.....without the stain of sin?

As I was preparing for the lesson this week, it dawned on me that Satan would not have gained anything by Christ's death in itself. What he needed was to break down Christ to the point of death where he would be more susceptible to stumble and sin. Thus the beatings and lashings and humiliations to get him to sin, along with taunting and baiting for Christ to show himself as the Son of God. Trying to make Christ react out of feelings and anger and reveal his full divinity much like the temptation to use his divine power to make bread out of stone, which would have made Satans point that Christ could not make it as flesh in overcoming sin.

Satan knew to use the Romans soldiers as they were well trained in applying torture without letting the person die quickly, extending it as long as posible and if it included being crucified, you may be left to a agonizing death of several days. But Satan had to get Christ to somehow sin, maybe from the torture and pain, or the loss of blood, or from the numbing affects of vinegar they gave Christ on a sponge. Someway, somehow, he had to be broken and forced to sin, but it had to happen first before his death, Satan would have known that, so what happened that changed his plan.

"So what happened that changed his plan?" Satan never had control in the first place. Jesus was given the power and authority to lay down His life at the right time. No one and nothing killed Jesus. He conquered death on the cross and then laid down His own life. He became the lawful owner of the keys of hell and death and demonstrated it by entering and exiting the domain of death using the keys He wrested from Satan.

Also, Satan could have succeeded if he got Jesus to give up on mankind and return home without tasting death for us.

Tom, what's your point? If it was the cross that killed Christ, He was just another martyr.

Tom, as you know the Bible often credits beings with things they didn't actually do themselves. In this case, all of us are guilty of crucifying Jesus - not just the Jews and Romans. In reality, though, Jesus conquered death on the cross. This accomplishes more than merely dying. God gave Jesus the power and authority to lay down and take up His life at the appropriate times. It was no accident.

It seems odd to affirm that nothing or no one killed Christ. I guess my point is that Christ was killed.

Here is what we came up after the lesson and a group discussion afterwards. When Christ went into Gethsemena the weight of every sin since the start of the world till the last sin before the end was put upon him. He would have died at that point if the angel had not been sent to strengthen him. The Father withdrawing His light because of the sin, and the weight of the sin caused the sorrow and anguish which was made clear in Christs words and actions. Culminating at the cross where the break in connection with the Father was complete causing Christ to cry out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". He then died from the weight of the sin on Him, the affects of the lashes, torture and nailing to the cross by themselves were really not the direct cause. Thus he literally laid down His life for our sins....

John 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. {DA 758.1}

John
10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

While as a member of the human family He was mortal, as God He was the fountain of life for the world. He could have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its dominion; but voluntarily He laid down His life, that He might bring life and immortality to light. He bore the sin of the world, endured its curse, yielded up His life as a sacrifice, that men might not eternally die. {DA 484.1}

Voluntarily our divine Substitute bared His soul to the sword of justice, that we might not perish but have everlasting life. Said Christ, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (John 10:17, 18). No man of earth or angel of heaven could have paid the penalty for sin. Jesus was the only one who could save rebellious man. {1SM 322.1}

Richard, consider the fact Jesus bore the weight of the sins of the world within Himself all of His life - not just at the end of His life. In the wilderness of temptation He suffered for our sins in a way very similar to Gethsemane and the Golgotha. Notwithstanding, Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our sin and second death on the cross. See quotes above. "Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. Satan, not Jesus, will die the second death with the sins of the saved. It was the scapegoat, not the Lord's goat, that died with the sins of the saved.

MM, there's no contradiction between Acts 2, and other inspired texts which say Christ was killed, and the texts you quoted. The Bible does not contradict itself. Christ allowed Himself to be killed.

The weight of sin was not put upon Jesus till He was fully prepared to suffer the consequences, thus when Judas left and Christ told him to do what He knew was betrayal, He was going into this phase of His ministry. But as the full impact of this was being poured out in the garden of Gethsemena, Christ asked that this cup be taken from Him, or another way found, but there wasnt and thus the Father had to withdraw and eventually sunder Himself from Christ as the sin was pour out and borne by Jesus.

What if no one had rejected Jesus, what if everyone lovingly embraced Him as their personal Savior - then what? How would Jesus have paid our sin debt of death? Would God have commanded them to nail Jesus to the cross? Would God have sacrificed Him? Or, would Jesus need not have died?

Richard, Jesus was born with the sins of the world. He was made sin for us. He bore them about in His body from the cradle to the cross. True, He did not begin to pay our sin debt of death until Gethsemane, nevertheless, sin tormented Him throughout His entire life. He "suffered being tempted". (Heb 2:18)

In the wilderness of temptation, the glory of God departed and left Jesus to do battle alone with Satan. This separation and encounter with sin and Satan was similar to what Jesus went through on the cross but for very different reasons. Jesus suffered daily bearing about the sins of the world in His body but it wasn't until Gethsemane and the cross did He also endure the wrath of God against sin.

2 Corinthians
5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter
2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that judgeth righteously:
2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

"When Jesus entered the wilderness, He was shut in by the Father's glory. Absorbed in communion with God, He was lifted above human weakness. But the glory departed, and He was left to battle with temptation. It was pressing upon Him every moment. His human nature shrank from the conflict that awaited Him. {DA 118.1}

"After the foe had departed, Jesus fell exhausted to the earth, with the pallor of death upon His face. The angels of heaven had watched the conflict, beholding their loved Commander as He passed through inexpressible suffering to make a way of escape for us. He had endured the test, greater than we shall ever be called to endure. The angels now ministered to the Son of God as He lay like one dying. He was strengthened with food, comforted with the message of His Father's love and the assurance that all heaven triumphed in His victory. {DA 131.1}

"Christ bore the penalty of sin, the stroke of divine justice, that human beings might not be left to perish. He bore in His body the sentence pronounced against sinners. This is the science of salvation, which can safely be searched into, and which it is profitable to strive to understand. {UL 196.5}

i keep hearing that Christ bore our sins from birth til.....

but that isnt what this seems to say.

The guilt of fallen humanity He must bear. Upon Him who knew no sin must be laid the iniquity of us all. So dreadful does sin appear to Him, so great is the weight of guilt which He must bear, that He is tempted to fear it will shut Him out forever from His Father's love. Feeling how terrible is the wrath of God against transgression, He exclaims, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." {DA 685.2}

how could it be laid on Him if it was already there?

From what I've read and learned, and I could, of course, be mistaken, Jesus bore our sins in His body from birth, but He didn't begin experiencing the penalty for sin until He entered the garden of Gethsemane. That's when our iniquities were laid upon. It's one thing to bear our burden of sin, it's quite another thing to pay our penalty for sin.

are there any bible or sop statements to that effect? i cant really remember having seen any. i cant say i have ever had reason to think about it, but when i hear it said i wrack my brain trying to think of an instance where it was even implied that He had our sins from His birth.

Hi, Teresa,

I don't have much time just now, but here, for instance, Ellen White is speaking about the temptations in the wilderness. I'm not sure, however about "from birth."

"It was not the gnawing pangs of hunger alone which made the sufferings of our Redeemer so inexpressibly severe. It was the sense of guilt which had resulted from the indulgence of appetite that had brought such terrible woe into the world, which pressed so heavily upon His divine soul. . . . {AG 164.4}

"With man's nature, and the terrible weight of his sins pressing upon Him, our Redeemer withstood the power of Satan upon this great leading temptation, which imperils the souls of men. If man should overcome this temptation, he could conquer on every other point." {AG 164.5}

in other words we dont really understand just what was going on and when and how it all happened.

we have only the most superficial understanding. i have been convicted!

Ok, MM, I will put it this way...

Suppose you had a twin, and he went and committed a crime that when judged would result in his death according to the law. As soon as it was committed you would bear the penalty as you are brothers with the same family, the shame would be on both of you, more on him as the guilty party. But if you went and presented yourself in his place, then the full weight of his 'crime' would be put upon your shoulders. You would have to suffer for what your brother did, and be judged as guilty for his crime.

This is what happened at the garden of Gethsemena, Christ accepted the cup and the consequences which was our sin of which the wages was death. Up to that point he could have refused the cup that was before him, but he didnt. At that moment the weight of our sins were poured out on him and the seperation from God because of sin caused the terrible suffering and ultimately the death of Christ.

As horrible as His physical suffering was, it was nothing compared to the spiritual suffering He went through. 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Jesus had the weight of the sins of the entire world put on Him (1 John 2:2). It was sin and the subsequent withdrawal and seperation from God the Father that caused Jesus to cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). So, as brutal as Jesus' physical suffering was, it was nothing compared to His having to bear our sins - and die for our sins (Romans 5:8).

MM, how can you say on the one hand that Christ bore our sins in His body since birth, and on the other that our iniquity was not laid upon Him until Gethsemane? Iniquity is sin. To say our iniquity was laid upon Him is to say He was bearing our sin.

Matt. 8:17 applies Isa. 53 to Christ's ministry, well before Gethsemane. Rosangela also quoted some SOP statements dealing with the temptation in the wilderness.

Regarding His bearing our sin since birth, I agree with you there, and Gal. 4:4 is a Scripture reference which bears this out.

Tom,

In your opinion on the cross nothing different happened from what Christ had been experiencing during His whole life?

No, that's not my opinion. Christ's greatest temptations and sufferings were experienced at the cross. The cross is what most fully reveals God's character, the character of Satan, the character of sin, and our character, in the persons of the Romans and Jews who crucified Christ. The cross caused this to happen:

OK, but speaking specifically about our sins being upon Christ, did something different happen or not?

Yes. Christ was more fully aware of our sins at certain times than at others. For example, during His temptations in the wilderness, at Lazarus' funeral, a week before His death at the temple, and especially at Gethsemane. But at the cross He experienced our sin to the greatest level possible.

The sins were not poured out on him till this time, thus it was the reason God had to withdraw from him. It was the cup that was before him to accept and bear the wight of all these sins that he did not deserve and die for them although he was without sin or blemish himself.

Christ was always bearing the sins. If this had caused God to withdraw from Him, God would have had to have withdrawn from Him since birth. Here's an example of Christ's bearing our sins before the cross:



A more literal translation would be, "Look, the Lamb of God, who is bearing the sin of the world!" which is very close to what Young's Literal Translation has.

Also, God did not withdraw from Christ at the cross, but drew close.



Psalm 18 (from which EGW quotes) eloquently describes God's drawing near to Christ.

Tom,
My brother, dont try to read into the bible what is not there...

God the Father hid his presence from flesh and Christ died on the cross as flesh seperated or sundered from the Father. The phrase "Look, the Lamb of God,who takes away the sin of the world!" is correct as the Jews expected and knew the purpose from the sacrifices at the Tabernacle and Temple, but at the time of the sacrifice is when the sin was put on the lamb.

Rick

John 1:29 should be translated as a gerund. That is, an accurate translation, as the YLT has, uses the gerund:



This is not reading something into Scripture which isn't there, but simply leaving it there where it belongs.

There are other texts that bring this out as well. For example, Matt. 8:17 quotes from Isa. 53:



Matt. 8:17 is well before Christ was crucified.

Also that God drew near to Christ is in Scripture, Ps. 18 (quoted by EGW), as well as from the Gospel accounts. There is no doubt that EGW is correct in asserting that God and holy angels were with Christ at the cross.

It's true there was a sundering of Father from Son, but this was due to Christ's identification with sin, not something the Father was doing (other than allowing this to happen; "giving Him up" as Scripture puts it).

doesnt necessarily mean Christ was carrying our sins at that moment. didnt Christ "take away the sin" also, or maybe more accurately here, by His life, His rejection of all sin, whenever presented to Him?

some of these discussions seem to be presenting two different true perspectives of the same picture.

Tom,

I have to disagree, as the lamb did not take away sin till the sacrifice, that is made clear in the instructions and why the ceremonies were laid out so detailed. Every Jew knew when the sins would be laid on the lamb, this had been drilled into them for centuries. That was the whole purpose in telling them as they would know what Christ was going to do for them. Yes when you saw the lamb going to the Tabernacle/Temple you knew it was to take the sin, but the actual time was when the sins were put on the lamb. This made clear to them the whole process, this is where the answer lies..

I dont think our salvation depends on this point of when the sins were put on Christ, so lets leave it for now till we have time to study it and maybe some more from others who may have something specific and see if it is made clearer....

Rick

You look to be disagreeing on the basis of ideas you already hold, but these ideas look very clearly to not agree with the facts I've presented. In this case, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind to adjust one's ideas on the basis of the facts, and not reject out of hand facts which have been presented because they do not agree with one's ideas.



1.If you don't wish to discuss this, that's fine, but when are we going to have more time to study this? Also regarding the comment that our salvation doesn't depend on the point when Christ began to bear our sin, I think this is wrong. If Christ had not been bearing our sin the whole time, we would have been lost. Here's a comment by Waggoner:



2.John 1:29 is clear. The correct translation is the gerund, as Young's Literal Translation has, and the word translated "taking away," can be translated "bearing," which I think is an easier concept to understand. This corresponds to Waggoner's point.

Matt. 8:17 is also clear. He is referencing Isa. 53; there's no question about that, and this is well before Christ's death on the cross.

3.God drew near Christ at the cross. He and holy angels were with Christ at the cross.

I think we need to keep an open mind when considering Calvary. It's such a profound subject. An important reason I have these discussions is because the points made by others helps me to understand things better.

Tom,

We all have to be humble and wait for God to show us when things are maybe a bit unclear or veiled. It is not what I have locked in as I am only going by what I read in scripture but granted I may be missing something. So thus if there is or others have a better understanding then let them show us so we all may be enlighthened. But its what is shown through the ceremonies given to the Jews, if you ask any Jew they will tell you the process. So why would God for centuries tell them one way then change it for another, got to go with the process simply given.....

Lets wait and see what can be brought to light and pray that the Spirit leads our study so we can all agree that is the best explanation and understanding.

Rick

Rick, no Jew looked at the sacrifices, and thought, "These sacrifices are necessary so that God can legally pardon me."

I agree completely with your comment that God wouldn't tell them one way then change it for another.

Here's an SOP comment regarding the meaning of the sacrifices:



The sacrifice reconciles us to God.



This was always the meaning of the sacrifice. From the point of view of the one offering the sacrifice, it was a means of dedication:



The same thought is presented throughout the OT. For example:



From the point of view of God (i.e., God as the one giving the sacrifice), the sacrifice was given as the means by which man could be reconciled, or drawn back, to Him. The offered of the sacrifice could put himself in God's place, whereupon the offering of the sacrifice represented giving up something of value, for the one loved. This is the real idea being presented, that God gave all He had for our benefit, self-sacrificing love at it's highest.

Tom,

There is no reason to struggle with this issue. Lets look to see what we can find on issue as a group and set self aside, as the ceremonies in scriptures clearly point to when the sin was placed. If there is something that shows us a different time, then lets all study and find it. I am sure as a group we can with the Holy Spirits guidance find and bring what is needed for understanding, that is the best way so all may gain from it.

Rick

I agree. Christ was "born of a woman, born under the law."



I included this whole comment, because I liked it, but it's the first paragraph which especially touches on the point as to when Christ began bearing our sin as a human being. Interestingly, Waggoner cited the same verse, Matt. 8:17, that I did.

Tom,

I think we should let everyone pitch in on the issue and lets see where it leads, that usually works best on studying a issue like this...

Rick

Richard, I agree with you that Jesus became sin for us, that He bore our sins in His body, that He endured the wrath of God against the sins of the world on our behalf.

However, what do you make of the following insights:

"It was not the gnawing pangs of hunger alone which made the sufferings of our Redeemer so inexpressibly severe. It was the sense of guilt which had resulted from the indulgence of appetite that had brought such terrible woe into the world, which pressed so heavily upon His divine soul. . . . {AG 164.4}

"With man's nature, and the terrible weight of his sins pressing upon Him, our Redeemer withstood the power of Satan upon this great leading temptation, which imperils the souls of men. If man should overcome this temptation, he could conquer on every other point." {AG 164.5}

Perhaps the difference had to do with what the Father did. For example, when the Father treated Jesus as sinner, He felt the wrath of God against sin. Even during His final scenes, the agony of soul He felt in Gethsemane let up a bit, only to return later on.

We're in agreement that Christ bore our sin from birth, right? Are we also in agreement that Isa. 53 should not be limited to Gethsemane/Calvary? (e.g. Matthew quoted it in Matt. 8:17, which is well before Christ's final week).

except that matthew quotes part of isaiah and in relation to healing.

Mat 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
Mat 8:15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
Mat 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
Mat 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

richard has a point and it seems that everything else should be understood in light of the sacrificial system, which had such minute detail.

The word for "heal" means "save." This is what Matthew quoted from:



Christ was able to save (or heal) because of bearing our griefs/sorrows/transgressions.

i understood that, thank you.

but matthew is still using only one very small part in the context of the healing Jesus was doing, at that moment, and applying only what applied at the moment, it would seem.

i understand that you see it in a certain light, but does that mean that others understandings are automatically wrong?

Here's something Waggoner wrote about it:



Whether people see things as I do, isn't the salient question, of course, but whether the things being seen are true or not. Obviously, if I'm wrong regarding a certain point, if others see things differently than I do, then that's good thing.

Regarding this particular point, I think Waggoner is correct, and I would, in general, given all that EGW has written in regards to him, be slow to disagree with him.

Anyway, aside from personalities, one should decide for oneself what is truth on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of what others think, no matter who they are. I've provided evidence for the point of view I believe is correct, and invite others to investigate it, and provide evidence for their point of view.

first, my brother, from everything i have read from egw regarding j and w had to do specifically with the faith of Jesus, righteousness by faith, not what i would call the peripherals.

second, she clearly stated they were not error-free.

third, i dont get we are to ever read anyone, excluding the bible, as error-free or give ourselves entirely to their understanding. i do read egw as if she were the bible, but that is about it.

i hold j and w in high regard, generally speaking. i have also appreciated some other authors you have quoted. but to say that their understanding is the understanding, or that my understanding of what i believe to be their understanding is accurate, is something else again.

i have read that (the glad tidings quote) the first time that you put it up. but one thing i have noticed at times, not all the time, but sometimes, is that i can read something the way ive been told it says, whereas if i back off it for a while and pray i see it in a completely different light.

the "wrath of God" may be a good illustration of that. another one is that i was taught that sodom and gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality-the bible teaches it was for a variety of reasons. praying to be cleansed of all tradition revealed that one. there are probably a multitude of views that have been changed in me from praying that simple prayer.

maybe if we got away from "right and wrong" on some issues, that are not the foundation and pillars of our beliefs......and see it as a difference of understanding.

regarding "evidence". i knew a lady years ago, who cleaned her house on saturdays. one saturday she got the distinct impression she shouldnt be doing that. she didnt understand it, and started to continue. again the impression came. she didnt clean house on the sabbath after that. now what "evidence" at that time could she have produced to anyone who asked her? i know of a few other similar circumstances.

but apart from that, i believe richard did present a valid piece of "evidence" in the sin being confessed over the sacrificial victim.

you presented what seemed to be "evidence" to you, but i dont see it as that. the subject seems worth exploring and praying about. after all, that is how great truths have been discovered, que no?

again, i dont see it as a "richard is right" and "you are wrong" anything. i see it as a valid point that would be nice to explore. it seems that we can become so positive in our understanding of anything that we may not be able to see the validity, or possibility, in anothers understanding.

Most everything Waggoner wrote on the subject fit together. There's not really much in the way of "peripherals;" at least, that's my impression (that is, I see the things Waggoner writes as tying together).



She didn't claim to be error-free herself. When she said they weren't error-free, the context was as a way of trying to get their detractors to pay attention to what they were saying, not as an excuse to downplay their importance; it was just the opposite!



A lot of people feel this way, although this wasn't Ellen White's perspective. However, if one wishes to read her "as if she were the bible," then this should include her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner, shouldn't it?



I've never claimed this, right? That is, that someone's understanding, whether mine, or Jones or Waggoner, or anyone else I've quoted, is "the" understanding. Even Scripture, Ellen White has told us, does not reflect the rhetoric or logic of God ("Logic" is pretty close to "understanding").

The best we can do is try to understanding things as best we can, and share things which have been a blessing to us to others. Because of this medium, discussions tend to be more contentious than they would if we were conversing in person. We don't have the luxury of hearing another's voice, or see their body language.

Regarding when Christ began bearing our sin, in my opinion there is a lot of evidence that it was before the cross. MM quoted some statements from the SOP saying that He bore them during the temptations in the wilderness. John 1:29 says, literally, "Behold the lamb of God who is bearing the sins of the world." Gal. 4:4 points out that Christ was born "under the law." Matt. 8:17 quotes Isa. 53:4, which speaks to Christ's bearing our iniquity. Here's another item of Waggoner's where he discusses this:



I've found these thoughts of Waggoner's to be a blessing. All I can do is share them. If you, or whoever, disagree with what Waggoner is saying, that's your prerogative, of course.

Regarding the fact that sinners confessed their sins over a lamb, I don't understand why this would imply that Christ was only bearing our sins at one specific point in time. This certainly doesn't appear to me to be as strong an argument as statements which state flat out that Christ was bearing our sin before Calvary.

In conclusion, my impression of you has been that you are an open-minded individual, willing to adjust your views when you become convinced you were wrong. I can assure you, by the grace of God, I'm the same way. My views have changed a great deal in the last 20 years, many times and in many ways. So I by no means have the point of view that my point of view must be correct. I'm simply presenting things which make sense to me. One of the great things about these forums is that people can question your views, causing one to rethink things, either adjusting positions or abandoning them altogether in favor of news ones.

you see everything as fitting together with waggoner. ok. i had mentioned both.



that is how you see it. ok. i didnt realize you would assume i was trying to downplay their importance given what i had stated about their message about the faith of Jesus, (egws words).



hmmmm, that seems to be how you are reading her re j and w. i notice they were both mentioned this time.



i was referring to myself but i can see that was not real clear.




in person and in the same room would have the advantage of being able to break and be in prayer together as the early pioneers did after the disappointment.



these references are quite convincing to you. i dont see them in the same light you do. not only that, we have this statement:



since one doesnt cancel out the other, how do all these statements work together, if we are understanding them correctly? personally, i have all the time in the world to wait and see how they fit together. in the end i may come to the same understanding as you have. but right now i dont see your references the same way you do.




how could Christ still be in the bosom of the Father in heaven-yet in judea and galilee-according to waggoner, and yet have left the bosom of the Father according to egw?





hmmmm, so theres no possibility that they are understood differently? or that one would like them to be reconciled with ones understanding of egw?

.....


im in agreement with much of your understanding, and differ in some other areas. i am glad that i am seen as open-minded, by at least you. this is something you seem to have studied out thoroughly. while i am aware that we have not had to carry the full weight or guilt of our sins-or it would crush us-i did also see that our sins were laid on Christ at the cross.

how these play out or reconcile i would like to see. but it isnt a salvational issue, so i can wait......