and who doesn't die. He dies so that we don't (we sleep).[/indent]

Edited by luke, 05 July 2010 - 07:30 PM.

[Richie]

But he slept too - he rose from the dead. 2 Corinthians 5 also says "if one died for all then were all dead". In other words the "for" bit in "he died for us" implies participation, not substitution.

The problem with the atonement according to Christendom, and it's crept subtly into Christadelphia, is that they worship the man on the cross (symbolized by the crucifix). The most amazing thing about Christ's work is not that he was raised from the dead (because if he's God that's a snap) but that God actually died. So, failing to see the import of 1 Corinthians 15 - our faith is in vain if he did not rise from the dead (and that import is also lost through virtue of the immortal soul doctrine) and the fact that "he was raised again for our justification" the whole focus is on the bleeding Christ-God.

[luke]

Yep, I think I've got the participatory part down, and totally reject the substitutionary atonement theory. But wondering if the just the word substitution (removed of theological baggage) could be used.

I don't think that I would (or the Bible does) describe Jesus' death as a sleep. It definitely describes our deaths as sleeping, though.

[Richie]

I don't think it's expedient to use a word such as substitution when describing the atonement. It's a recipe for misunderstanding.