The Apostle Paul uses this strange language that Christ was made sin. How can a holy God be made sin? Is the Apostle Paul just trying to shock us for no reason? Is Paul laying out some sort of heresy? What can the Apostle possibly mean by this language?
The servant is the one who secured us by His work. So, how is the servant going to remove the offense of exile from His people?
The servant is the one who lives out the promises of the Lord. This is great, it is encouraging, and it is very significant for his mission. However, why would we appeal to this text for Christmas rather than Isaiah 9 or Isaiah 7 if we were going to use a passage from Isaiah? What does this servant teach us about the significance of Christmas?
The Lord promised to make a barren couple fruitful. They had no children, but the Lord promised them to have a biological child even after they were beyond child bearing years. Why does the Lord endanger the child when he finally arrives in history? Why would the Lord do such a thing?
Christ is the one who does not deserve to die because He is the only one who can claim that He does not fall under the sentence of Adam. He is unjustly condemned so that we can be mercifully reconciled to the living God. We read in Hebrews that we have a high priest who can sympathize with us. How can the God-Man sympathize with mere humans? How can He really know our struggle if He Himself has not sinned, done any wrong, or struggled with sin? How do we know that Christ really does know the pain of this world?
The Apostle Paul sure chooses some strange words when he talks about Christ’s work on the cross. An example of strange wording regarding the work of Christ is when Paul states that Christ became sin. What does that mean? If we really pause for a moment that sounds like Christ has sinned so he could relate to us. Is that what the Lord is saying through the Apostle Paul? Why would it be problematic that Christ would sin? What does Paul mean by this language?
We know that Christ is the Good Shepherd and there is no shepherd that even compares to Christ in terms of His caring for the sheep. We also know that God is gracious and good in terms of HIs care for His people. We also know that Christ is so gracious that He is going to do what is right and consistent with His gracious will. So, is it gracious that God decides who receives the work of Christ? What basis would we have to make the claim that God limits the work of Christ? So, we continue to deal with the question of how many people are impacted by the work of Christ?
The Reformed position on Christ’s death on the cross is probably not the majority view in Christianity. If this position is held by a minority then what basis would people have to hold it? How do we see that really any conservative Christian believes in a limited atonement? What is more, how can the Reformed definition of a limited atonement actually teach a very gracious God?
When we think about Christ on the cross it is not something that is celebratory. That means we do not look at this event and celebrate the reality of the promises of God. The reason why I say this is because Christ has died. He died on the cross for what? He died on the cross for our sins. The disciples are rattled, his followers are rattled, but what has Christ done that is so good? Why would we call this Good Friday and not Fatal Friday if this is about the death of Christ? Death means failure right? Or are we missing something about that?
When we think about Redemption we can take things for granted that we should not take for granted. We can look at the work of Christ and minimize what it cost. How much did it really cost Christ to accomplish our redemption? How hard was it really for Christ the God man to redeem us? I mean He is God so what is the real challenge? How can redemption be something that is horrible for Christ when God is glorified in the midst of it?