Here is the link to the study and discussion material for this lesson study:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08d/less10nkjv.html

This should prove to be a very interesting week of study and discussion that should also take us into another interesting class discussion on Sabbath, December 6th.

The Summary: "On the cross, Jesus experienced the fullness of the sinner’s eternal separation from God. God Himself was in Christ paying the penalty for sin, atoning for our sins."

What is the penalty for sin?

Why was it necessary for Jesus to pay the penalty for sin?

How did paying the penalty for sin atone for our sins?

Sunday's section is titled, Anguish: Heading to Gethsemane.

If it wasn't necessary for Christ to die for us, then why did He go through all that anguish?

I think an important question to consider is what is the problem that needs to be fixed. For example, if the problem is that Satan has deceived man into believing lies about God, which in turn led man to distrust God, which in turn led man to rebel, then the solution would be to reveal the truth about God, so that in instead of distrusting God and rebelling man could believe in God, receive forgiveness, and live in harmony with God and the principles of His government.

Or if the problem is a legal problem, then the solution would be a legal one; Christ's dying so that God would be legally able to pardon.

Or one could say that there were multiple problems involved, and the same solution solved these multiple problems.

Of course there are multiple problems: we aren't monotonous robots...

What do you make of "the curse of the law": what does that mean, how it is suffered, and what is gained from that? You appear to regard legal issues as consequential, but that's an inadequate view of the nature of law, which initially recognises reality but moreover re-orders reality as well, as the everlasting covenant has done with us and God and us: called redeeming the lost in process of dealing with the invention of sin and our state of sinfulness.

Beyond your relationship or law question, which is very shallow given the size of the issues, what is the nature of sin and righteousness? Are these a choice or a state of being and/or mind? That's the beginning of the problem/solution equation, and where the law divides all men from God.

From Wednesday's section

Suffering condemnation and divine wrath for sin on behalf of sinners may easily be termed the penalty for sin. The "sundering of the divine powers" is another true statement.

There's a blurring of the difference between Godhead as a group concept - not its original meaning, and the trinity which originally is 3 persons in one substance: Godhead as a group is colloquial for 3 persons of one substance, which is different.

Otherwise there's that little misstatement which pervades Christian literature: "atone for sin". That's not Biblical: it's supposed to be "atone for us", while "dying for sin", and "propitiation for sin" is quite correct.

"Dying for sin" is ambiguous. "Dying because of sin" makes sense, or "dying for us." "Giving His life for us" is even better.

Ambiguous for you, sadly: Rom 8:3 is clear: God sent his Son in sinful flesh "and for sin". Since he is the propitiation fo sin then he died for sin: that's the legal fulfilment of the everlasting covenant, among other things.

I'm talking about English. I'm making a comment about English diction; to say that Christ "died for sin" is ambiguous. It's ambiguous because it's not clear what this means.

The New King James Version has



which is clearer English.



There is nothing in Scripture which says this, specifically that "Since He is the propitiation for sin, then he died for sin."

The NIV reads "to be a sin offering", but the margin reverts to the AV "for sin". The NKJV is suggesting the alternative wording, repeated in Rom 4:25, of "because of", or "on account of", is it? As much as Rom 4:25 reads better translated "because of", showing the cause and effect of the death of Christ, Rom 8:3 is saying much the same: suffering the punishment for sin, that believers may follow the example Jesus gave us, which he practised daily and literally suffered for us: "deny self, take up your cross daily, and follow" the Spirit's leading - that is, Christ's leading.

If Christ did not die to self and sin on the cross, for our sin, then are we lost in sin and baptism has no meaning.

Your philosophising, Tom, is apparently endangering the Gospel's achievement of saving the world from sin and death...