If the last few examples were not enough, Numbers 25 describes yet another major sin and rebellion of the Israelites. This time a new hero steps up, makes atonement
("turns away my wrath", and rather than taking the wrath upon himself, he receives a blessing instead.

Numbers 31:49-50 "Your servants
have counted the men of war who
are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD’s offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.

Numbers 31 describes the account in which the Lord led His people successfully into battle, and which they gave to God an offering of the spoils as an "atonement" for
them for His Providential protection and victory. (The term for "offering" here is "korban" which is a term regarding sacrificial gifts and animals, especially in Leviticus.) As with previous examples, it makes no sense that atonement can be made with sacrificial offerings if the Penal theory is correct in that
atonement can only be made if wrath is turned on an innocent substitute.

Proverbs 16:6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for

Proverbs 16:14 A king’s wrath is a
messenger of death, and a wise man will appease it.

The first of these two passages is very interesting in that it explicitly says "love and faithfulness" atones for sin! That's very incompatible with the Penal notion, but very much in line with many of the previous passages which demonstrate how atonement is made. The second of the two passages is about wisely appeasing wrath (through pleasing the king in some way),
and makes no sense to say a wise man takes the wrath as a substitute.

Now, you might object that all of the above examples are of a different nature than the Levitical animal sacrifices, and thus any implications drawn from the above examples are (at most) of secondary importance to understanding the 'real meaning' of animal sacrifices (i.e. Penal-
Substitution). While this objection has some merit, the burden is on the you to show why the Levitical sacrifices don't (and cannot!) follow the same principle of the
previous examples - anything less would be begging the question.

That said, there is good reason for us to examine the Levitical sacrifices to see what can be drawn from them.
One of the most definitive texts regarding animal sacrifices comes from Leviticus 17:10-11,

"If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

The reason why blood is forbidden is because it is the 'life-force' of all living things (not to be confused with the soul), and thus carries a sacred function, making
atonement. What is important to note is that the blood makes atonement in virtue of it's life-force, not in virtue of it being spilled.

In other words, the focus here is not that something innocent took the death penalty, but rather that the value of life is of such a worth that it can make atonement for sin.

This point is made especially clear in the New Testament:

[Know] 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 , like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

Here, there is a clear link between "ransom" and the lamb's "blood," as well as a contrast to how Christ's Blood infinitely surpasses
the value of silver and gold. Thus, the point of the blood here has nothing to do with transferring a punishment but instead its value as the life force, thus Penal Substitution is not the framework the Jews were operating within.

With this in mind, the various Levitical sacrifices can be examined.

The four basic sacrifices were the Burnt Offering (Lev 1), the Grain Offering (Lev 2), the Peace Offering (Lev 3), and the Sin Offering (Lev 4). These could be offered individually, or in combination, all
depending on the circumstances (for example, a major Jewish holiday could require multiple sacrifices, even many of the same type). What is interesting, or better yet very revealing, was that while these different offerings varied in function, they none the less were similar in their instructions. For example, advocates of Penal Substitution state that the instructions to 'lay your hand upon the head' (e.g. Lev 4:4) of the animal before killing it entailed the imputing of the sinner's guilt to the animal, and the consequent transfer of the punishment to the innocent substitute. But this is simply
presumption, for nowhere does the text indicate this is intended to 'transfer guilt'.
And that is not all, the biggest flaw in that argument is that sacrifices not involving sin, such as the Peace Offering, involved virtually the same instructions of laying on hands on the animal's head and killing it (e.g. Lev 3:2),
thus pointing away from such an
assumption. Rather, such an act of touching the animal's head must have been some rite of dedication. And the simple fact that sacrifices not involving sin were killed is a
serious blow against the whole Penal Substitution framework.

Another fact that militates strongly against the Penal Substitution system is instructions such as those found in Leviticus 5:11-13, which states that if someone cannot afford an animal for a sin offering, a sack of flour can be used instead. (Clearly, a sack of flour cannot receive the death penalty!)


so I submit that truely atone, involves the doing of something even the giving of something to appease God for sins, it doesn't mean tranfering wrath but instead averting it. Sacrifices were offered as a gifts, offerings which have value that so that God mercifully averts wrath.

Ubenedictus:
Permit me to break up your post so i can reply each point.



I agree that a third party can post bail for another, but i put it to you that a third party cannot be killed in place of the guilty, i put it to you that it is immoral for wrath to be poured on the innocent. God is no unjust, he can allow a third person pay another debt or even post bail, but it will still be injust to send Jesus to hell fire.

You mentioned 'innocent' but he took the sin of others upon himself which represent a ransom. A price paid in the stead of another. How can something called 'just payment suddenly become unjust? Hardly not. Perfect justice was satisfied by the attoning sacrice of Christ.
Can someone paid the price of setting another free?
Prrfectly yes sir even even when the price is death.

ayoku777:


You contradicted yourself in the emboldened text. To claim you believe Jesus died FOR you but you don't believe God punished His son in your place is contradictory.

The wages of sin is death, so if Jesus died FOR US, it means He took upon Himself the wages of our sin. It means We did the crime and Jesus did the time.

Isaiah 53v6 -All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all.

Can you see this? The Father laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. So our sin and the attending consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death) was laid on Jesus.

And what is unjust or wrong about that? If a child broke the windscreen of the neighbours car and the father or brother paid for the damages or replaced the windscreen, what's wrong with that?

Penal substitution is taking responsibility for the consequences (damages and wages) of someone else' actions. The only difference is that in our case, that wage is death.

Jesus took our sin and iniquity; and in doing that, He also took the consequence and condemnation that accrued to the sin. This is a lovestory. Its strange you see it as injustice.

John 15v13 -Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Romans 5v8 But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 53v5 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

God bless.

He is confused. please explain to him better. May be the jesus and god he knows are the one of oyingbo.

ladon1:

He is confused. please explain to him better. May be the jesus and god he knows are the one of oyingbo.

calm down dear, you don't need to get worked up.

It is possible to believe Jesus died for you without believing he was penalised in your place. Atonement doesn't mean taking God's wrath, it means offering him a gift, an offering, a payment that appeases him and averts his wrath. the old sacrifices didn't perfectly satisfy for sin because they were inadequate. Jesus made an offering that please his father.

Have a nice day.

By sacrifice is understood in the widest sense, the surrender of some good for the sake of a good aim. The religious meaning attaching to sacrifice in the wider sense is every inner act of self-surrender to God, and every outer manifestation of the inner sacrificial disposition, e.g., prayer, alms-giving, mortification. Cf. Ps 51:19; 141;2; Hos 14:2; Ecclus. 35:4; Rom 12:1 In the narrower liturgical sense one takes sacrifice to mean an external religious act, in which a gift perceptible to the senses is offered by an ordained servant of God in recognition of the absolute sovereignty and majesty of God, and, since the Fall, in atonement to God

trustman:

Q – How did Jesus become an atoning sacrifice?
A – Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for our sins.

as you can see above a sacrifice is something offered to God, the idea of punishing the sacrifice is weird, an atoning sacrifice is a gift giving to God for forgiveness of sins and avert his wrath, the punishment of the sacrifice is strange.

God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”
Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”
After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.
He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

now this is the main part of your post and it deserves a post of its own.

Ubenedictus:


calm down dear, you don't need to get worked up.

It is possible to believe Jesus died for you without believing he was penalised in your place. Atonement doesn't mean taking God's wrath, it means offering him a gift, an offering, a payment that appeases him and averts his wrath. the old sacrifices didn't perfectly satisfy for sin because they were inadequate. Jesus made an offering that please his father.

Have a nice day.

I believe the mistake you're making is that you're equating pardon or forgiveness with remission.

Pardon does not remove the consequence and condemnation of a sin. Only remission does that. And remission is only by the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood IS NO REMISSION.

The examples of Moses and Phinehas etc that you gave was not for remission, it was only for pardon. The people still died in the wilderness.

Numbers 14v20-23 -And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, ....and have tempted me now these ten times,

Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoke me see it:

You see? God pardoned the children of Israel but He still destroyed them in the wilderness. Because pardon is not remission.

Another example for you:

2Samuel 12v13-14 -And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE.

God pardoned David, but the child still died; because pardon is not remission. Pardon does not remove the consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death). Only remission does that.

And for there to be remission, blood must be shed. Jesus came for remission. And He had to take our sin and its consequence and condemnation. That's why the Father forsook Him; and He died and went to hell.

You said Jesus didn't die or suffer in our place. That's wrong.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

What is the curse of the law? It is the curse of breaking the law. When you obey the law, you are blessed. If you break the law, you are cursed.

The curse is the consequence or wages of breaking God's law; just as death is the wages of sin.

The bible said Jesus was made a curse FOR US. Meaning He did the time for our crime.

When Jesus died for us; He took the wages of our sins. And when He was made a curse for us; He took on the wages of our breaking the law.

This is the gospel truth. Jesus died and was made a curse FOR US AND IN OUR PLACE.

Jesus died for the sins we committed and He was made a curse for the laws we disobeyed.

You would need to ignore or twist plain straight forward scriptures to claim otherwise.

Isaiah 53v5-6 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

Shalom.

Ubenedictus:


calm down dear, you don't need to get worked up.

It is possible to believe Jesus died for you without believing he was penalised in your place. Atonement doesn't mean taking God's wrath, it means offering him a gift, an offering, a payment that appeases him and averts his wrath. the old sacrifices didn't perfectly satisfy for sin because they were inadequate. Jesus made an offering that please his father.

Have a nice day.

The offering was his death, or "pretend death" since he really didn't die. When you offer someone your head in place of your little daughter's, it's not the same as giving them a Lexus or Range Rover. There is an assumed intention of reciprocity if you must die in order to appease the anger of someone. Death is not a gift. The families of murder victims don't consider the demise of death row inmates as "gifts."

Before I go futher and probably be abused and accused of negleting and abusing scriptures, let me state clearly that I agree with and honour every word of scripture written below, what I disagree with is the interpretations given to them since the 16th century.

trustman:

God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”

1pt and Isaiah are usually appealed to as teaching penal substitution. Comeon why not, the text clearly says he "bore our sins on his body", it also clearly says, "by his wounds we are healed", heck it even says "God laid on him the iniquities of us all", "isn't that convincing enough?" a proponent of the penal theory may ask. And i'll say No!

the passage in question talks of bearing our sins, but it never talks about bearing our punishment. And "bearing our sins" and "bearing our punishment" mean entirely different thing according to the bible.

I repeat, Yes Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the cross", Yes! "his wound have effected healing for me", Yes!! "On him was laid the iniquities of us all", but no in the sense that trustman means! He wasn't undergoing the penalty for the sins of a select few, his father wasn't pouring wrath for our sins down on him instead he was offering to God a sacrifice, allow me to go back to scripture to get back the sense in which those words are used.

Weah96:


The offering was his death, or "pretend death" since he really didn't die. When you offer someone your head in place of your little daughter's, it's not the same as giving them a Lexus or Range Rover. There is an assumed intention of reciprocity if you must die in order to appease the anger of someone. Death is not a gift. The families of murder victims don't consider the demise of death row inmates as "gifts."

you are still runing too fast.

take time to enjoy the discus for now we will arrive at this point.

ayoku777:


I believe the mistake you're making is that you're equating pardon or forgiveness with remission.

Pardon does not remove the consequence and condemnation of a sin. Only remission does that. And remission is only by the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood IS NO REMISSION.

The examples of Moses and Phinehas etc that you gave was not for remission, it was only for pardon. The people still died in the wilderness.

Numbers 14v20-23 -And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, ....and have tempted me now these ten times,

Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoke me see it:

You see? God pardoned the children of Israel but He still destroyed them in the wilderness. Because pardon is not remission.

Another example for you:

2Samuel 12v13-14 -And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE.

God pardoned David, but the child still died; because pardon is not remission. Pardon does not remove the consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death). Only remission does that.

And for there to be remission, blood must be shed. Jesus came for remission. And He had to take our sin and its consequence and condemnation. That's why the Father forsook Him; and He died and went to hell.

You said Jesus didn't die or suffer in our place. That's wrong.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

What is the curse of the law? It is the curse of breaking the law. When you obey the law, you are blessed. If you break the law, you are cursed.

The curse is the consequence or wages of breaking God's law; just as death is the wages of sin.

The bible said Jesus was made a curse FOR US. Meaning He did the time for our crime.

When Jesus died for us; He took the wages of our sins. And when He was made a curse for us; He took on the wages of our breaking the law.

This is the gospel truth. Jesus died and was made a curse FOR US AND IN OUR PLACE.

Jesus died for the sins we committed and He was made a curse for the laws we disobeyed.

You would need to ignore or twist plain straight forward scriptures to claim otherwise.

Isaiah 53v5-6 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

Shalom.

i have a feeling you just opened a can of worms or you just opened the door to long sematics.

I'll give you a more academic reply after I conclude the point I am making.

consider Leviticus 10:17,
16 Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned up! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the surviving sons of Aaron, saying, 17 “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?

This text is fascinating because it directly links the priest's act of "making atonement for them" with that of "bearing their iniquity." In other words, when a priest is said to "bear iniquity" of a sinner, it means the priest takes on the responsibility to "make atonement" for the sinner. It does
not mean the guilt is imputed to the priest so that now the priest himself becomes guilty. (And never does the Bible say the sacrificial animal said to be "bearing the iniquity," and for good reason, because that's not the nature of atonement, as I showed at the start.)

Now consider two other texts relating to this matter:

Exodus 28: 36 “You [Moses] shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ 37 And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. 38 It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

Numbers 18: 1 So the Lord said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your father's house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood. ... 8 Then the Lord spoke to Aaron, “Behold, I have given you charge of the contributions made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel. I have given them to you as a portion and to your sons as a perpetual due. 9 This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every offering of theirs, every grain offering of theirs and every sin offering of theirs and every guilt offering of theirs, which they render to me, shall be most holy
to you and to your sons. 10 In a most holy place shall you eat it. Every male may eat it; it is holy to you. ... 21 “To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting, 22 so that the people of Israel do not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die. 23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, and among the people of Israel they shall have no inheritance.


The Levites and Aaron and his sons had a pretty sweet deal. They were entitled to the first and best of all animals, grains, and tithes. This was both in exchange for the
fact they would not be able to own land, but also because God saw their job as very sacred. But their job also carried with it a lot
of responsibility, such as making atonement for any offenses committed against God's honor, especially relating to the consecrated objects of the Temple. The Bible calls this "bearing the iniquity" of others, which for reasons shown above is not to be
understood as guilt being transferred to them but rather 'carrying the duty' of having
to make atonement. This is clear from texts like Numbers 8:19, but it is especially clear in the instructions given for the Day of
Atonement, which will now be looked at.

2 The Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. 3 But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. ... 15 “Then he [the high priest] shall kill the goat
of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.


Thus it is the High Priest's duty to perform a most sacred rite, going before the Mercy Seat (the Lid of the Ark of the Covenant) in the Holy of Holies, and thus make atonement for all Israel.

Once one realizes the role of the priest in "bearing the iniquity of the people," carrying this over to the New Testament we see Jesus' role as High Priest in a more mature light. Clearly, when texts like Isaiah 53:11 and 1 Peter 2:24 speak of Jesus "bearing our iniquity," it refers to His role as
High Priest taking on the burden of making atonement for other people. Thus, in "bearing sin" Jesus was not "guilty" in our place. This can be seen even in the contexts of Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24, which I'll briefly turn to.

In Isaiah 53:6, it says "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." It turns out, this same Hebrew word for "laid" is used a few verses down, in verse 12, "he makes intercession for the transgressors." That same Hebrew word is translated to mean "make intercession," showing clearly that
"make intercession," and "make atonement for" are synonymous with "bearing sin,".
When Peter says Jesus "bore our sins" (1 Peter 2:24), the Greek word used here does not so much mean "carrying" something as
it means to "go upward." Interestingly, of the 9 times that this word is used in the New Testament, it is never used to mean "carry" something, but rather to "go up a mountain" (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2), or "ascended up into heaven" (Lk 24:51), or even "offer up a sacrifice" (Heb 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; James 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5). Given that it's used to mean "offer up" a sacrifice most of the
time, especially in the context of 1 Peter 2:5, then it can easily be said that's what it refers to in 1 Peter 2:24. (One cool detail I found in the Greek Old Testament was that
of over 150 occurrences of this Greek word for "offer up," it referred to a sacrifice about 70% of the time it was used, e.g. Gen
8:20; 22:2; 22:3; Ex 24:5; 29:18; 29:25; Lev 4:31, so this detail would not be lost on the original audience reading Peter's First Epistle.)


with this I conclude that to "bear our sins does not mean "to be punished in place of sinners", it instead means to offer a sacrifice of atonement for the sinner. God laid on him the responsibility of making intercession and a sacrifice for our sins.

He bore our sins does not mean he was punished for them it instead means he took up the resposibility as high priest to offer sacrifices and prayers for them.

With those points dealt with then I'll says the texts below agree with me.

trustman:

Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

amen! He gave himself as a sacrifice unto death, a death that clease us and is so value-able that is redeems us from our iniquities and give us grace to do good.

After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.

or it simply means he has finish his part in our salvation, he has offered totally himself in a sacrificial death?

He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

usually I don't mind the term substitute when talking about the atonement, infact I used it myself sometimes, Christ did offer a sacrifice for sins he didn't commit so I usually allow people say "substitute" by i do not know the sense in which you use the term, Jesus physical death wasn't as a substitute for our own physical death, we will die physically and nobody was substituted for that. Instead the atonement of Christ is more exactly describe as vicarious in the sense of "on behalf of the other". Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death.

Ubenedictus:
Before I go futher and probably be abused and accused of negleting and abusing scriptures, let me state clearly that I agree with and honour every word of scripture written below, what I disagree with is the interpretations given to them since the 16th century.



1pt and Isaiah are usually appealed to as teaching penal substitution. Comeon why not, the text clearly says he "bore our sins on his body", it also clearly says, "by his wounds we are healed", heck it even says "God laid on him the iniquities of us all", "isn't that convincing enough?" a proponent of the penal theory may ask. And i'll say No!

the passage in question talks of bearing our sins, but it never talks about bearing our punishment. And "bearing our sins" and "bearing our punishment" mean entirely different thing according to the bible.

I repeat, Yes Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the cross", Yes! "his wound have effected healing for me", Yes!! "On him was laid the iniquities of us all", but no in the sense that trustman means! He wasn't undergoing the penalty for the sins of a select few, his father wasn't pouring wrath for our sins down on him instead he was offering to God a sacrifice, allow me to go back to scripture to get back the sense in which those words are used.

The Father forsook Jesus when He hung on the cross

Matthew 27v46 -And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

He was made a curse for us:

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

He died and His soul went to hell:

Acts 2v27 -Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Jesus went through all these.

I want you to know that Jesus committed no sin to warrant being forsaken of God. He broke no law to deserve being cursed or made a curse; and He disobeyed no commandment of God to merit going to hell.

These are all the wages of the things we did and the sins we committed. We are the ones that sinned and deserved to be forsaken of God. We are the ones that broke laws and deserved the curse of the law; and we are the ones that disobeyed God and deserved going to hell.

For Jesus who knew no sin and broke no law of God, to experience all that our actions deserved, means He took the wages of our sins. The consequence and condemnation of our rebellion and disobedience was endured by Him.

God bless

Kay17:
Interesting. . .

What then was the purpose of Jesus Christ on earth.

i belive every Christian will agree that he came to reconcile us to God. the 50million question is how?

Ubenedictus:


i belive every Christian will agree that he came to reconcile us to God. the 50million question is how?

The "How" is not even a 10kobo question much less a million. The bible is clear on the fact that our iniquities were laid on Jesus; and He in turn suffered the forsaking, the curse and the hell that was the consequence of our iniquities in our place.

Isaiah 53v6 -All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

When your iniquities are placed on someone; the person becomes the one that suffers the consequences and condemnation of those iniquities -no longer you.

Its like surrogacy. If a woman's fertilized eggs are placed inside the womb of another woman. Who now gets to suffer the trimester feelings and moodswings? Who now gets to suffer the swollen feet and added weight? And eventually the birth pangs and labour pains? Ofcourse its the other woman.

When our sins were placed on Jesus; the consequence and condemnation that accrued to that sin were also endured by Him. Jesus sort of became the "surrogate" sinner for our iniquities and He endured the "pains and pangs" that came with it.

That was why the Father forsook Him; that was why He was made a curse; and that was why His soul went to Hell.

Separation from God, the curse of the law; and hell are all the wages of sin and the consequence and condemnation of disobedience and rebellion against God.

Jesus suffered all these for us and in our place. He committed no sin to deserve being forsaken by God, being made a curse or going to hell. No, we did all the sins that deserved these wages. But the Father laid our sins on Jesus and Jesus endured the consequence and condemnation of all our sins in our place.

God forsakes someone He is angry with. For the Father to forsake Jesus means the wrath wasn't averted or abated, it was redirected at Jesus. When the Son of man was lifted up, He drew all judgment unto Himself. Our iniquity was laid on Him and He suffered the consequence for us.

Jesus took the crime and did the time. That is "HOW" He reconciled us to the Father.

Shalom

Ubenedictus:


i belive every Christian will agree that he came to reconcile us to God. the 50million question is how?

By dying or preaching?!

Keep probing dear, you'll get there someday.

Meanwhile, while you're at it, have you wondered why just a sin of disobedience changed the entire supposed plan of god for man?

Ubenedictus:


i belive every Christian will agree that he came to reconcile us to God. the 50million question is how?

Yes, how? How did the death make god forget the grievous sin of disobedience and now got reconciled with man? How is there even a reconcillation because things has remained the way it was till after the cruxification: the supposed relationship between god and man (adam) hasn't been the way it was before the almighty sin of disobedience; death is still ravaging everywhere, sickness, informities...exactly as they were before Jesus came and died: so what exactly was the over-hyped death for?

And to think that the death would have been avoided if the omniscient god got the revelation that adam will actually eat the fruit; if the omni-potent god planted the tree on top of mount everest where it would be inaccessible to adam: if the omnipresent god rebukked the serpent when he was trying to deceive eve as he is ever present everywhere, everytime...

A lot of things dont add up abeg!

Ubenedictus:
With those points dealt with then I'll says the texts below agree with me.


amen! He gave himself as a sacrifice unto death, a death that clease us and is so value-able that is redeems us from our iniquities and give us grace to do good.


or it simply means he has finish his part in our salvation, he has offered totally himself in a sacrificial death?


usually I don't mind the term substitute when talking about the atonement, infact I used it myself sometimes, Christ did offer a sacrifice for sins he didn't commit so I usually allow people say "substitute" by i do not know the sense in which you use the term, Jesus physical death wasn't as a substitute for our own physical death, we will die physically and nobody was substituted for that. Instead the atonement of Christ is more exactly describe as vicarious in the sense of "on behalf of the other". Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death.

The types of offerings required and used under the Levitical Offerings varied and so were their applications and implications. Levitical offerings varied in such a way that different kinds of animals were involved, some were wholly burnt, others partly burnt. Some involved blood, others were bloodless offerings. The methods of preparation or administrations also varied. There were those the rich could afford and also those that the poor could provide from their meager means. Sometimes the priests killed the animal to be sacrificed. At other times the offerer did the killing.

So, that one offering was animal sacrifice and another grain offering should not make us want to use the items involved and method of offering come to any unnecessary conclusion. By the way most of the offerings (both animal and others) went through fire and fire signifies judgement!

In the New Testament, for example, Jesus Christ described himself as ‘the door’ and also as “the bread’. There are no similarities between these 2 physically speaking. So it is the message he – Jesus – wants to pass across by using these illustrations that the reader should seek to get.

In the same way it is the central message that each of the Levitical Offerings were meant to convey that should be the focus of anyone studying them.

Now coming back to our core issue: Jesus’ substitutionary death, I think you need to see these passages and tell me if they don’t talk of substitution or punishment –
Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?
Hebrews 13:11-12 “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” Notice here; ‘Jesus also suffered’

Unlike your attempt at Isaiah 53: 5,6 I believe the issue of punishment is clear there:
“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed”
What does it mean to chastise if not to inflict punishment on someone? Is this passage not clear as to fact that things were done to Christ because of our sins?

These passages all talk of Christ taking our place. Why? Because if all have sinned and the wages of sin demands God’s wrath poured out on man; then what could Jesus have done other than pay the price required by God for mankind’s sin problem?

The Eucharist
When Jesus said in Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you ...” what did he mean? Obviously he was ‘sacrificing’ something for us. Did the nature of that sacrifice involve some form of punishment?

The Cross
Ordinarily the cross was an instrument of punishment and judgment. God’s choosing of the cross as the place for Jesus’ crucifixion must have been deliberate rather than uncalculated. It must have been meant to pass across a message in no uncertain terms.

So when closely looked at, it is obvious that the going to the cross, something that caused Christ a lot of agony, could not have been a simple painless anguish-free incident. His substitutionary work on the cross, which we may not fully understand on this side of eternity, is the price Christ paid to meet the righteous requirements of our holy God.

Ubenedictus:


Goshen how are you doing?

Nobody hacked by account, I have not responded to the passages directed at me, not because I do not have a response to them but because of some factors that keep me from doing so.

Okay. I have many scriptures for you to explain in line with with subject. One at a time.

New International Version

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

1 Corinthians 15: 2-3

How do you explain this verse?

Kay17:


By dying or preaching?!

for me it isn't an either or question, it is instead a both/and reality.

Put simply I believe everything Jesus did on earth has salvific value from the incarnation to the ascension, I believe that his preaching does have salvific value, even Jesus did declear "the truth shall set you free", his teaching showed up the way to, the path of God. I also believe that Christ accomplished the work of salvation par excellence on the cross, it is on the cross properly speaking that our sins are washed away and grace won. So yes I believe that Christ did accomplish salvation specifically by dying, but his incarnation, birth, life, joys, encounter, sorrow, teaching even learning, suffering, ressurrection and ascension all play a part in the overall work of salvation and are thus rightly described as salvific.

trustman:

So, that one offering was animal sacrifice and another grain offering should not make us want to use the items involved and method of offering come to any unnecessary conclusion. By the way most of the offerings (both animal and others) went through fire and fire signifies judgement!

I am aware that the levitical rites varied, that is not my point, instead my point is that nowhere in those rites is "wrath" poured on the victim, the sacrificial gifts were not beaten or flogged! there was no such thing as transfering wrath, the animal was killed in a most merciful way! It was not burnt alive, the idea was never to transfer wrath on an innocent animal, instead it was an offering of ones "precious goods" in recognition of the sovereignty of God, a sign of gratitude, in cases of animal sacrifices its main idea is the offering of the animal blood its life force as a compensation, a gift a payment for ones own life. I repeat there was no transfer of wrath, the very thing pen.sub advocates accuse God of doing.

In the same way it is the central message that each of the Levitical Offerings were meant to convey that should be the focus of anyone studying them.

and I am happy to repeat that transfer of wrath was never a message in the levitical sacrifices.

Now coming back to our core issue: Jesus’ substitutionary death, I think you need to see these passages and tell me if they don’t talk of substitution or punishment –
Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?
Hebrews 13:11-12 “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” Notice here; ‘Jesus also suffered’

Unlike your attempt at Isaiah 53: 5,6 I believe the issue of punishment is clear there:
“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed”
What does it mean to chastise if not to inflict punishment on someone? Is this passage not clear as to fact that things were done to Christ because of our sins?

I think you are uneccesarily mixing things up. First my arguement is not against the vicarious nature of Jesus death, to put it in your word I agree that "things were done to Christ because of our sins", my arguement is not against the "sufferings of Christ" I do believe he suffered. I also believe he bore a chastisement that brought us peace, in essence he did bear a punishment and that punishment he bore has brought us peace. What I disagree with is how you classify this "punishment" he bore. I believe that the punishment the bible is refering to is death, God proclaimed death and suffering as punishment for sin and since Christ accepted suffer and die he bore "chastisement", the very one that brought is peace. that is what I believe that passage is saying. I do not believe, infact I reject the thought that erronously claims it means Jesus went to hell fire of condemn souls and suffered the torments of the damned, I reject the thought that says God was actively pouring his vindictive wrath on his son, I repeat what I said ealier in the thread, that teaching is a 16th cent teaching and isn't true.

These passages all talk of Christ taking our place. Why? Because if all have sinned and the wages of sin demands God’s wrath poured out on man; then what could Jesus have done other than pay the price required by God for mankind’s sin problem?

scriptures do not teach this, it never say God was pouring the wrath. this unfortunately is your own thing

Goshen360:


Okay. I have many scriptures for you to explain in line with with subject. One at a time.

New International Version

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

1 Corinthians 15: 2-3

How do you explain this verse?

do I really need to explain this?

It is clear, Christ died for our sin, it was to free us from our sins that Christ died, to set us free from sin. Christ death was the sacrifice that washed away our sins.

simplex2:
Keep probing dear, you'll get there someday.

Meanwhile, while you're at it, have you wondered why just a sin of disobedience changed the entire supposed plan of god for man?



Yes, how? How did the death make god forget the grievous sin of disobedience and now got reconciled with man? How is there even a reconcillation because things has remained the way it was till after the cruxification: the supposed relationship between god and man (adam) hasn't been the way it was before the almighty sin of disobedience; death is still ravaging everywhere, sickness, informities...exactly as they were before Jesus came and died: so what exactly was the over-hyped death for?

And to think that the death would have been avoided if the omniscient god got the revelation that adam will actually eat the fruit; if the omni-potent god planted the tree on top of mount everest where it would be inaccessible to adam: if the omnipresent god rebukked the serpent when he was trying to deceive eve as he is ever present everywhere, everytime...

A lot of things dont add up abeg!

I actually believe God "got the revelation" of adams disobedience, he simply decided to let it be and instead bring forth good out of the mess.

trustman:

The Eucharist
When Jesus said in Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you ...” what did he mean? Obviously he was ‘sacrificing’ something for us. Did the nature of that sacrifice involve some form of punishment?

The Cross
Ordinarily the cross was an instrument of punishment and judgment. God’s choosing of the cross as the place for Jesus’ crucifixion must have been deliberate rather than uncalculated. It must have been meant to pass across a message in no uncertain terms.

you seem to be forgeting a crucial detail, Is 53:8, it says by oppression he was taken away.

Does that mean God was the achitech of such oppression? Because you seem to be saying God is the active cause of Christ suffering. the cross was a punishment but importantly an unjust punishment. the bible says it is "oppression".

Was it God who was "oppressing his son and pouring wrath on him or was the cross the oppression and injustice of man? Judge for yourself and see how you make God a sinner who oppresses his son.

So when closely looked, at it is obvious that the going to the cross, something that caused Christ a lot of agony, could not have been a simple painless anguish-free incident. His substitutionary work on the cross, which we may not fully understand on this side of eternity, is the price Christ paid to meet the righteous requirements of our holy God.

when I look at the cross I certainly do not see God pouring wrath! What I see is the injustice of men who crucified an innocent man, a holy victim who willingly and sacrificially surrendered himself to his unjust killer and offer himself to the father, I see Christ who by bearing injustice merited glory for all who believe in him, I see his humility and obedience that saves me. I see the father who accepts the matyrdom of his only son and for his sake reckons righteousness on all who believe in him. the cross is not the expression of divine wrath it is instead an expression of divine love. God wasn't pouring wrath on the son, instead the merits of Christ averted the wrath I deserve. Atonment isn't about pouring wrath on the innocent but averting wrath by performance of some good.

Peace

ayoku777:


The "How" is not even a 10kobo question much less a million. The bible is clear on the fact that our iniquities were laid on Jesus; and He in turn suffered the forsaking, the curse and the hell that was the consequence of our iniquities in our place.

Isaiah 53v6 -All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

When your iniquities are placed on someone; the person becomes the one that suffers the consequences and condemnation of those iniquities -no longer you.

Its like surrogacy. If a woman's fertilized eggs are placed inside the womb of another woman. Who now gets to suffer the trimester feelings and moodswings? Who now gets to suffer the swollen feet and added weight? And eventually the birth pangs and labour pains? Ofcourse its the other woman.

When our sins were placed on Jesus; the consequence and condemnation that accrued to that sin were also endured by Him. Jesus sort of became the "surrogate" sinner for our iniquities and He endured the "pains and pangs" that came with it.

That was why the Father forsook Him; that was why He was made a curse; and that was why His soul went to Hell.

Separation from God, the curse of the law; and hell are all the wages of sin and the consequence and condemnation of disobedience and rebellion against God.

Jesus suffered all these for us and in our place. He committed no sin to deserve being forsaken by God, being made a curse or going to hell. No, we did all the sins that deserved these wages. But the Father laid our sins on Jesus and Jesus endured the consequence and condemnation of all our sins in our place.

God forsakes someone He is angry with. For the Father to forsake Jesus means the wrath wasn't averted or abated, it was redirected at Jesus. When the Son of man was lifted up, He drew all judgment unto Himself. Our iniquity was laid on Him and He suffered the consequence for us.

Jesus took the crime and did the time. That is "HOW" He reconciled us to the Father.

Shalom

this is what happens when you base your doctrine on the erronous interpretation of a verse, I already explained that the greek word translated as "laid on him" is used in the same chapter to mean make "intercession for" to offer up a sacrifice. that passage doesn't say what you claim it says, it doesn't say our sins were imputed to Christ and punishment was carried out on him, instead it is more rightly understood as saying that the lord God presented Christ as a sacrifice for the iniquity of us all, he made intercession for our sins.

You can check the word translated as "laid on him" it doesn't mean to imput.

ayoku777:


The Father forsook Jesus when He hung on the cross

Matthew 27v46 -And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

He was made a curse for us:

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

He died and His soul went to hell:

Acts 2v27 -Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Jesus went through all these.

I want you to know that Jesus committed no sin to warrant being forsaken of God. He broke no law to deserve being cursed or made a curse; and He disobeyed no commandment of God to merit going to hell.

These are all the wages of the things we did and the sins we committed. We are the ones that sinned and deserved to be forsaken of God. We are the ones that broke laws and deserved the curse of the law; and we are the ones that disobeyed God and deserved going to hell.

For Jesus who knew no sin and broke no law of God, to experience all that our actions deserved, means He took the wages of our sins. The consequence and condemnation of our rebellion and disobedience was endured by Him.

God bless

a classic case of continous misinterpretation of scriptures, I'll point one, the word translated as hell in the passage you quoted is "shoel", it isn't hell fire, it isn't the abode of the damn, but instead the land of the dead, the "other side" where the old testaments saints awaited the messiah".

Weah96:


The offering was his death, or "pretend death" since he really didn't die. When you offer someone your head in place of your little daughter's, it's not the same as giving them a Lexus or Range Rover. There is an assumed intention of reciprocity if you must die in order to appease the anger of someone. Death is not a gift. The families of murder victims don't consider the demise of death row inmates as "gifts."

for a Christian death can be a gift to God, the bible does say "O precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful", so yes when the faithful lives this world it is a "gift" to God, a precious thing in his eye, moreso if the death is a matyrdom, giving of your life as a witness to him.

ladon1:

You mentioned 'innocent' but he took the sin of others upon himself which represent a ransom. A price paid in the stead of another. How can something called 'just payment suddenly become unjust? Hardly not. Perfect justice was satisfied by the attoning sacrice of Christ.
Can someone paid the price of setting another free?
Prrfectly yes sir even even when the price is death.

sorry sir, nobody can serve another's death penalty.

ayoku777:


I believe the mistake you're making is that you're equating pardon or forgiveness with remission.

Pardon does not remove the consequence and condemnation of a sin. Only remission does that. And remission is only by the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood IS NO REMISSION.

The examples of Moses and Phinehas etc that you gave was not for remission, it was only for pardon. The people still died in the wilderness.

Numbers 14v20-23 -And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, ....and have tempted me now these ten times,

Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoke me see it:

You see? God pardoned the children of Israel but He still destroyed them in the wilderness. Because pardon is not remission.

Another example for you:

2Samuel 12v13-14 -And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE.

God pardoned David, but the child still died; because pardon is not remission. Pardon does not remove the consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death). Only remission does that.

And for there to be remission, blood must be shed. Jesus came for remission. And He had to take our sin and its consequence and condemnation. That's why the Father forsook Him; and He died and went to hell.

You said Jesus didn't die or suffer in our place. That's wrong.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

What is the curse of the law? It is the curse of breaking the law. When you obey the law, you are blessed. If you break the law, you are cursed.

The curse is the consequence or wages of breaking God's law; just as death is the wages of sin.

The bible said Jesus was made a curse FOR US. Meaning He did the time for our crime.

When Jesus died for us; He took the wages of our sins. And when He was made a curse for us; He took on the wages of our breaking the law.

This is the gospel truth. Jesus died and was made a curse FOR US AND IN OUR PLACE.

Jesus died for the sins we committed and He was made a curse for the laws we disobeyed.

You would need to ignore or twist plain straight forward scriptures to claim otherwise.

Isaiah 53v5-6 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.

Shalom.

you have created a false dichotomy, remission, pardon and forgiveness are word used interchangably to describe the same thing infact the dictionary say remission means pardon or forgiveness. Infact my bible translated the passage you quoted as "without blood there is no forgiveness of sin", remission is forgiveness.

In each of those cases God's immediate anger was averted and in other there was true forgiveness of sins. God sometimes leave a temporal punishment even for sins he has forgiven, it doesn't mean the sins weren't remited. Jesus' sacrifice remitted my sins and granted forgiveness but the temporal general punishment for sin remain, my physical body will age, experience pain and die, that is the temporal general punishment for sins even after Jesus remitted it. A similar thing happen in the desert even though God's wrath was abated, the disobedient Isrealites still face God temporal punishment for their sin, i.e non entrance of the promise land.


So pardon, remission, forgivenes removes the immediate and eternal punishment for sins but not neccesarily the general temporary punishment, that is why Christians still age feel pain, suffer and die because the general temporal punishment for sins usually remains. Stop redefining words please.

Ubenedictus:



a classic case of continous misinterpretation of scriptures, I'll point one, the word translated as hell in the passage you quoted is "shoel", it isn't hell fire, it isn't the abode of the damn, but instead the land of the dead, the "other side" where the old testaments saints awaited the messiah".

Sheol or hades means the "abode of the dead". And death is the wages of sin. Anyone who goes to hell died a sinner. Hell is not the place for the righteous.

Both the rich man and Lazarus and even Abraham were all in sheol. Abraham and Lazarus were not in the torment side of sheol; but were still in sheol all the same. Because none were righteous.

Also; the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. God does not forsake someone He is pleased with; He forsakes someone He is angry with. Meaning the wrath of God was not averted or abated; it was redirected at Christ. Jesus took the wages of our sin.

Jesus was made a curse for us. He took the curse of the law (the consequence of breaking God's law) upon himself. Meaning the consequence of our sin was laid on Him.

That was why He went to hell; the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin.

You so badly want to say Jesus didn't suffer in our place. But you can't explain why the Father forsook Him (the consequence of God's wrath); why He was made a curse (the consequence of breaking the law); and why He went to sheol (the abode of the dead -the wages of sin).

All these are the wages of sin and the consequence of unrighteousness. And since Jesus committed no sin and did no unrighteousness it means Jesus took the wages of our sins -He suffered in our place. That's the gospel truth.

Shalom.