优点：
立场清晰明确，都是坏东西，要远离的。对字汇量较小的读者有益。
缺点：
对字汇的解析定位不够精准，对原文的翻译不够精确，由于过多迁就借用的儒释道术语，落入他人窠臼，对圣经原文的多样化，多角度的表达方式，翻译起来回转空间狭小，显得力不从心。
我尝试细分，欢迎批评指正：SIN（偏差），TRANSGRESSION（过犯），TRESPASS（侵犯），WICKEDNESS（恶），MISCHIEF（灾祸），GUILTY(有罪），CRIME（罪行），INIQUITY（邪恶），这样圣经原文的翻译将层次更分明，更丰富多彩，使用者能得更大的益处。
网页浏览总次数
2011年12月10日星期六
Iniquity-译成“邪恶”较准确
Iniquity denotes "not an action, but the character of an action" (Oehler）, and is so distinguished from "sin" (chaTTa'th). Hence, we have the expression "the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32:5).
翻译如下：
Iniquity 表示：“不是一个行动，是一个行动的特性” (Oehler），因此与“偏差”(chaTTa'th).不同，所以我们有这样的表达方式：“我偏差的邪恶性”。
http://lightzou8.blogspot.com/2011/12/iniquity-1.html
翻译如下：
Iniquity 表示：“不是一个行动，是一个行动的特性” (Oehler），因此与“偏差”(chaTTa'th).不同，所以我们有这样的表达方式：“我偏差的邪恶性”。
http://lightzou8.blogspot.com/2011/12/iniquity-1.html
2011年12月9日星期五
唐崇荣先生论灵恩派
「今天灵恩派的教会大大复兴，是因为他们注重圣灵的工作，但缺点与弱点是他们对圣灵与教义的问题有许多的模糊认识；所以一方面我们要欣赏他们的一些优点和一些重要的因素，而不是接受他们偏差的或错误的教训。灵恩派的人几乎没有新派，灵恩派的人都相信耶稣宝血的救恩，灵恩派的人都相信悔改得救的事情，所以灵恩派被上帝大大的使用，不是因为他们的信仰教义有偏差，乃是他们抓住了救赎重心，在这一方面神怜悯他们。」
(引自唐崇荣先生讲论《三位一体的奥秘》 <9. 勉励的话> 第三段)
(引自唐崇荣先生讲论《三位一体的奥秘》 <9. 勉励的话> 第三段)
What does the word "Wickedness" mean in Hebrew?
Wickedness = "Ra" (רע) in Hebrew. According to the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, רע (Resh-Ayin) means "to break" (pg.772).
During a Rosh Hashana conference, Brad Scott, in typical animated humor, defines our English word "Wickedness". He starts out quoting 2 Chronicles 7:14:
"'If my people who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and seek my face, and turn from their... wicked ways.' I don't think we do too bad a job praying, seeking His face, humbling ourselves in many cases, but I don't know if we're all so good in this culture of ours at turning from our wicked ways. And that's because the culture has taught us the paradigm of what wickedness is."
"Wickedness, according to our culture, is: Ted Bundy and baby killers and satan worshippers. And so given the Greek thinking of our culture, "I say to myself... lets see... I'm not Ted Bundy... I don't kill babies... and I don't worship satan so therefore... I'm not wicked.'"
"Wickedness has a meaning in Hebrew. Guess what! The language in which the Bible was written has a meaning in Hebrew that isn't the same as it is in English."
Continuing on, Scott gives a profoundly accurate example of "Wickedness":
"A woman enters the house and she has a large, deep bowl on the table. The purpose and design of that bowl... remember that word, "design" of the bowl. The 'function'! Remember, I told you the difference between 'form' and 'function' this morning. Hebrew teaches 'functionally'. Greek teaches 'form'. Alright... so the design and function of the bowl is to put stuff in it and make a cake. Throw in some flour. Throw in some water. Throw in some eggs and so forth and you stir it and make a cake. That's the 'design' of the bowl. That's its function. But if I take that bowl and I pick it up and I throw it on the floor and I break it into a zillion pieces, or even five, that action of destroying the purpose of it, or the design of it, in Hebrew is called 'Ra'. Translated, by the time it gets through a zillion languages and gets to English, its 'wick-ed-ness', which is a very abstract term in our culture. But in Hebrew it means 'to destroy, to break something into pieces and destroy it'. That's 'wickedness'. So if God has a design for His Feasts, if God has a design for His Days, and we pervert that or circumvent that or eliminate that, we have destroyed the purpose of Him giving it to us in the first place. And God calls that what? Wickedness! And God says 'if you'll turn from that, I will come and I will heal your Land'!!"
To watch the entire video, go here. More of the series by Brad Scott can be found at: Way to Zion.
Jeff A. Benner gives further insight into the word "Ra" in his article titled Good and Bad:
It should be noted that the English word "evil" has no Ancient Hebrew equivalent, while most English translations will use the word "evil" it is usually the Hebrew word "ra" which simply means "bad". In the Ancient Hebrew mind there is no such thing as an "evil" person or thing. To understand the words "good" and "bad" from a more Hebraic understanding these words should be understood as "functional" and "dysfunctional". God is both functional (such as seen in the Creation story of Genesis one) as well as dysfunctional (such as the destruction of the flood).
The "Lashon Ha-Ra" connection
Many have likely heard the phrase "Lashon Ha-Ra" in connection with "Gossip", vaguely defined as "Evil tongue" or "Evil speech". Lashon is generally the Hebrew word for "tongue" or "language", while "Ha-Ra" means "the-evil", but with the deeper Hebraic understanding of what "Ra" means, we would more accurately translate "Lashon Ha-Ra" to mean "the-destroying Tongue". So when a person gossips about another person, they are in a very real sense destroying that person or destroying that person's name and/or character. Some persons, such as Hitler for example, deserve to have their name destroyed, but frequently gossip wrongly destroys a person's character when the said person isn't present and unable to correct or refute the destructive attack on his/her character. We all know destructive forces of Lashon Ha-Ra well, so it should profoundly help us re-define in our English dominated minds what "Wickedness" or "Evil" (Ra) truly means.
Strongs and BDB definitions
The Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) poorly define Wickedness, largely because of the way English speakers perceive the associated defining words which do not rightly convey the Hebrew word: "Ra".
Strong's H7451 (defining the English word Wickedness)
רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]
רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]
H7451
רעה / רע
ra‛ / râ‛âh
BDB Definition:
1) bad, evil (adjective)
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H7489
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2191a, 2191c
רעה / רע
ra‛ / râ‛âh
BDB Definition:
1) bad, evil (adjective)
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H7489
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2191a, 2191c
The Meaning of the Atonement
The Meaning of the Atonement
by Mark M. Mattison
ContentsIntroduction
A Ransom Payment
Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
A Critique of Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
The Meaning of Redemption
Christ Died "For" Us
Propitiation or Expiation?
Substitution or Participation?
Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24
Summary
Final Remarks
Notes
IntroductionThe foundational truth of Christianity is that Christ Jesus died on the cross for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever.
That is the doctrine of the Atonement. Its reality is not in dispute. However, many Christians struggle to understand and live this doctrine better. We know that the Atonement works; but how it works is not as clear. Over the centuries many different theories have been suggested to explain how the Atonement works. As C. S. Lewis and others note, no one interpretation has been singled out as the only valid theory. With this fact in mind, we would do well to consider some of the principal theories and their limitations, using the Scriptures as our touchstone.
A Ransom PaymentIn Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).
That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.
The first suggestion was articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people's souls. This was a clever ruse on God's part, however, for unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus' divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view, known as the "Ransom" or "Classic" theory, was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine.
Satisfaction/Penal SubstitutionThe Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.
Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment not to Satan but to God.
The Protestant Reformers developed this doctrine by replacing God's honor with His justice and by speaking not only of Christ's passive obedience (death) but his active obedience as well (his fulfilling the law). Simply put, God requires that humankind obey an immutable law in a life of perfect, perpetual obedience. The purpose of the Mosaic law, it is taught, was to prove humanity's inability to live up to these requirements. By perfectly keeping the law, Jesus earned salvation. By suffering our punishment in our place, Jesus extends this salvation to us.
Also known as the "Penal Substitution" theory, this doctrine is common to many evangelical churches today. As it is the most popular of the theories of the Atonement, I'd like to devote considerable space to its evaluation.
A Critique of Satisfaction/Penal SubstitutionAgain, the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory is a marked improvement over the Ransom theory. Furthermore, it takes sin seriously and gives a rational explanation for the absolute necessity of the cross. However, I believe it has numerous inherent flaws. This was pointed out from the very beginning, first by Abelard whose "Moral Influence" theory challenged Anselm's "Satisfaction" theory, then by the Socinians and later the Arminians who criticized the Protestant "Penal Substitution" version.
The Meaning of RedemptionSome of these critics posed the question: If God freely forgives sin, how could Jesus' death have been a literal payment for our sins? To illustrate, imagine the following conversation between these fictional characters:
Bob: Okay, Jane, you owe me ten dollars. Pay up.
Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay you back?
Bob: I'm sorry, Jane, but I can't forgive your debt. Somebody has got to pay.
Ted: Hey guys! What's up?
Bob: Well, Ted, if you must know, I'm trying to collect the ten dollars that Jane owes me, but she can't pay it.
Ted: Hmm. Let's see here. Hey, I do have ten dollars on me. Here, Bob, you can let Jane off the hook.
Bob: Jane, your debt is paid. You can go now. You don't owe me anything.
Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.
This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not literally paid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.
When the Scriptures use the language of redemption to describe our salvation, we are always in the realm of metaphor. Consider Deuteronomy 7:8, which says that the Lord "brought you [Israel] out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Did God literally "redeem" Israel from Pharaoh? Did he give Pharaoh (for example) the Hittites in exchange for the Israelites, substituting one race of people for another? Obviously not. The metaphor of ransom and redemption is used to express worshipfully the fact that God and Christ have rescued us from sin and death by radical means, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
Christ Died "For" UsNevertheless the Penal Substitution theory is read into the frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute." Though that is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way. As Gordon Clark illustrates:
For example, suppose a pastor is sick or on vacation. A visitor takes his place. This visiting minister preaches forthe absent pastor and he also preaches for the congregation. But the preposition for has two different meanings in these two expressions. The visitor preaches instead of the pastor; he preaches on behalf of or for the good of the congregation.1
None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.
A word of caution is warranted, however. Prepositions in any language tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated "for" can bear more than one meaning. Hence they could imply substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. It is unwise to build any doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition.
That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for" in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the meaning of huper also.2 The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses on which we have already commented. There Jesus' death is described as a ransom payment, so a word normally implying substitution would be natural. However, it is telling that every other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous terms.
Propitiation or Expiation?The Penal Substitution theory invokes more than just metaphors and prepositions, however. It also invokes Romans 3:25, which describes Jesus "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (NASV; cp. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The meaning of "propitiation" here is brought out in an NIV footnote, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath." Certainly if Jesus' death "propitiated" or "satisfied" the offended Father then the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory would be strengthened.
So what is the key word in Romans 3:25 and related verses? Does it really mean "propitiation"? The Greek word ishilasterion and it means "mercy-seat." The related term in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is hilasmos, the term used to describe the sin-offering of the old covenant.3 Whether these terms imply propitiation depends upon how one believes the mercy-seat and sin-offering functioned. Hence the wisdom of the NIV's reading "an atoning sacrifice" instead of the NASV's "a propitiation."
Were the old covenant's animal sacrifices substitutionary in nature, the animals "taking the place" of sinners, dying "instead of" them to placate an angry deity? Is this very far removed from the legendary volcano gods who need to be placated by the death of virgins? Despite popular caricatures, the law of Moses never explicitly describes the old covenant sacrifices as "substitutes." For that matter, the slaying of the animals is never emphasized at all. What is emphasized is the ceremonial use of the blood in the cultic ritual. The killing of the victim was simply the necessary means of obtaining sacrificial blood. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus' death is not substitutionary but sacrificial. Hence the emphasis on Christ's blood, even though Jesus' death was not particularly bloody.
In fact, Jesus' death is frequently portrayed as a sin-offering.4 Hence Jesus' death is expiatory in nature. That is to say, Jesus' sacrificial death expiates or removes our sin. This it does by fulfilling the old covenant sacrificial system, paving the way for God's forgiveness. Note this point. God's forgiveness is not literally "purchased"; that would be no forgiveness at all. We are frequently told that sacrifice does not automatically secure God's favor (cf. Mic. 6:6-8). Rather, it fulfills a covenant obligation which is a precondition for God's forgiveness. Once the sacrifice is made, the sinner may seek forgiveness, and if he or she is sincere, God will freely forgive.
Substitution or Participation?There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation: We participate in the sacrifice of Jesus' death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).
Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.
Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24A couple of remaining verses deserve comment. One is 1 Peter 2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that way.
According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt. 8:16,17).
Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin offering.
SummaryIn my judgment, Satisfaction/Penal Substitution runs contrary to Scripture at many points:
Other TheoriesAs previously mentioned, other theories of the Atonement include Abelard's "Moral Influence" theory, also known as the "subjective" theory, a reaction against Anselm's "objective" Satisfaction theory. Another is the Socinian theory, a powerful critique of Substitution which nevertheless fails to offer a clear alternative.
Yet another is the Arminian "Rectoral" or "Governmental" theory, most prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full substitution, characterizing Christ's death as a "partial payment" instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of sacrifice.
These and other theories all have strengths as well as weaknesses:
Final RemarksWhile it may not be possible to articulate the "perfect" theory of the Atonement, it should be apparent by now that the Scriptural principles I've laid out along the way reflect various elements of each of the major theories.
In sum: Christ's death is (objectively) a fulfillment of the old covenant's sacrificial system and (subjectively) a reality in which we are called to participate. Most systematic theories tend to downplay one or the other of these elements, and all of them introduce additional theological problems.
Now that Jesus has fulfilled the old covenant and sealed the New Covenant in his blood, we can enter into covenantal relationship with God. This does not mean that Jesus' death was some ethereal financial transaction going on "behind the scenes." It is an act of sacrifice in which we, his followers, are caught up as we die to sin and live to God.
These covenantal and participatory aspects of sacrifice/Atonement also pave the way for a Scriptural theme of Atonement much neglected in each of the major theories: The theme of reconciliation, not just between humans and God, but also between humans and humans (cf. Eph. 2:11-18). Atonement is not just about getting saved for the afterlife. It's about becoming reconciled with God, others, and ourselves.
Notes1The Atonement (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation), 1987, p. 65.
2Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, p. 73.
3Cp. Num. 5:8 LXX; Ezek. 44:27 LXX.
4Rom. 8:3 (cp. 3:24,25); 2 Cor. 5:21 (where "sin" = "sin offering"); Gal. 3:13; Heb. 7:27; 9:12-15,25-28; 10:1-18; 13:11,12; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10.
5"For Christ the Covenant of Redemption was a covenant of works....Christ earned salvation." Clark, p. 16.
6Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), 1949, rev. 1979, reprint 1981, p. 237.
7Of the Old Testament sacrifices, Gordon Clark wrote: "The primary aim of the sacrifice was to appease God's wrath and to reconcile him to oneself." Of Christ's sacrifice: "By his accepting the penalty of our sins, he [Christ] satisfied the justice of God, thus propitiating God and reconciling God to those who had been his enemies." The Atonement, p. 79.
A Ransom Payment
Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
A Critique of Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
Christ Died "For" Us
Propitiation or Expiation?
Substitution or Participation?
Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24
Summary
Final Remarks
Notes
IntroductionThe foundational truth of Christianity is that Christ Jesus died on the cross for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever.
That is the doctrine of the Atonement. Its reality is not in dispute. However, many Christians struggle to understand and live this doctrine better. We know that the Atonement works; but how it works is not as clear. Over the centuries many different theories have been suggested to explain how the Atonement works. As C. S. Lewis and others note, no one interpretation has been singled out as the only valid theory. With this fact in mind, we would do well to consider some of the principal theories and their limitations, using the Scriptures as our touchstone.
A Ransom PaymentIn Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).
That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.
The first suggestion was articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people's souls. This was a clever ruse on God's part, however, for unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus' divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view, known as the "Ransom" or "Classic" theory, was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine.
Satisfaction/Penal SubstitutionThe Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.
Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment not to Satan but to God.
The Protestant Reformers developed this doctrine by replacing God's honor with His justice and by speaking not only of Christ's passive obedience (death) but his active obedience as well (his fulfilling the law). Simply put, God requires that humankind obey an immutable law in a life of perfect, perpetual obedience. The purpose of the Mosaic law, it is taught, was to prove humanity's inability to live up to these requirements. By perfectly keeping the law, Jesus earned salvation. By suffering our punishment in our place, Jesus extends this salvation to us.
Also known as the "Penal Substitution" theory, this doctrine is common to many evangelical churches today. As it is the most popular of the theories of the Atonement, I'd like to devote considerable space to its evaluation.
A Critique of Satisfaction/Penal SubstitutionAgain, the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory is a marked improvement over the Ransom theory. Furthermore, it takes sin seriously and gives a rational explanation for the absolute necessity of the cross. However, I believe it has numerous inherent flaws. This was pointed out from the very beginning, first by Abelard whose "Moral Influence" theory challenged Anselm's "Satisfaction" theory, then by the Socinians and later the Arminians who criticized the Protestant "Penal Substitution" version.
The Meaning of RedemptionSome of these critics posed the question: If God freely forgives sin, how could Jesus' death have been a literal payment for our sins? To illustrate, imagine the following conversation between these fictional characters:
Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay you back?
Bob: I'm sorry, Jane, but I can't forgive your debt. Somebody has got to pay.
Ted: Hey guys! What's up?
Bob: Well, Ted, if you must know, I'm trying to collect the ten dollars that Jane owes me, but she can't pay it.
Ted: Hmm. Let's see here. Hey, I do have ten dollars on me. Here, Bob, you can let Jane off the hook.
Bob: Jane, your debt is paid. You can go now. You don't owe me anything.
Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.
This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not literally paid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.
When the Scriptures use the language of redemption to describe our salvation, we are always in the realm of metaphor. Consider Deuteronomy 7:8, which says that the Lord "brought you [Israel] out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Did God literally "redeem" Israel from Pharaoh? Did he give Pharaoh (for example) the Hittites in exchange for the Israelites, substituting one race of people for another? Obviously not. The metaphor of ransom and redemption is used to express worshipfully the fact that God and Christ have rescued us from sin and death by radical means, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
Christ Died "For" UsNevertheless the Penal Substitution theory is read into the frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute." Though that is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way. As Gordon Clark illustrates:
None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.
A word of caution is warranted, however. Prepositions in any language tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated "for" can bear more than one meaning. Hence they could imply substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. It is unwise to build any doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition.
That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for" in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the meaning of huper also.2 The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses on which we have already commented. There Jesus' death is described as a ransom payment, so a word normally implying substitution would be natural. However, it is telling that every other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous terms.
Propitiation or Expiation?The Penal Substitution theory invokes more than just metaphors and prepositions, however. It also invokes Romans 3:25, which describes Jesus "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (NASV; cp. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The meaning of "propitiation" here is brought out in an NIV footnote, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath." Certainly if Jesus' death "propitiated" or "satisfied" the offended Father then the Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory would be strengthened.
So what is the key word in Romans 3:25 and related verses? Does it really mean "propitiation"? The Greek word ishilasterion and it means "mercy-seat." The related term in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is hilasmos, the term used to describe the sin-offering of the old covenant.3 Whether these terms imply propitiation depends upon how one believes the mercy-seat and sin-offering functioned. Hence the wisdom of the NIV's reading "an atoning sacrifice" instead of the NASV's "a propitiation."
Were the old covenant's animal sacrifices substitutionary in nature, the animals "taking the place" of sinners, dying "instead of" them to placate an angry deity? Is this very far removed from the legendary volcano gods who need to be placated by the death of virgins? Despite popular caricatures, the law of Moses never explicitly describes the old covenant sacrifices as "substitutes." For that matter, the slaying of the animals is never emphasized at all. What is emphasized is the ceremonial use of the blood in the cultic ritual. The killing of the victim was simply the necessary means of obtaining sacrificial blood. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus' death is not substitutionary but sacrificial. Hence the emphasis on Christ's blood, even though Jesus' death was not particularly bloody.
In fact, Jesus' death is frequently portrayed as a sin-offering.4 Hence Jesus' death is expiatory in nature. That is to say, Jesus' sacrificial death expiates or removes our sin. This it does by fulfilling the old covenant sacrificial system, paving the way for God's forgiveness. Note this point. God's forgiveness is not literally "purchased"; that would be no forgiveness at all. We are frequently told that sacrifice does not automatically secure God's favor (cf. Mic. 6:6-8). Rather, it fulfills a covenant obligation which is a precondition for God's forgiveness. Once the sacrifice is made, the sinner may seek forgiveness, and if he or she is sincere, God will freely forgive.
Substitution or Participation?There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation: We participate in the sacrifice of Jesus' death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).
Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.
Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24A couple of remaining verses deserve comment. One is 1 Peter 2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that way.
According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt. 8:16,17).
Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin offering.
SummaryIn my judgment, Satisfaction/Penal Substitution runs contrary to Scripture at many points:
- Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect, perpetual obedience;5 the Scriptures declare that God saves us "in accordance with his pleasure and will" (Eph. 1:5, NIV).
- Penal Substitution declares that "God must visit sin with punishment";6 the Scriptures declare that God "does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities" (Psa. 103:10, NIV).
- Penal Substitution declares that in the Atonement, God is reconciled to humankind;7 the Scriptures declare rather that humankind is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Col. 1:20).
- Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).
Other TheoriesAs previously mentioned, other theories of the Atonement include Abelard's "Moral Influence" theory, also known as the "subjective" theory, a reaction against Anselm's "objective" Satisfaction theory. Another is the Socinian theory, a powerful critique of Substitution which nevertheless fails to offer a clear alternative.
Yet another is the Arminian "Rectoral" or "Governmental" theory, most prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full substitution, characterizing Christ's death as a "partial payment" instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of sacrifice.
These and other theories all have strengths as well as weaknesses:
- The Ransom theory emphasizes redemption from evil, but at the cost of God's sovereignty.
- The Satisfaction/Penal Substitution theory emphasizes God's sovereignty, the seriousness of sin, and the necessity of the cross, but at the cost of God's forgiveness and the participatory aspect of Atonement.
- The Moral Influence and Socinian theories stress the persuasive aspect of Atonement, including the Atonement as an example (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21), but they fail to emphasize the necessity of the cross.
- The Arminian alternative avoids the most prominent weaknesses of Satisfaction/Penal Substitution, but still fails to emphasize the "subjective" element.
Final RemarksWhile it may not be possible to articulate the "perfect" theory of the Atonement, it should be apparent by now that the Scriptural principles I've laid out along the way reflect various elements of each of the major theories.
In sum: Christ's death is (objectively) a fulfillment of the old covenant's sacrificial system and (subjectively) a reality in which we are called to participate. Most systematic theories tend to downplay one or the other of these elements, and all of them introduce additional theological problems.
Now that Jesus has fulfilled the old covenant and sealed the New Covenant in his blood, we can enter into covenantal relationship with God. This does not mean that Jesus' death was some ethereal financial transaction going on "behind the scenes." It is an act of sacrifice in which we, his followers, are caught up as we die to sin and live to God.
These covenantal and participatory aspects of sacrifice/Atonement also pave the way for a Scriptural theme of Atonement much neglected in each of the major theories: The theme of reconciliation, not just between humans and God, but also between humans and humans (cf. Eph. 2:11-18). Atonement is not just about getting saved for the afterlife. It's about becoming reconciled with God, others, and ourselves.
Notes1The Atonement (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation), 1987, p. 65.
2Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, p. 73.
3Cp. Num. 5:8 LXX; Ezek. 44:27 LXX.
4Rom. 8:3 (cp. 3:24,25); 2 Cor. 5:21 (where "sin" = "sin offering"); Gal. 3:13; Heb. 7:27; 9:12-15,25-28; 10:1-18; 13:11,12; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10.
5"For Christ the Covenant of Redemption was a covenant of works....Christ earned salvation." Clark, p. 16.
6Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), 1949, rev. 1979, reprint 1981, p. 237.
7Of the Old Testament sacrifices, Gordon Clark wrote: "The primary aim of the sacrifice was to appease God's wrath and to reconcile him to oneself." Of Christ's sacrifice: "By his accepting the penalty of our sins, he [Christ] satisfied the justice of God, thus propitiating God and reconciling God to those who had been his enemies." The Atonement, p. 79.
Presented by:
True Grace Ministries
True Grace Ministries
Atonement may refer to: In religion:
Atonement may refer to:
In religion:
- Atonement in Judaism
- Yom Kippur,The Day of Atonement, the biblical/Jewish observance
- Atonement in Christianity
- Day of Atonement (Nation of Islam)
- http://www.cyber-chapel.org/AtonementInTheNT.pdf
The Day Of Atonement
Today is the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews would greet you on this day with "Gmar Chativa Tova." It is sometimes referred to as the day of "at-onement" with God, based upon the time when all of God's chosen shall be accepted into the God family. As it turns out, this is not the best definition. We all know that it is a day of fasting, but what is the meaning and purpose of this day? Today I want to take you through some scriptures and other sources which describe the Day of Atonement, fasting, and the significance of this day. I have given much of this sermon before, some of you will remember it, but it is appropriate every year on this day. 1. Let’s Begin by talking about the Authority Behind This Day: The Day of Atonement is, of course, the 10th day of Tishri or Ethenim, the seventh Biblical month. It is today, the most solemn day of the year in Judaism. Yom Kippur is the one day nearly all Jews consider to be sacred. In Israel even most secular Jews fast on this day and consider it a day of introspection. If you judge the importance of this day by the punishment it carries for breaking it, the weekly Sabbath is a more important day because breaking the weekly Sabbath carries the death penalty. Breaking Yom Kippur seems to only carry the penalty of being cut off from God’s people, with the implied destruction of the individual before he can return to his people. The removal of sin and acceptance by God, which is the most commonly accepted theme in Judaism, was only for a year, though it has a deeper meaning. Heb 10:3 reads: "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins," and that is why we give you a message about each holy day every year on that particular holy day. But, as the rest of Hebrews 10 shows, atonement now points forward to eternal removal of sins through the blood of Christ. We will talk more of Heb 10 later. Let's begin by reading the commandment to keep this Holy Day in Leviticus 23: Lev 23:26-32 The LORD said to Moses, {27} "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny [afflict] yourselves, and present an offering made to the LORD by fire. {28} Do no work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the LORD your God. {29}Anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people. {30} I will destroy from among his people anyone who does any work on that day. {31} You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. {32} It is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you must deny [afflict] yourselves. From the evening [ereb #6153] of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your Sabbath." Verse 32 specifically states when this High Day is to be observed: On the tenth day of the seventh month, from sunset the evening before to sunset the evening of the tenth. 2. Now let’s talk about the Old Testament observance: Lev 16:34 says "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses. Atonement means to cover sin or to be reconciled to God through Christ’s sacrifice. Lev 16:1-10 describes the ritual of Atonement and how it was to be done only once a year: The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD. {2} The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. {3} "This is how Aaron is to enter the sanctuary area: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. {4} He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on. {5} From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. {6} "Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. {7} Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. {8} He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. Many texts use the word "Az-azel’" for "scapegoat." Az-azel’, H5799, is defined by Brown-Driver-Briggs as "entire removal", meaning this goat symbolically carried away and removed the entire sin and guilt from sacred places into the desert. It probably also symbolized entire forgiveness. In my opinion this more closely describes the purpose of this goat. The word "scapegoat" implies one who is being blamed for something he did not do. Some say Azazel’ means evil spirit, but there is little agreement in the various commentaries and dictionaries regarding the original meaning of this word. Frankly, we just don’t know the meaning. Continuing at verse 9: Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. {10} But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat. We can see why both goats were required: one to symbolically carry away sins, the other as a sacrifice for the sins of Israel. One carried away unknown current sins; the other died for known past sins. Skip down to verse 15. "He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull's blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. {16} In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. {17} No one is to be in the Tent of Meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel. {18} "Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull's blood and some of the goat's blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. {19} He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites. {20} "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. {21} He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. One theory has it that this pictures the blaming of Satan for the sins of the world. Continuing in verse 21: He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. {22} The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert. Per the theory just mentioned, this would picture Satan's banishment to outer darkness for all eternity. However, there is also evidence God will destroy Satan. See Isa 14:16-17, Ezek 28:18-19, and Rom 16:20. G4937 - To put Satan under foot and trample on him. {23} "Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. {24} He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people. {25} He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar. {26} "The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp. {27} The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up. {28} The man who burns them must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp. Although there is much controversy over the meaning of the Azazel’ goat in verses 15-28, the important thing to remember about these verses is that all this was done in order to atone for or cover the sins of the people. A secondary purpose was to impress upon the minds of the people the conviction that the whole tabernacle was stained by the sins of a guilty people, that by their sins they had forfeited the privileges of the divine presence and worship, and that an atonement had to be made as the condition of God's remaining with them. In essence, we in the Church are faced with the same choices today: Keep the Day of Atonement with fasting and without work and, as we will see, be reconciled with God and man, or be caste, by God, outside His family of Saints. Continuing in verse 29: "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do anywork--whether native-born or an alien living among you-- {30} because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. {31} It is a Sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. {32} The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments {33} and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community. {34} "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses. 3. Now let’s discuss what most people associate with this day - FASTING We know that the Old Testament commands the Day of Atonement but there is evidence that Paul observed it too. It has not been "nailed to the cross" as many Protestants would have us believe. Acts 27:9 Much time had been lost, and sailing had already become dangerous because by now it was after the Fast..... A major benefit of fasting is to be able to humble oneself before God. Even Pharaoh was expected to humble himself: Exo 10:3 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself [give in or yield] before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me. David teaches us that humility can be accomplished by fasting: Psa 35:13 Yet when they were ill, I put on sackcloth and humbled myself with fasting............. Psa 69:10-11 When I weep and fast, I must endure scorn; {11} when I put on sackcloth, people make sport of me. What are some other benefits of fasting? Fasting enables us to get closer to God. It is a spiritual, not just a physical, experience. Exo 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments. (Ezra 8:21-23 NKJV) Then I proclaimed a fast there at the river of Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from Him the right way for us and our little ones and all our possessions. {22} For I was ashamed to request of the king an escort of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy on the road, because we had spoken to the king, saying, "The hand of our God is upon all those for good who seek Him, but His power and His wrath are against all those who forsake Him." {23} So we fasted and entreated our God for this, and He answered our prayer. Esther wanted to be close to God so He would inspire the King not to kill her: Est 4:16 "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish." Paul had an experience which drove him to fast so that God would explain to him what he was to do with his life. We must realize the total change in lifestyle and values Paul was to undergo after that time and how these thoughts must have tormented him during his three days of darkness, fasting and solitude. Paul needed to get some answers from God after his shocking experience on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. What are some rules about fasting? Christ tells us in Matthew 6: Mat 6:16-18 "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. {17} But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, {18} so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. These New Testament scriptures make it clear that we should fast. But only God needs to know when we fast. Mat 9:14-15 Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" {15} Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast. Christ explained that there was no reason for them to mourn over their separation from God due to their sins while He (Christ) was physically with them. This is an example of how fasting brings us close to God. Fasting is an act of humility in God’s presence. Notice the humility expressed by Peter in 1 Peter 5: 1 Pet 5:5-11 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." {6} Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. {7} Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. {8} Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. {9} Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings. {10} And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. {11} To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. As we fast, consider that our lives need more than just the physical sustenance of food. For life, we also need the forgiveness and spiritual sustenance of God. Fasting will get us closer to God so that we can be better fed by God through His Holy Spirit and His Word. Philo [Phy’-low] of Alexandria, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus Christ, recorded his thoughts about fasting on Yom Kippur: "Moses called Yom Kippur a feast because of the time at which the celebration of the fast occurs, namely, when all the annual fruits of the earth have been gathered in. [I might add: A point made in our Calendar booklet] To eat and drink of these without delay would, he held, show gluttony, but to fast and refrain from taking them as food shows the perfect piety which teaches the mind not to put trust in what stands ready prepared before us as though it were the source of health and life. For often its presence proves injurious and its absence beneficial. Those who abstain from food and drink after the ingathering of the fruits cry aloud to us with their souls, and though their voices utter no sound, their language could hardly be plainer. They say, "We have gladly received and are storing the benefits of nature, yet we do not ascribe our preservation to any corruptible thing, but to God the Parent and Father and Savior of the world and all that is therein, Who has the power and the right to nourish and sustain us by means of these or without these. See, for example, how the many thousands of our forefathers as they traversed the trackless and all-barren desert, were for forty years, the life of a generation, nourished by Him as in a land of richest and most fertile soil; how He opened fountains unknown before to give them abundance of drink for their use; how He rained food from heaven, neither more nor less than what sufficed for each day, that they might consume what they needed without hoarding, nor barter for the prospect of soulless stores their hopes of His goodness, but taking little thought of the bounties received rather reverence and worship the bountiful Giver and honor him with the hymns and benedictions that are his due.........Besides, it was meet and right when everything has shown abundance as they would have it, and they enjoy a full and perfect measure of goodness, that amid this prosperity and lavish supply of benefits, they should by abstaining from food and drink remind themselves of what it is to want, and offer prayers and supplications on the one hand to ask that they may never really experience the lack of necessities, on the other to express their thankfulness because, in such wealth of blessings, they remember the ills they have been spared." Mat 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " He quoted this from Deut 8:3. Isaiah also recognized the value of living close to God and being able to soak in His Word and His knowledge as he described the millennium. Please turn to Isa 11:9. Isa 11:9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. What is God’s View of Fasting? Isaiah describes God’s view of most people’s fasting in the next verses we are going to read. Contemplate as we read these verses because what he says here about God’s view of our fasting can apply to us on the Day of Atonement or any other fast day: Isa 57:14-58:14 And it will be said: "Build up, build up, prepare the road! Remove the obstacles out of the way of my people." {15} For this is what the high and lofty One says-- he who lives forever, whose name is holy: "I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. {16} I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-- the breath of man that I have created. {17} I was enraged by his sinful greed; I punished him, and hid my face in anger, yet he kept on in his willful ways. {18} I have seen his ways, but I will heal him; I will guide him and restore comfort to him, {19} creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel. Peace, peace, to those far and near," says the LORD. "And I will heal them." {20} But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud. Look around you. Listen to the radio and TV. Read the papers. Search out accurate news on the Internet. Consider the attitudes of those without God’s Spirit. All that you see is like mire and mud. {21} "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." [They can not find real peace.] {58:1} "Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins. {2} For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. {3} 'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' "Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. {4} Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. {5} Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day [Day of Atonement] for a man to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD? {6} "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? {7} Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? {8} Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard. {9} Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. "If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, {10} and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. {11} The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. {12} Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. {13} "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord's holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, {14} then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob." The mouth of the LORD has spoken. 4. Teshuvah: We have just talked about fasting, but the verses we just read bring out another aspect of the Day of Atonement. My recent sermons "Preparing for Trumpets" and "Days of Awe" pointed out that the Day of Atonement was the last day of Teshuvah. There are four aspects of Teshuvah: Regret, taking responsibility, reconciliation, and resisting the sin again. As Christians we might say that Teshuvah means recognizing our sin against someone as sin; regret for offending someone else, including our Father; repentance; and a turning around and going the other way. Teshuvah actually started on Elul 1. For the accepted Saints it ended one month later on the Feast of Trumpets. But for most of the world it continues until the Day of Atonement. I talked about that in previous sermons. The period from Trumpets to Atonement is described as the Days of Awe, which many compare to the tribulation. The Days of Awe represent mankind’s final chance to make amends with God and man, and for their names to be written in the Book of Life. Before continuing on, I want to interject a thought for your consideration: The Palestinian uprising against Israel began with the visit by then Israeli MK Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount on what we know as the correct Day of Trumpets. The uprising of people rioting against the Jews has been described by Palestinians as not a political uprising (i.e. not between governments), but a war between religions. Are we seeing a type, a foretaste, an example, of the troubles and persecutions of the tribulation? The last ten days have been the Days of Awe, the Days of Trouble. Today is the final day of that ten day period. You might want to read Jeremiah 25 to refresh your knowledge of this terribly troublesome period of time. . . . But, back to the sermon. We were talking about confessing our sins against others. The point of confession is to recognize that one has committed a sin, and before whom the sin was committed, and to be whole heartedly ashamed of it, and to regret it; and He who knows all the hidden things will bear witness that the sinner will not sin again, nor return to his folly. Just as sacrifice without Teshuvah is called an abomination - "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination" as we read in Proverbs 21:27 - so a confession without the heart’s agreeing not to sin again is called an abomination. During Teshuvah, people grow closer to God, but on the Day of Atonement, God grows closer to us. This is an important concept for us to keep in mind. Teshuvah requires that we must love our neighbor, including our Creator, as our self. Some people dread the day of Atonement because they hate to fast. That is a very shortsighted view. The Day of Atonement should really be a day of rejoicing because that is the day God sweeps away the transgressions of all who repent. 5. This brings us to the True Meaning of the Day of Atonement As we just said, the days between Trumpets and Atonement are called the Days of Awe, the last ten days of a forty-day period called Teshuvah. Teshuvah actually began on Elul 1, August 29th in 2011. These days are dedicated to obtaining the forgiveness of those one has offended the previous year, both God and man. They are, in essence, days of repentance or turning around. The Jewish community rightly believes that it is harder to be forgiven by another person than by God but that forgiveness cannot be obtained from God until one has obtained forgiveness from his fellow man, for when one has offended his fellow man, he has offended God. Yom Kippur is dedicated to obtaining forgiveness from God. The Christian community believes the same thing. This is stated as part of what most people call the "Lord’s Prayer", which is really a pattern or model prayer, given to us by Christ. It can be found in Matthew 6:
This verse is then expounded on in verses 14 and 15: (Mat 6:14-15 NKJV) "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. {15} "But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Is there any difference, then, between the Jewish understanding of forgiveness and the Christian understanding of forgiveness as given in verses 14 and 15? Just what is atonement? It is another of many 'religious' words that is often used but not always understood. The best definition we can find is the one used in the scriptures themselves. The English word 'atonement' is found many times in the Old Testament, but only once in the KJV New Testament. However, the Greek word which is translated "Atonement" in the KJV of Romans 5:11, G2643, is translated into its more accurate meaning "Reconciliation" in the other three places where the same Greek word is used. Thayer’s Lexicon defines G2643 as an adjustment of a difference, a reconciliation, a restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ. In the Old Testament, it is derived from two Hebrew words, kaphar and kippur, from which comes Yom, meaning "day", and Kippur, meaning "atonement". The root word kaphar (kah-far') means "to cover". See Strong's #3722. The second word translated atonement is kippur and it means "expiation or atonement". See Strong's #3725. "Atonement" is the preferred translation. So we have a day with several meanings. If you read the definitions in Strong's you'll see what I mean. But the main theme is basically the same. Yom Kippur is the day in which God will be reconciled with His creation. It is a day for Him to be merciful, to pardon, to cleanse and to forgive. Yom Kippur was the only day of the year that anyone among the children of Israel was able to come "face to face" with God and live. This occurred when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. It could only be done with great preparation and care. Paul also addressed this future face to face encounter. 1 Cor 13:12 (NKJV) For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. According to Paul, we are not yet "face to face" with our Father, but the time will come, as pictured by this day, when that will occur. Then we will know God fully, just as He knows us fully right now. Isa 59:20-21 (NAS) "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD. {21} "And as for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever." So this is the meaning of the Day of Atonement in God’s Master Plan for his Saints and eventually for all mankind: It pictures the time when God will fully forgive His people’s transgressions and be accessible on a face to face basis. That explains why we fast this day. God is always closer as we fast. (Isa 44:22 NKJV) I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, And like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you." God has redeemed us (payed off our sin) with the sacrifice of Christ. 6. Washed by Blood: How does God blot out our transgressions and redeem us? We read this verse before, but let’s read it again, this time from the literal translation: (Lev 16:30 Literal) "For on this day he shall atone for you, to cleanse you; to cleanse you from all your sins; before Jehovah you shall be clean. Notice that the word "priest", as shown in the KJV, is not in the literal translation. It was added by the translators. Other translations agree that the word "priest" should not be there. While the temple/tabernacle stood, atonement was made by the blood of the sacrificial animal. Since 30 AD, the sacrificial animal’s blood was replaced by that of Jesus Christ. As we have read so many times before, Christ did not come to do away with the law. He came to fulfill it. Lev 16:30 still holds. He washed us in His blood rather than that of an animal. He fulfilled the law. Now let’s go back to Heb 10. (Heb 10:1-14 NKJV) For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. {2} For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. {3} But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. {4} For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats [See Lev 16:3] could take away sins. {5} Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. {6} In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. {7} Then I said, 'Behold, I have come; In the volume of the book it is written of Me; To do Your will, O God.'" {8} Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), {9} then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. {10} By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. {11} And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. {12} But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, {13} from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. {14} For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Verses 12 and 13 are quotes from Psalms 110:1. I mentioned a moment ago that He washed us in His blood. Here is a Jewish parable that kind of describes the effectiveness of our washing. "As a nut which if it falls into filth, can be picked up and wiped off and rinsed and washed and then can be eaten, so it is with Israel: However much they besmirch themselves in iniquity all the days of the year, Yom Kippur comes and makes atonement for them, as it is said in Lev 16:30." And so it is with us. In Conclusion: Brethren, when you fast on the Day of Atonement or anytime, fast with purpose, not just because it is the thing you are supposed to do. Fast to be close to God so that you can seek out God's way of life; be accepted by God; seek out God's help in obeying Him in every facet of our lives. Recognize that this Day of Atonement pictures the unbelievably wonderful day when we will be accepted by our Father because He has forgiven us of all the sins we have committed against Him and our fellow man; a day when we will be able to see the Father as He is. Strive to be known as one who does what is right in our relations with both God and our fellow man; one who does not forsake God's commands. Live a just, righteous, loving life, showing fairness and justice to others. Don't let this day become just another day when we don't eat. Make it a springboard for the rest of our lives. By the grace of God, may you all be inscribed in the Book of Life. * This sermon is adapted, in part, from Hebrew Roots publications with permission. Sermon given by Wayne Bedwell 6 October 2011 Copyright 2011, Wayne Bedwell |
Church of God Most High P.O. Box 89741 Tucson, AZ 85752-9741 USA |
Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings Atonement ~ kaphar By Jeff A. Benner
Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Atonement ~ kaphar
By Jeff A. Benner
The Hebrew word kaphar means "to cover over" such as a lid and is the word for the lid of the ark of the covenant (though many translations translate this as mercy seat for no etymological reason). This word is translated as pitch which was spread over the ark in order to make it water tight (Genesis 6:14) This same word is also translated as a atonement. The word atonement is an abstract but in order to understand the true Hebrew meaning of a word we must look to the concrete meaning. If an offense has been made the one that has been offended can act as though the offense is covered over and unseen. We express this idea through the word of forgiveness. Atonement is an outward action that covers over the error.
2283 (V)
Atonement ~ kaphar
By Jeff A. Benner
The Hebrew word kaphar means "to cover over" such as a lid and is the word for the lid of the ark of the covenant (though many translations translate this as mercy seat for no etymological reason). This word is translated as pitch which was spread over the ark in order to make it water tight (Genesis 6:14) This same word is also translated as a atonement. The word atonement is an abstract but in order to understand the true Hebrew meaning of a word we must look to the concrete meaning. If an offense has been made the one that has been offended can act as though the offense is covered over and unseen. We express this idea through the word of forgiveness. Atonement is an outward action that covers over the error.
2283 (V)
atonement 查考
atonement [əˈtəʊnmənt]
n
1. satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) (often capital) Christian theol
a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ
b. the sufferings and death of Christ
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christian Science the state in which the attributes of God are exemplified in man
4. Obsolete reconciliation or agreement
Atonement
Author: Matthew G. Easton, with minor editing by Paul S. Taylor.
This word is often used in the Old Testament. However, it only occurs once in the New Testament of the King James Bible, Rom. 5:11, where other versions use the word “reconciliation.”
The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus, it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ.
But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself. When so used. it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offenses (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf.
By the atonement of Christ, we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But, in theBible, the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected. When speaking of Christ's saving work, the word “satisfaction,” the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word “atonement.” Christ's satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God. Christ's work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by thepunishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors. Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered.
The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about. Christ's mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and preeminently that of God toward sinners, effected by thesin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fullness of blessing to men.
The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christis a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred.
It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence ofGod's love for guilty men (John 3:16; Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9).
The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Ex. 34:7;Josh. 24:19; Ps. 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2,6; Rom. 3:5). This is God's plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know.
The Bible’s central message is atonement. From the first stories in Genesis to the last visions of Revelation it is everywhere apparent that God seeks to reconcile his people to himself and that he has provided a way to do so.
The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale’sEnglish translation as derived from the adv. phrase atonen, meaning “in accord,” literally, at one.[1] In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate the Hebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King JamesNew Testament to translate the Greek word katallage (see Romans 5:11). Most modern translations render this word “reconciliation” in its other occurrences throughout the N.T.
Atonement in the Old Testament
Certainly the most frequently mentioned means of atonement in the Old Testament were the blood sacrifices, dominating the use of the term by constant reference in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Atonement needed to be made for everything from heinous crimes like idolatry (Num 16:47) to mistakes of intent, when the only sin was ignorance or error, not willful disobedience (Num 15:22–29).
Day of Atonement
The Day of Atonement was an annual day of repentance for the Old Testament people of Israel the rites for which are set forth in Leviticus chapter 16 (also see Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27–31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7–11). It is described as a solemn fast, a Sabbath on which no food or drink could be consumed, and on which all work was forbidden. Sacrifices were offered by the high priest as an atonement for himself and for the people.
The Bible calls the day Yom Hakippurim (Hebrew, Day of the Atonements), which the Jewish people continue to observe today as Yom Kippur.
“Perhaps the heart of the Old Testament teaching on atonement is found in Leviticus 16, where the regulations for the Day of Atonement occur. Five characteristics relating to the ritual of the Day of Atonement are worthy of note because they are generally true of atonement as it is found throughout Scripture: (1) the sovereignty of God in atonement; (2) the purpose and result of making atonement; (3) the two goats emphasize two different things, and the burning another, about the removal of sin; (4) that Aaron had to make special sacrifice for himself; (5) the comprehensive quality of the act.” (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v.atonement).
Atonement in the New Testament
The New Testament presents the person and work of Christ as God’s ultimate provision for atonement. The English word atonement is used to describe the New Testament concept of Christ presented as ourreconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18), as a propitiation (1 John 4:10), in giving his life as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), having poured out his blood “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28).
“Particularly important for the full biblical picture of atonement as it is found in Christ is the sacrifice Aaron makes for himself and his family (Lev 16:11–14). Everyone, even the high priest, is guilty and needs atonement that can only be provided by God himself. The author of Hebrews emphasizes this point to make clear his doctrine of the purity of Christ as both the true and perfect sacrifice and the true and perfect priest who performs the ritual of atonement (8:3–6; 9:6–15). The Old Testament sacrifices are shown to be but shadows of the real sacrifice of Christ on the cross by the fact of Aaron’s sinfulness; an imperfect high priest cannot offer a true sacrifice, just as the blood of bulls and goats could never truly pay for the offense of human sin or substitute for the shedding of human blood.” (Baker’s, s.v. atonement).
订阅：
博文 (Atom)