Bible Study Was Jesus a Prophet?

[GodsGrace]

Here's something. Jesus knew the Old Testament and the writings of the prophets therefore He would have been very familiar with Isaiah 53. He also knew He was the foretold Messiah.

Also, in Mark 10:45, Jesus identifies His purpose.
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Wow. Thanks WIP.
The Ransom Theory of Atonement.
And Mark 10:45...
Very helpful.

 

[Nathan12]

How is believing in a different atonement theory heresy?

1. First of all Bible doctrine is not theory but divine revelation. Calling Bible doctrines theories is already stepping onto a slippery slope.

2. The supreme sacrifice of Christ (who is God) was to pay the full penalty for the sins of mankind. This is incontrovertible from Scripture.

3. Any teaching or doctrine which blatantly contradicts Bible truth is heresy. And any teaching which attempts to change the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ is actually an attack on the Gospel.

 

[Nathan12]

That's not answering the issue I raised from Deut 18 and the prophet to which Moses referred.

Correct. And that's because that was a secondary issue.

 

[Nathan12]

The Ransom Theory of Atonement.

While the word "theory" is incorrect, there is no question that the sacrifice of Christ was indeed a ransom. That too is a part of the doctrine of Penal Substitution.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:5,6)

Strong's Concordance (487)
antilutron: a ransom
Original Word: ἀντίλυτρον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: antilutron
Phonetic Spelling: (an-til'-oo-tron)
Definition: a ransom
Usage: a ransom.

HELPS Word-studies
487 antílytron (from 473 /antí, "corresponding to, instead of/exchange" and 3083 /lýtron, "ransom-price") – properly, a full ransom, referring to Christ paying the complete purchase-price to secure our freedom(redemption) – i.e. Christ exchanging His eternal righteousness for our sin (cf. Ro 3:26; 2 Cor 5:21).

 

[Nathan12]

But why would a God that could create the entire universe need any sacrifice at all?

Already answered. God's absolute righteousness, holiness, and justice demand that the penalty for sins be paid in full. Before God could offer His grace, mercy, and salvation to sinners, this divine necessity had to be addressed, and the sin-debt had to be canceled.

The penalty for sins in death -- physical death and eternal separation from God. So God -- in His grace and mercy -- sent His Son into the world to pay that penalty in full on our behalf.

So it is mankind who required this sacrifice, otherwise all human beings would be etenrally banished from the presence of God.

 

[Nathan12]

a sin sacrifice...he knew or had no sin

Well that verse says exactly that -- "who knew no sin". Had Christ sinned, He could not become the sacrifice for our sins. And that is why our Savior was (and is) fully God and fully sinless Man. Therefore He was a Lamb without spot or blemish. And all the OT sacrifices required that only clean animals, without spot or blemish, be sacrificed. This was to establish God's stringent requirements for the Lamb of God.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:18-20)

 

[ezra]

I don't think Jesus saw Himself as a sacrifice the way we understand it today....

What say you?

he knew he would have to die as wip has showed in scripture. john 1:29 behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.. the lamb was used as a sacrifice ..did he use the word sacrifice ? probably not he told of his death . the cross is empty the tomb is empty . we serve a risen Savior with out the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins . here is a question that is hard to know %100 .what was Christ doing in the tomb the 3 days ? i have my opinion

 

[ezra]

Well that verse says exactly that -- "who knew no sin". Had Christ sinned, He could not become the sacrifice for our sins. And that is why our Savior was (and is) fully God and fully sinless Man. Therefore He was a Lamb without spot or blemish. And all the OT sacrifices required that only clean animals, without spot or blemish, be sacrificed. This was to establish God's stringent requirements for the Lamb of God.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:18-20)

21 For he hath made him to be sin "sacrifice " for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Nathan12]

21 For he hath made him to be sin "sacrifice " for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

You have inserted the word "sacrifice". The verse says "For he hath made him sin for us..." We know that the sacrifice was necessary, but Christ was literally made SIN for us.

 

[ezra]

but Christ was literally made SIN for us.

NEGATORY he had no sin the lambs that was slain was pure Christ was pure-no sin

 

[OzSpen]

1. First of all Bible doctrine is not theory but divine revelation. Calling Bible doctrines theories is already stepping onto a slippery slope.

Nathan,

So are infant baptism and believers' baptism - both doctrines of denominations - not theory, but divine revelation? What about Calvinism vs Arminianism, substitutionary atonement vs Christus Victory atonement, cessationism vs continuationism concerning the gifts of the Spirit. Are all of these doctrines given by divine revelation?

2. The supreme sacrifice of Christ (who is God) was to pay the full penalty for the sins of mankind. This is incontrovertible from Scripture.

Was Jesus as God sacrificed on the cross? Was God killed and resurrected?

3. Any teaching or doctrine which blatantly contradicts Bible truth is heresy. And any teaching which attempts to change the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ is actually an attack on the Gospel.

[/QUOTE]

You didn't give any examples here. Do these doctrines 'blatantly contradict' the Bible? Free will, unconditional election, irresistible grace, amillennialism, post-tribulation rapture, Moral understanding of the atonement?

Do these doctrines 'blatantly contradict' Scripture? Arianism, rhema theology, cessationism regarding the gifts of the Spirit, Lordship salvation, and open theism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Already answered. God's absolute righteousness, holiness, and justice demand that the penalty for sins be paid in full. Before God could offer His grace, mercy, and salvation to sinners, this divine necessity had to be addressed, and the sin-debt had to be canceled.

Where in Scripture is it stated that God could not offer His grace, mercy and salvation to people UNTIL his righteousness, holiness and justice for the penalty of sins had been satisfied?

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that regeneration must precede faith for salvation?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Correct. And that's because that was a secondary issue.

Deut 18 was not talking about the prophet, Messiah, who was to come. That's the primary issue of what kind of prophet he was.

 

[ezra]

you guys are making a ant hill into a mountain much of the denom doctrine is from man interpreting scripture the penalty of sins had to be satisfied . which is the atonement of what Christ down on the cross the real victory is in the Resurrection

 

[Nathan12]

Where in Scripture is it stated that God could not offer His grace, mercy and salvation to people UNTIL his righteousness, holiness and justice for the penalty of sins had been satisfied?

There are many passages in Scripture which reveal this truth. But we can look at what Romans 5 teaches:
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13( For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" sums it up.
1. Since all men became enemies of God because of indwelling sin through Adam, they would remain enemies unless God did something to remove that enmity and effect reconciliation. And that is why He sent His Son into the world (John 3:16,17).
2. We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son for the simple reason that all our sins and iniquities were laid on Him, and He bore the wrath of God against sin in Himself and by Himself. He "took away" sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
3. Until the redemptive work of Christ on the cross was finished, we were all separated from God and enemies and aliens of God: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation [damnation]. Therefore God could not have simply extended His grace and mercy without ensuring that the penalty for sins was paid in full, and all the demands of divine justice were met. Does does not set aside His justice since He is absolutely just and righteous.

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that regeneration must precede faith for salvation?

No. That would be putting the cart before the horse. Only those who repent and believe receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (and the gift of eternal life). He then regenerates and renews sinners and makes them saints.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm finding that there is not ONE atonement theory that is very satisfying. But the Penal Substitution theory seems, to me, to have come about after Paul wrote Romans and his other writings, which took him 3 years to establish. Was Paul fearful that Jesus' death might be misunderstood? Was HIS theology the same as the rest of the Apostles? His letters do seem much more thought out than the others -- they sound a little different.

wondering,

Since all of these views of the atonement are theories to be tested against Scripture, I'm not surprised you are not finding one of they satisfactory, but I'm not so sure the penal satisfaction theory came after Paul wrote.

Which of the following need to be in biblical teaching on the atonement?

1. Grace
2. To be saved - born again
3. Redemption
4. Mediation between human beings and God
5. Regeneration
6. Reconciliation
7. Adoption
8. Forgiveness
9. Justification
10. Propitiation or expiation
11. Satisfaction
12. Total depravity
13. God's absolute justice
14. Christ our substitute
15. Jesus' death as a ransom
16. Vicarious

Is Jesus' righteousness imputed to us? Or are we more responsible for our own actions than we care to admit?

That's what Rom 4:22-25 teaches.

Maybe my exposure to these persons who feel that Jesus does everything for them is beginning to affect me in a negative way---I don't know.

Are you at liberty to share what kinds or who these people are?

I just think we have to start thinking in a different way and accept responsibility for our own salvation.

Most definitely by being a follower of Jesus.

How can I 'accept responsibility for my own salvation' when salvation originates with God (Eph 2:8)?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There are many passages in Scripture which reveal this truth. But we can look at what Romans 5 teaches:
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13( For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" sums it up.
1. Since all men became enemies of God because of indwelling sin through Adam, they would remain enemies unless God did something to remove that enmity and effect reconciliation. And that is why He sent His Son into the world (John 3:16,17).
2. We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son for the simple reason that all our sins and iniquities were laid on Him, and He bore the wrath of God against sin in Himself and by Himself. He "took away" sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
3. Until the redemptive work of Christ on the cross was finished, we were all separated from God and enemies and aliens of God: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation [damnation]. Therefore God could not have simply extended His grace and mercy without ensuring that the penalty for sins was paid in full, and all the demands of divine justice were met. Does does not set aside His justice since He is absolutely just and righteous.

No. That would be putting the cart before the horse. Only those who repent and believe receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (and the gift of eternal life). He then regenerates and renews sinners and makes them saints.

Nathan,

None of these highlighted verses demonstrate God could not offer His grace, mercy and salvation to people UNTIL his righteousness, holiness and justice for the penalty of sins had been satisfied.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

Since all of these views of the atonement are theories to be tested against Scripture, I'm not surprised you are not finding one of they satisfactory, but I'm not so sure the penal satisfaction theory came after Paul wrote.

Which of the following need to be in biblical teaching on the atonement?

1. Grace
2. To be saved - born again
3. Redemption
4. Mediation between human beings and God
5. Regeneration
6. Reconciliation
7. Adoption
8. Forgiveness
9. Justification
10. Propitiation or expiation
11. Satisfaction
12. Total depravity
13. God's absolute justice
14. Christ our substitute
15. Jesus' death as a ransom
16. Vicarious

Oz,
I'm moving the above to a new thread. It's going to derail too much and anyway, it's an interesting topic....

That's what Rom 4:22-25 teaches.

Right....Paul says that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us....
This also could be a different thread....
Did JESUS ever say this? I've always been able to reconcile what Jesus said and what Paul said. Maybe I'm beginning to see some difference? IOW, the very fact that Paul says that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us is used by some to prove that we're saved forever and can act as we will for the very reason that God looks at Jesus and not at us individually.

Are you at liberty to share what kinds or who these people are?

It's not so much WHO they are...I can't even think of any on this site....but there USED TO BE,,,,it's those persons who believe one has eternal security because of John 10:27-28 (for example) and so their behavior does not matter to them. The problem here is that we really can't discuss osas ... let's just say that there are some very liberal Christians out there and I think they're depending on an incorrect understanding of the N.T. and may be falsely confident...I am sorry we can't discuss that topic BTW because I think it's critical at this point in time.

How can I 'accept responsibility for my own salvation' when salvation originates with God (Eph 2:8)?

Oz

Agreed! And this is my whole point. We've become accustomed to speaking in a certain way so that we hardly understand each other anymore.

You accept responsibility for your own salvation AFTER Ephesians 2:8-9.

Some NEVER want to accept that they have a role to play.
Should I say we need to choose between monergism and synergism? IOW...God saves us because we want Him to...But WHAT keeps us saved? If this goes too far into osas, maybe you could PM me?

 

[ezra]

Some NEVER want to accept that they have a role to play.

then odds are possibility never saved..some use the term fire insurance .which could a possibility also . here is what should be examined -------WHAT are we doing the lady in mark Gospel broke open a alabaster box of ointment . many had a fit saying what a waste of money etc..she poured it out on Christ head symbolizing his death . Christ told those complaining let her alone she has done what she could ..so what are we doing ? :shock

 

[Randy]

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. [Acts 3:13]

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. [Deuteronomy 18:15, 18]

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. [Luke 7:16]

I believe you know this but for clarity to those in Islam.
Jesus was raised up from the "Israelites" as Moses fortold.

And in Christianity its "about the Son" not "about the prophet Jesus"
For Jesus is much more than a prophet and the name He inherited is far greater than even the angels of God.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

About Moses - He was faithful as a servant in all Gods house bearing witness of the builder of Gods house. (Jesus) And a builder is greater than the house He builds.