Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why did Jesus sacrifice for Himself?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#31 Simon-Ben-Zion

Simon-Ben-Zion

    Omicron

  • Non-Member
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:42 PM


Thanks Hyperion. SBZ, your paraphrase of brother Carter was seriously misleading. I recommend strongly that you do not quote from memory in future. Thus far you have not done yourself any favours through your behaviour here.

I have NEVER read any thing by bro. Carter I have only read the works of Dr. Thomas, bro. Roberts, and CC Walker, and H. P. Mansfield and his son GEM maybe I paraphrased one of the Mansfield's but I know that it was not Carter and I am sorry if I have been misleading

I see now you mean I paraphrased brother Walker

#32 Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:57 PM



<And why did He make such an offering? Because making the sacrifice was the duty of the High Priest. Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the Law here, too.

Hi Brother Runge,

Indeed, "making the sacrifice was the duty of the High Priest" under the law, but the Lord Jesus was not a High Priest according to the Law but instead was "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb.6:20).

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment
, but after the power of an endless life"
(Heb.7:15-16).

Therefore, in His role as High Priest He had nothing to do with fulfilling the Law and therefore He had nothing to do with offering sacrifices for sin.

The words at Hebrews 5:1 are specifically speaking of the Levitical priesthood and not the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec."

("Questions and Questions" Oct., 1873, pages 460-468):

55. If to this you object, let me call your attention to Paul's definition of the priesthood which Christ took not to himself, but received from the Father: "Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, for that he himself is also compassed with infirmities, and by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also FOR HIMSELF, to offer for sins" (Heb. 5:2-3).


By Brother Roberts

Brother Roberts, the verses which you quoted must be understood in its context. Just three verses earlier the Lord Jesus is described in His role as High Priest as being the "Son of God":

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession" (Heb.4:14).

Therefore we can understand that our "great High Priest" is NOT "taken from among men" but that He was chosen for that role because He is the Son of God.

Besides we are told that the priesthood of the Lord Jesus is after the order of Melchisedec, and that priesthood existed before the Law came into existence. Therefore the following verse, which is speaking about an ordinance under the law, cannot be in regard to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ:

"And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (Heb.5:3).

#33 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 09:40 PM


HEB 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (KVJ)

Here is the entire sentence as translated in the King's English.


That is indeed the King's English, but it's not what we use today. Here it is translated into real English.

Hebrews 5 (NET):
1 For every high priest is taken from among the people1 and appointed to represent them before God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness,
3 and for this reason he is obligated to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.

By "faithful to the Greek", I am referring to the grouping of words into clauses as seen in the Diaglott or any interlinear translation. The primary implication is that more liberal translations have to add to the text to make it say it was for his personal sins.


The grouping of words into clauses as seen in the Diaglott and other interlinears is not at all indicative of how the Greek should be translated. Trying to arrange the English so it's arranged like the Greek is not only an exercise in futility it results in inaccurate translation. No 'liberal translation' I'm aware of tries to make this passage say that Christ offered for his personal sins. It isn't even talking about Christ, it's talking about the priests under the Law.


The translators had to re-work the verse to insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins. Please note that there were no exceptions identified for these offerings in either Leviticus or Hebrews. Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

"His own sins"? They had no idea what they were translating!

HEB 5:1 begins "Every High Priest...", describes the functions of the priest, then tells us Jesus was appointed to perform this role. So Hebrews 5 is all about Jesus, and it identifies Him by name. So, yes, Hebrews 5 is talking about Jesus.

#34 Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 11:14 PM

Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

When we look at a verse where it is said that the Lord Jesus offered a sacrifice we can see that it is not done while the Lord Jesus was High Priest:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb.9:14).

First of all, the word "offer" means "to present." We can see that the Israelite offered (or presented) his sacrifice at the door of the tabernacle, and if found to be acceptable it was accepted (see Lev.1:1-5).

The Lord Jesus likewise offered Himself without a spot to God, and this happened before the Cross at a time when the Lord Jesus was on earth..

Therefore this "offering" happened before the Lord Jesus was High Priest, because "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest" (Heb.8:4).

It is also true that this offering of one sacrifice for sins was done once for all, never to be repeated:

"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:11-12).

Therefore Hebrews 5:1-4 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus as High Priest offering sacrifices for sins. The only offering of one sacrifice for sins happened while the Lord Jesus was still on the earth, and while on earth "he should not be a priest."

#35 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 12:55 AM

The translators had to re-work the verse to insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins. Please note that there were no exceptions identified for these offerings in either Leviticus or Hebrews. Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

"His own sins"? They had no idea what they were translating!


The passage is saying nothing about Christ. It's talking about the mortal priests under the Law. The translators didn't have to 'insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins', that's what the verse says.

HEB 5:1 begins "Every High Priest...", describes the functions of the priest, then tells us Jesus was appointed to perform this role. So Hebrews 5 is all about Jesus, and it identifies Him by name. So, yes, Hebrews 5 is talking about Jesus.


This is misleading. The chapter opens with a description of what the mortal priests under the Law had to do. It then describes Christ, but does not attribute to Christ all that the mortal priests had to do. Verse 3 is never applied to Christ in the entire chapter. As I said before, verses 1-3 are not talking about Christ. The only comparison the writer of Hebrews makes is 'And no one assumes this honor4 on his own initiative, but only when called to it by God, as in fact Aaron was', with 'So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#36 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:06 AM




<And why did He make such an offering? Because making the sacrifice was the duty of the High Priest. Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the Law here, too.

Hi Brother Runge,

Indeed, "making the sacrifice was the duty of the High Priest" under the law, but the Lord Jesus was not a High Priest according to the Law but instead was "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb.6:20).

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment
, but after the power of an endless life"
(Heb.7:15-16).

Therefore, in His role as High Priest He had nothing to do with fulfilling the Law and therefore He had nothing to do with offering sacrifices for sin.

The words at Hebrews 5:1 are specifically speaking of the Levitical priesthood and not the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec."

("Questions and Questions" Oct., 1873, pages 460-468):

55. If to this you object, let me call your attention to Paul's definition of the priesthood which Christ took not to himself, but received from the Father: "Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, for that he himself is also compassed with infirmities, and by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also FOR HIMSELF, to offer for sins" (Heb. 5:2-3).


By Brother Roberts

Brother Roberts, the verses which you quoted must be understood in its context. Just three verses earlier the Lord Jesus is described in His role as High Priest as being the "Son of God":

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession" (Heb.4:14).

Therefore we can understand that our "great High Priest" is NOT "taken from among men" but that He was chosen for that role because He is the Son of God.

Besides we are told that the priesthood of the Lord Jesus is after the order of Melchisedec, and that priesthood existed before the Law came into existence. Therefore the following verse, which is speaking about an ordinance under the law, cannot be in regard to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ:

"And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (Heb.5:3).



But Jesus WAS a man, and as you say, He was chosen for the priestly role. Therefore, He was chosen from among His brothers.

HEB 2: 11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.

And while you argue the verse cannot be in regard to the priesthoold of Jesus, the chapter identifies Him by name. And your objection does not address HEB 7:27, which also states that Jesus made sacrifices for Himself and for the people.

HEB 7:27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Did He make those sacrifices or did He not? Hebrews 7:27 says "this He did once for all".

#37 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:29 AM


Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

When we look at a verse where it is said that the Lord Jesus offered a sacrifice we can see that it is not done while the Lord Jesus was High Priest:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb.9:14).

First of all, the word "offer" means "to present." We can see that the Israelite offered (or presented) his sacrifice at the door of the tabernacle, and if found to be acceptable it was accepted (see Lev.1:1-5).

The Lord Jesus likewise offered Himself without a spot to God, and this happened before the Cross at a time when the Lord Jesus was on earth..

Therefore this "offering" happened before the Lord Jesus was High Priest, because "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest" (Heb.8:4).

It is also true that this offering of one sacrifice for sins was done once for all, never to be repeated:

"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:11-12).

Therefore Hebrews 5:1-4 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus as High Priest offering sacrifices for sins. The only offering of one sacrifice for sins happened while the Lord Jesus was still on the earth, and while on earth "he should not be a priest."


That's a good thought, but it might be a matter of interpretation based on when Hebrews was written and why. I've come to favor earlier dates for much of the New Testament. So I think that Hebrews was written to assure them that their needs were met before they would experience the loss of the temple. Chapter 8 is telling them that having the favor of a resurrected Christ in heaven is better than having a mortal priest making sacrifices on earth. Therefore, this is after His ascension and, as you say, His sacrifice was made while He was on earth. I would not use HEB 8:4 to consider His work on earth.

Jesus had multiple roles in the spiritual understanding of His sacrifice. One was as the sacrifice itself. Here is where His perfect, sinless life was a requirement - as an unblemished sacrifice. But He was also the priest who made the sacrifice. He could not offer Himself unless He was still on earth, and unless He was recognized by God as priest. Therefore, He was a priest on earth before He was a priest in heaven.

#38 Simon-Ben-Zion

Simon-Ben-Zion

    Omicron

  • Non-Member
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:37 AM



HEB 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (KVJ)

Here is the entire sentence as translated in the King's English.


That is indeed the King's English, but it's not what we use today. Here it is translated into real English.

Hebrews 5 (NET):
1 For every high priest is taken from among the people1 and appointed to represent them before God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness,
3 and for this reason he is obligated to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.

By "faithful to the Greek", I am referring to the grouping of words into clauses as seen in the Diaglott or any interlinear translation. The primary implication is that more liberal translations have to add to the text to make it say it was for his personal sins.


The grouping of words into clauses as seen in the Diaglott and other interlinears is not at all indicative of how the Greek should be translated. Trying to arrange the English so it's arranged like the Greek is not only an exercise in futility it results in inaccurate translation. No 'liberal translation' I'm aware of tries to make this passage say that Christ offered for his personal sins. It isn't even talking about Christ, it's talking about the priests under the Law.


The translators had to re-work the verse to insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins. Please note that there were no exceptions identified for these offerings in either Leviticus or Hebrews. Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

"His own sins"? They had no idea what they were translating!

HEB 5:1 begins "Every High Priest...", describes the functions of the priest, then tells us Jesus was appointed to perform this role. So Hebrews 5 is all about Jesus, and it identifies Him by name. So, yes, Hebrews 5 is talking about Jesus.

Hi Chuck just thought I'd let you know that I agree with you

#39 Simon-Ben-Zion

Simon-Ben-Zion

    Omicron

  • Non-Member
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:39 AM

Hi Chuck just thought I'd let you know that I agree with you on all points

#40 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:39 AM

The translators had to re-work the verse to insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins. Please note that there were no exceptions identified for these offerings in either Leviticus or Hebrews. Fortunately, we can also confirm that Jesus made both sacrifices in another passage (top of page). Your NET looks good, but NIV does not.
"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)

"His own sins"? They had no idea what they were translating!


The passage is saying nothing about Christ. It's talking about the mortal priests under the Law. The translators didn't have to 'insert the idea that this sacrifice was only for personal sins', that's what the verse says.

HEB 5:1 begins "Every High Priest...", describes the functions of the priest, then tells us Jesus was appointed to perform this role. So Hebrews 5 is all about Jesus, and it identifies Him by name. So, yes, Hebrews 5 is talking about Jesus.


This is misleading. The chapter opens with a description of what the mortal priests under the Law had to do. It then describes Christ, but does not attribute to Christ all that the mortal priests had to do. Verse 3 is never applied to Christ in the entire chapter. As I said before, verses 1-3 are not talking about Christ. The only comparison the writer of Hebrews makes is 'And no one assumes this honor4 on his own initiative, but only when called to it by God, as in fact Aaron was', with 'So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God'.


The author stated EVERY priest, and I assume he said what he meant. Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ. This is not misleading - it is simply reading the words that are there. Since you say the author did not mean EVERY priest, the burden of proof is on you to uphold your assertion. And I would urge you to look at HEB 7:27 because it says much the same thing.

As to the insertion of new words into the verse, you can simply compare a few translations for yourself. It's a fact!

#41 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:43 AM

Hi Chuck just thought I'd let you know that I agree with you on all points

Thanks! I can use the encouragement sometimes.

#42 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:36 AM

Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ.


Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, so I am not sure why you think verse 3 is directly applied to Christ. The book of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus was not of the priesthood prior to his death and resurrection, which is apparent in chapter 5 no less. He was made our high priest after his resurrection and glory. So to offer up a sacrifice for his own sin would be impossible since he could not sin when he took up the office as our heavenly high priest. And, we cannot make him a high priest when he was in the flesh since Hebrews is again clear that being from Judah meant he was not of the priesthood.

#43 Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:03 AM

Chapter 8 is telling them that having the favor of a resurrected Christ in heaven is better than having a mortal priest making sacrifices on earth. Therefore, this is after His ascension and, as you say, His sacrifice was made while He was on earth. I would not use HEB 8:4 to consider His work on earth.

You say that you "would not use HEB 8:4 to consider His work on earth." Of course you understand that for your ideas to be correct the Lord must have been High Priest on the earth when the offering of one sacrifice for sins was made. However, the author of Hebrews makes it plain that "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest" (Heb.8:4).

It is not difficult to understand why the Lord Jesus could not be the High Priest at the time when He walked the earth. He was born under the Law and He faithfully kept the Law. And under the Law there was no place for any priesthood other than the Levitical priesthood. And therefore the Lord Jesus could not be a High Priest as long as the Law was in effect:

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb.7:14).

But He was also the priest who made the sacrifice.

No, the Scriptures never say that. Instead He offered himself without spot to God. To "offer" is not the same as a "sacrifice." The Israelite offered (or presented) his sacrifice at the door of the tabernacle, and if found to be acceptable it was accepted, and that is what is being referred to here:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb.9:14).

He could not offer Himself unless He was still on earth, and unless He was recognized by God as priest. Therefore, He was a priest on earth before He was a priest in heaven.

Again, the author of Hebrews states in no uncertain terms that "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest" (Heb.8:4).

The facts cannot be disputed. He was not a High Priest when He offered Himself without spot to God.

Edited by Jerry Shugart, 19 September 2010 - 04:05 AM.


#44 jon

jon

    Omicron

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:29 AM

At the end of the day if you want to talk about Jesus' sacrifice you're going to have to explain what you think it means to make a sacrifice and what his sacrifice actually achieves, how it actually takes away what sins. Explain the mechanics so to speak.

:asleep:

#45 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:55 AM

The author stated EVERY priest, and I assume he said what he meant.


So do I.

Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ. This is not misleading - it is simply reading the words that are there.


Please show me where the writer of Hebrews applies everything in verses 1-3, to Christ.

Since you say the author did not mean EVERY priest...


I didn't actually say that.

As to the insertion of new words into the verse, you can simply compare a few translations for yourself. It's a fact!


I've compared a few versions, and looked at the Greek text. Which are the 'new words' being inserted?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#46 jon

jon

    Omicron

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:26 AM

...and for that matter if you want to talk about Jesus being a priest, then you need to clarify exactly what it is you think that a priest does.

Its all very well to quote Bible verses, but if you don't understand the context then you don't understand the verses.

#47 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:06 PM


Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ.


Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, so I am not sure why you think verse 3 is directly applied to Christ. The book of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus was not of the priesthood prior to his death and resurrection, which is apparent in chapter 5 no less. He was made our high priest after his resurrection and glory. So to offer up a sacrifice for his own sin would be impossible since he could not sin when he took up the office as our heavenly high priest. And, we cannot make him a high priest when he was in the flesh since Hebrews is again clear that being from Judah meant he was not of the priesthood.


First, please note that no one has said Jesus sinned. But the author of Hebrews said he made the sacrifice "for sins".

Melchizedek was appointed priest as a mortal man, so appointment does not require immortality.

And since Jesus made His sacrifice once for all at the cross, his priesthood was in effect at that time. Otherwise, He would make the sacrifice and be appointed priest as a result, which does not follow.

#48 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:06 PM


Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ.


Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, so I am not sure why you think verse 3 is directly applied to Christ. The book of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus was not of the priesthood prior to his death and resurrection, which is apparent in chapter 5 no less. He was made our high priest after his resurrection and glory. So to offer up a sacrifice for his own sin would be impossible since he could not sin when he took up the office as our heavenly high priest. And, we cannot make him a high priest when he was in the flesh since Hebrews is again clear that being from Judah meant he was not of the priesthood.


First, please note that no one has said Jesus sinned. But the author of Hebrews said he made the sacrifice "for sins".

Melchizedek was appointed priest as a mortal man, so appointment does not require immortality.

And since Jesus made His sacrifice once for all at the cross, his priesthood was in effect at that time. Otherwise, He would make the sacrifice and be appointed priest as a result, which does not follow.

#49 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:21 PM


Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ.


Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, so I am not sure why you think verse 3 is directly applied to Christ. The book of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus was not of the priesthood prior to his death and resurrection, which is apparent in chapter 5 no less. He was made our high priest after his resurrection and glory. So to offer up a sacrifice for his own sin would be impossible since he could not sin when he took up the office as our heavenly high priest. And, we cannot make him a high priest when he was in the flesh since Hebrews is again clear that being from Judah meant he was not of the priesthood.


Since you assert that Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, we need a Bible verse to establish that fact. HEB says He made His sacrifice once for all (HEB 7:27) which establishes His role as priest at the cross.

You are making an assumption that He would have to have personal sins or He could not make the offering for Himself. But the sacrifice was never for willfull sin, and was always made in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies. Jesus made this sacrifice in preparation for entering heaven itself.

I suggest that, rather than figuring it out and then turning to the text, that you begin with the text and see where it leads.

Edited by Chuck_Runge, 19 September 2010 - 01:22 PM.


#50 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:37 PM


Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ.


Jesus was not a high priest as a mortal man, so I am not sure why you think verse 3 is directly applied to Christ. The book of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus was not of the priesthood prior to his death and resurrection, which is apparent in chapter 5 no less. He was made our high priest after his resurrection and glory. So to offer up a sacrifice for his own sin would be impossible since he could not sin when he took up the office as our heavenly high priest. And, we cannot make him a high priest when he was in the flesh since Hebrews is again clear that being from Judah meant he was not of the priesthood.


Jesus made His sacrifice once for all (HEB 7:27), so He was acting as priest at the cross, and was not just a sacrifice. He was mortal at the cross, as Melchizedek was mortal when he was appointed. After the resurrection, Jesus was summoned to a higher position.

Hebrews is teaching that a High Priest in heaven is better than a High Priest on earth who makes the Mosaic sacrifice.

Please note that no one has said he offered for his own sin, but the author of Hebrews said He made the sacrifice "for sins".

Hebrews 5 identifies Jesus by name, so no imagination is required.

#51 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:39 PM

First, please note that no one has said Jesus sinned. But the author of Hebrews said he made the sacrifice "for sins".


I was responding to your assertion that Hebrews 5:1-3 applied directly to Christ. Those verses speak of the High Priest having to offer sacrifices for his sins as well as for the sins of the people. Jesus, as High Priest, does not offer sacrifices for himself and is not subject to weakness... he is immortal and without sin. I just cannot agree with you that Hebrews 5:1-3 apply directly to Christ... it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Melchizedek was appointed priest as a mortal man, so appointment does not require immortality.


In Melchizedek's case... no. In Christ's... yes. Christ was declared both God's son and high priest in the resurrection. Again, this is shown in the book of Hebrews... in chapter 5 no less.

And since Jesus made His sacrifice once for all at the cross, his priesthood was in effect at that time. Otherwise, He would make the sacrifice and be appointed priest as a result, which does not follow.


Problem is, he was not of the priesthood or a high priest at his death. You're taking a couple of disconnected verses and formulating a unsupportable conclusion. Remember, context is king.

#52 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:47 PM

The author stated EVERY priest, and I assume he said what he meant.


So do I.

Everything stated in verses 1-3 is directly applied to Christ. This is not misleading - it is simply reading the words that are there.


Please show me where the writer of Hebrews applies everything in verses 1-3, to Christ.

Since you say the author did not mean EVERY priest...


I didn't actually say that.

As to the insertion of new words into the verse, you can simply compare a few translations for yourself. It's a fact!


I've compared a few versions, and looked at the Greek text. Which are the 'new words' being inserted?



"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)
"and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." (ASV)

NIV makes reference to "his own sins" which is curious (for a trinitarian translation) since it is not found in more literal translations. The idea that Jesus had his own sins is inconsistent at best, and heretical at worst. Whenever an obvious question appears, I refer to more accurate translations for comparison.

#53 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:56 PM

"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)
"and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." (ASV)

NIV makes reference to "his own sins" which is curious (for a trinitarian translation) since it is not found in more literal translations.


It's not curious, because the NIV doesn't believe this verse is talking about Jesus. Where are the 'new words'? The ASV agrees with the NIV here.

The idea that Jesus had his own sins is inconsistent at best, and heretical at worst. Whenever an obvious question appears, I refer to more accurate translations for comparison.


Neither of those translations are saying that Jesus had his own sins. You need to realise that neither of them believe that the priest in this verse is Jesus.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#54 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:57 PM


First, please note that no one has said Jesus sinned. But the author of Hebrews said he made the sacrifice "for sins".


I was responding to your assertion that Hebrews 5:1-3 applied directly to Christ. Those verses speak of the High Priest having to offer sacrifices for his sins as well as for the sins of the people. Jesus, as High Priest, does not offer sacrifices for himself and is not subject to weakness... he is immortal and without sin. I just cannot agree with you that Hebrews 5:1-3 apply directly to Christ... it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Melchizedek was appointed priest as a mortal man, so appointment does not require immortality.


In Melchizedek's case... no. In Christ's... yes. Christ was declared both God's son and high priest in the resurrection. Again, this is shown in the book of Hebrews... in chapter 5 no less.

And since Jesus made His sacrifice once for all at the cross, his priesthood was in effect at that time. Otherwise, He would make the sacrifice and be appointed priest as a result, which does not follow.


Problem is, he was not of the priesthood or a high priest at his death. You're taking a couple of disconnected verses and formulating a unsupportable conclusion. Remember, context is king.


This verse does not say that He offered for His own sins, and I am not saying it does. You are confusing Jesus as mortal man, subject to human weakness, making the offerings to enter the Holy of Holies, with Jesus as a sinless immortal seated next to the Father. Jesus was in one state until He was transformed into another. These are two different circumstances with a "transformation" inbetween. You appear to have Him making the sacrifice without the benefit of priesthood.

Since you make the assertion that Jesus did not make His sacrifice at the cross as High Priest (as HEB 7:27 states), you need to provide Bible text to support it. Please demonstrate your point from scripture.

#55 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:07 PM

"This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people." (NIV)
"and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." (ASV)

NIV makes reference to "his own sins" which is curious (for a trinitarian translation) since it is not found in more literal translations.


It's not curious, because the NIV doesn't believe this verse is talking about Jesus. Where are the 'new words'? The ASV agrees with the NIV here.

The idea that Jesus had his own sins is inconsistent at best, and heretical at worst. Whenever an obvious question appears, I refer to more accurate translations for comparison.


Neither of those translations are saying that Jesus had his own sins. You need to realise that neither of them believe that the priest in this verse is Jesus.


A careful reading will discover that the text says He made the offering for sins, but NIV says He offered for His own sins. One says He made the proscribed offering, and the other says He is a sinner! If you believe Jesus did not sin, this difference should be a red flag that drives further research. And, yes, the translators were obviously thinking independently of the author of Hebrews, but that is not to be commended.

I fully realize that they misinterpreted the verse in less accurate translations, but fortunately we have recourse to more accurate text when required.

#56 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:08 PM

You appear to have Him making the sacrifice without the benefit of priesthood.


Anyone can make a sacrifice without priesthood.

Since you make the assertion that Jesus did not make His sacrifice at the cross as High Priest (as HEB 7:27 states), you need to provide Bible text to support it. Please demonstrate your point from scripture.


Chris has already done so, with reference to Hebrews 5 (verses 7-10 say that he was appointed high priest after his resurrection and glorification); Hebrews 7:27 certainly does not say that Jesus made his sacrifice at the cross as high priest.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#57 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:11 PM

A careful reading will discover that the text says He made the offering for sins, but NIV says He offered for His own sins.


A careful reading of the Greek will discover that making the offering for sins applies to both the high priest in the verse, and the people. As I've pointed out, the ASV even says this. Whether you think the priest in this verse is Jesus or the mortal priests under the Law, the ASV says the same as the NIV, that this priest offered for both his own sins and for the people's.

One says He made the proscribed offering, and the other says He is a sinner! If you believe Jesus did not sin, this difference should be a red flag that drives further research.


No, they both say that the high priest offered for his own sins and for the people's. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus sinned, because the verse is not talking about Jesus.

And, yes, the translators were obviously thinking independently of the author of Hebrews, but that is not to be commended.


No they were not thinking independently of the author of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews was writing about the mortal priests under the Law, and the translators rendered his words accurately to reflect this.

I fully realize that they misinterpreted the verse in less accurate translations, but fortunately we have recourse to more accurate text when required.


You haven't given a single example of a mistranslation yet.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#58 Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:42 PM

Anyone can make a sacrifice without priesthood.

You are exactly right. In the following verses we can see that it was the Israelite who brought the animal to be sacrificed who actually put the animal to death-and not the priest:

"And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD...he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD" (Lev.1:1-5).

The Lord Jesus was not responsible for His own death. It was those with "wicked hands" who were respomsible:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "The murderers of Christ were acting in fulfilment of a divine decree, and yet their deeds were really and absolutely their own. Theirs were 'wicked hands,' and guilt of necessity supposes the action of an independent will" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978], p.83).

#59 Simon-Ben-Zion

Simon-Ben-Zion

    Omicron

  • Non-Member
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:13 PM

The enactments by the high priest under the Mosaic Law were typical of that which would ultimately be effected by the Son of God because of his own need for redemption see HEB 5:7

The Christadelphian Expositor of Hebrews

Edited by Simon-Ben-Zion, 19 September 2010 - 07:15 PM.


#60 Chuck_Runge

Chuck_Runge

    Delta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:47 PM

A careful reading will discover that the text says He made the offering for sins, but NIV says He offered for His own sins.


A careful reading of the Greek will discover that making the offering for sins applies to both the high priest in the verse, and the people. As I've pointed out, the ASV even says this. Whether you think the priest in this verse is Jesus or the mortal priests under the Law, the ASV says the same as the NIV, that this priest offered for both his own sins and for the people's.

One says He made the proscribed offering, and the other says He is a sinner! If you believe Jesus did not sin, this difference should be a red flag that drives further research.


No, they both say that the high priest offered for his own sins and for the people's. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus sinned, because the verse is not talking about Jesus.

And, yes, the translators were obviously thinking independently of the author of Hebrews, but that is not to be commended.


No they were not thinking independently of the author of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews was writing about the mortal priests under the Law, and the translators rendered his words accurately to reflect this.

I fully realize that they misinterpreted the verse in less accurate translations, but fortunately we have recourse to more accurate text when required.


You haven't given a single example of a mistranslation yet.


Well, I posted two different translations side by side, and that was one example. So I'm unclear on how you could figure I haven't provided a single example.

Verses 4 and 5 identify Jesus Christ as the topic at hand. Since you haven't demonstrated it from the text, I can only guess why you think verse 4 is a new topic. Are you arguing for a natural break in the text after verse 3?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users