The Nature of God in the Atonement

Part 3

Though often taught from the pulpit and widely accepted within Christianity, there is a common misnomer that God cannot look upon sin.


This misnomer or idea is rooted in a misunderstanding of Habakkuk 1:13, which states, "Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil." To expand upon the meaning of this verse, God cannot look at sin favorably or with complacency. However, this verse does not state that God cannot look at sin or that He cannot allow sin in His presence. God did not turn His back on Adam when he sinned--God sought him out. God did not turn His back on David when he sinned. Jesus sought out Peter after he denied Him 3 times. Judas whom Jesus said one of you is the devil was on of His 12 disciples. In the book of Job, God allowed satan in His presence for a specific purpose. Satan wanted to make a deal with God over His servant, Job. God restricted Satan, telling him that he "can do anything but touch Job" and not to "lay a hand or finger on him." In the wilderness, Jesus allowed the presence of satan (face to face).

Jesus did not turn His back on Saul when he was persecuting the church and sought him out on the Damascus Road and said to him," why are you persecuting Me?" If God did not turn His back on sinners, then neither did the Father turn His back on His only Son who is Holy, Blameless, Sinless, and Righteous just like His Father. The Father turning His back on the Son (at the cross) is not found in Scripture. Jesus ate with sinners, lived among sinners, loves sinners and He suffered and died for sinners.

Wrath- strongs 3709 ὀργή is defined in the Greek lexicon as anger, retribution, vengeance, and indignation. God is not against Himself angrily displaying wrath from the Father to the Son. God is love. In love, He sent His Son. The wrath bearing Son is a new concept not found in Scripture nor the early church fathers (ECFs). God is not against Himself. No one in the Trinity is in opposition, no conflict, no dissension, no strife, no disunity, no dysfunction. As if God were somehow like a sinful human family. There is nothing broken in Our Blessed Trinity.

Jesus bearing God’s wrath and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in the pages of Scripture. That doctrine was developed in the dark ages during the Reformation and called Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement or (PSA)

Calvin's comments on Galatians 3:13,
"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help
.

Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32
"A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":

Matthew 20:17-
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

1Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.

2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.
You have done a nice job of showing that "the cup" includes the suffering, but you have not shown that it is not the cup of God's wrath in Jesus' case. I'm not going to take the time to comment on each of the passages you quote, but to say that in one way or another, you use them to ignore the question of wrath, rather than to prove it does not exist.

And I will read #4 now.
 
More on Expiation rather than propitiation in both N.T. and O.T. understanding.

Thayers
ἱλασμός
, ἱλασμοῦ, ὁ (ἱλάσκομαι);

1. an appeasing, propitiating, Vulg.propitiatio (Plutarch, de sera num. vind. c. 17; plural joined with καθαρμοι, Plutarch, Sol. 12; with the genitive of the object τῶν θεῶν, the Orphica Arg. 39; Plutarch, Fab. 18; θεῶν μῆνιν ἱλασμοῦ καί χαριστηριων δεομένην, vit. Camill. 7 at the end; ποιεῖσθαι ἱλασμόν, of a priest offering an expiatory sacrifice, 2 Macc. 3:33).
; προσοίσουσιν ἱλασμόν, for חַטָּאת, Ezekiel 44:27; περί τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, of Christ, 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10 (κριός τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, Numbers 5:8; (cf. ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, Leviticus 25:9); also for סְלִיחָה, forgiveness, Psalm 129:4 (); Daniel 9:9, Theod.). (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.

1 John 2:2- Propitiation- Cambridge
The word for ‘propitiation’ occurs nowhere in N. T. but here and in 1 John 4:10; in both places without the article and followed by ‘for our sins’. It signifies any action which has expiation as its object, whether prayer, compensation, or sacrifice. Thus ‘the ram of the atonement’ (Numbers 5:8) is ‘the ram of the propitiation’ or ‘expiation’, where the same Greek word as is used here is used in the LXX. Comp. Ezekiel 44:27; Numbers 29:11; Leviticus 25:9. The LXX. of ‘there is forgiveness with Thee’ (Psalm 130:4) is remarkable: literally rendered it is ‘before Thee is the propitiation’ (ὁ ἱλασμός). So also the Vulgate, apud Te propitiatio est. And this is the idea that we have here: Jesus Christ, as being righteous, is ever present before the Lord as the propitiation. With this we should compare the use of the cognate verb in Hebrews 2:17 and cognate substantive Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. From these passages it is clear that in N. T. the word is closely connected with that special form of expiation which takes place by means of an offering or sacrifice, although this idea is not of necessity included in the radical signification of the word itself. See notes in all three places.

Meyer's NT Commentary

1 John 2:2. καὶ αὐτός = et ipse, idemque ille; καί is here also the simple copula, and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam.

αὐτός refers back to Ἰησ. Χριστὸν δίκαιον, and the epithet δίκαιον is not to be lost sight of here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers αὐτός to God.

ἱλασμός ἐστι] The word ἱλασμός, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. 1 John 4:10, and here also indeed in combination with περὶ τῶν ἁμ. ἡμῶν, may, according to Ezekiel 44:27 (= חַטָּאת), mean the sin-offering (Lücke, 3d ed.), but is here to be taken in the sense of כִּכֻּרִים, Leviticus 25:9, Numbers 5:8, and no doubt in this way, that Christ is called the ἱλασμός, inasmuch as He has expiated by His αἷμα the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, it is true, is not demanded by the idea ἱλασμός in itself,[84] but certainly is demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of Christ, in chap. 1 John 1:7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, because he knows that reconciliation is based in it. [84] In the Septuagint not only does ἱλασμός appear as the translation of the Hebrew סְלִיחָה (Psalm 129:4; Daniel 9:9), but ἱλάσκεσθαι is also used = to be merciful, to forgive (Psalm 65:4; Psalm 78:38; Psalm 79:9),—quite without reference to an offering.—The explanation of Paulus, however: “He (i.e. God) is the pure exercise of compassion on account of sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in the first place, God is not the subject, and secondly, the ἱλασμός of Christ is not the forgiveness itself, but is that which procures forgiveness.

Better Translations of 1 John 2:2

New American Bible
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.

NET Bible
and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.

New Revised Standard Version
and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

New International Version
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Berean Standard Bible
He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

International Standard Version
It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's.



I keep hearing the argument (on this site and others, and from both sides of any disagreement) that because a word is not used, or is seldom used, that we can demonstrate that the principle is not found, or that it is hardly to be found, in Scriptures. That does not follow. (Nor does the opposite follow —that because a word or principle is constantly to be found in Scripture that it disproves [apparently] opposing principles).

The two words, expiation and propitiation, are not at odds —of course the purpose for propitiation is expiation! Who says otherwise? The fact expiation is God's intention does not mean that propitiation is not how he did it.



The fact that you have gone to this much trouble to negate the notion of God's wrath as upon Christ in our place, seems to me to demonstrate that you have a different notion of what God's wrath is, than what the Bible means (or at least what I take the Bible to mean) by it. Perhaps this goes back to what we began with, in that God's wrath is not only included in all God's attributes, but is even included in his love, though we humans take it to oppose his love, and to be only a reaction to sin. Our need to organize everything into categories deceives us, as does our notion that mere human language can comprehensively encompass meaning, when it comes to God. Our poor words are not the reality of the matter.
 
I keep hearing the argument (on this site and others, and from both sides of any disagreement) that because a word is not used, or is seldom used, that we can demonstrate that the principle is not found, or that it is hardly to be found, in Scriptures. That does not follow. (Nor does the opposite follow —that because a word or principle is constantly to be found in Scripture that it disproves [apparently] opposing principles).

The two words, expiation and propitiation, are not at odds —of course the purpose for propitiation is expiation! Who says otherwise? The fact expiation is God's intention does not mean that propitiation is not how he did it.



The fact that you have gone to this much trouble to negate the notion of God's wrath as upon Christ in our place, seems to me to demonstrate that you have a different notion of what God's wrath is, than what the Bible means (or at least what I take the Bible to mean) by it. Perhaps this goes back to what we began with, in that God's wrath is not only included in all God's attributes, but is even included in his love, though we humans take it to oppose his love, and to be only a reaction to sin. Our need to organize everything into categories deceives us, as does our notion that mere human language can comprehensively encompass meaning, when it comes to God. Our poor words are not the reality of the matter.
Gods cup of wrath/ bowls of wrath are in Revelation against the unglodly, wicked etc..... The wrath of God in Scripture never falls on Christ. Please show me from Scripture where wrath from God goes from Father to Son. Thanks !
 
Gods cup of wrath/ bowls of wrath are in Revelation against the unglodly, wicked etc..... The wrath of God in Scripture never falls on Christ. Please show me from Scripture where wrath from God goes from Father to Son. Thanks !
"...where wrath from God goes from Father to Son." I expect you mean, where God's wrath is directed at the Son, or something. Does it not say, "...he became sin..."?

Do you believe that God's wrath against sin would have been "poured out" on us, were it not for Christ? Romans 5:9 "...saved by him from the wrath of God."

But, for starters: "upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace"; "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'—"
 
"...where wrath from God goes from Father to Son." I expect you mean, where God's wrath is directed at the Son, or something. Does it not say, "...he became sin..."?

Do you believe that God's wrath against sin would have been "poured out" on us, were it not for Christ? Romans 5:9 "...saved by him from the wrath of God."

But, for starters: "upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace"; "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'—"
Jesus saves us from Gods wrath which is still future and it doesn't say Jesus received Gods wrath anywhere in scripture.Thats a huge assumption and an eisegetical position.

Besides the above Jesus is the One who dishes out the wrath of God upon the wicked in Revelation.
 
Jesus saves us from Gods wrath which is still future and it doesn't say Jesus received Gods wrath anywhere in scripture.Thats a huge assumption and an eisegetical position.

Besides the above Jesus is the One who dishes out the wrath of God upon the wicked in Revelation.
Agreed that he does that. But it is 'math' as simple as what you (and we all) use to jump logical steps, that sin to which God deals with wrath, for Jesus to be made sin for us, is to take our penalty. I have no recourse but to believe that in fact he took every bit of what we would have had to pay, as God's justice is exacting, precise and thorough.
 
Agreed that he does that. But it is 'math' as simple as what you (and we all) use to jump logical steps, that sin to which God deals with wrath, for Jesus to be made sin for us, is to take our penalty. I have no recourse but to believe that in fact he took every bit of what we would have had to pay, as God's justice is exacting, precise and thorough.
That’s equivocating sin and wrath with Jesus
 
That’s equivocating sin and wrath with Jesus
I know. But that is the 'math' we all use: since sin produces wrath against the sinner, and since He became sin in our place, the wrath (the punishment) is placed on him. It is not a good way to prove anything, though often it comes out with the right result.

This kind of reasoning is done by all of us, who have little other recourse in our attempts to comprehend things beyond us. A wrong example of it is to say that because God is good and God is love, then all love comes from God, so any love is good

You do the same sort of reasoning in producing the notion that love is primary in God, and that everything else must be seen in the light of whatever God's love is. You don't seem to realize that our notion of love is not substantive. The same reasoning you use, the universalist uses, to say that in the end, all will be saved.
 
I know. But that is the 'math' we all use: since sin produces wrath against the sinner, and since He became sin in our place, the wrath (the punishment) is placed on him. It is not a good way to prove anything, though often it comes out with the right result.

This kind of reasoning is done by all of us, who have little other recourse in our attempts to comprehend things beyond us. A wrong example of it is to say that because God is good and God is love, then all love comes from God, so any love is good

You do the same sort of reasoning in producing the notion that love is primary in God, and that everything else must be seen in the light of whatever God's love is. You don't seem to realize that our notion of love is not substantive. The same reasoning you use, the universalist uses, to say that in the end, all will be saved.
He did not become a sinner . :)
 
Of course not. But he took our place
Yes that is substitution. I just reject the penal aspect of punishment from Father to Son. His punishment, torture, persecution, wrath, anger, crucifixion came from the Jews, not God. Jesus and the Apostles tell us who killed Him- the Jews, elders, chief priests, scribes, pharisees.


Acts 2:23
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life

Matthew 20:18-19
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life."

Matthew 27:1- When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Matthew 27:35- When they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments by casting lots.

Mark 15:24- And they crucified Him. They also divided His garments by casting lots to decide what each of them would take
 
Yes that is substitution. I just reject the penal aspect of punishment from Father to Son. His punishment, torture, persecution, wrath, anger, crucifixion came from the Jews, not God. Jesus and the Apostles tell us who killed Him- the Jews, elders, chief priests, scribes, pharisees.


Acts 2:23
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life

Matthew 20:18-19
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life."

Matthew 27:1- When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Matthew 27:35- When they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments by casting lots.

Mark 15:24- And they crucified Him. They also divided His garments by casting lots to decide what each of them would take
How does the fact that THEY (humans) crucified him prove that the punishment we deserved was not put on him by the Father?
 
How does the fact that THEY (humans) crucified him prove that the punishment we deserved was not put on him by the Father?
Jesus and the Apostles said in many places who was responsible for it in the passages I quoted that were all in complete agreement.
 
How does the fact that THEY (humans) crucified him prove that the punishment we deserved was not put on him by the Father?
Death is the punishment for sin. We die because we sin. If God had not been rich in mercy and the great love with which He loved us, we would sin and die and the story would be over.

So death is the punishment for sin.

God sent His Son into this world to be the sin offering that removes the need for us to be punished by being the perfect sacrifice that atones (makes amends) for our sin. The atonement did not happen because God killed His Son. It is because the Son willingly, with the authority from our Father, gave up His life on His own and no one could have taken it from Him; this of course means no one could kill Him without His consent. (ref: John 10:18)

God's will was for His Son to die for us because God loved us. And we know Jesus loved us by what He did, but He also said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.".

Our Lord gave up His spirit once all the scriptures were fulfilled. He did it out of love for His Father and love for us. This is fulfilling the heart of the Law, loving God with your whole life and loving your neighbor as yourself. The Apostle Paul said, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Ref: Rom 5:18)

We are not saved because God vented His wrath for our sins upon His Son. We are saved because God sent His Son into this world to willingly give up His life out of love, and this single act of our Lord amends for our sin.

How could that amend of our sin? How does that take away the need for God's wrath for our sin? Because God honors the righteous man who intercedes on behalf of the sinner. And our Lord certainly interceded for us. He stood in the gap (ref: Ezekiel 22:30) before God on our behalf. This is why we look at God through Christ Jesus and God looks at man through Christ Jesus; for He has died for everyone, and is the Mediator of the New Covenant, and is the Judge of every man. God has given everything into the hands of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ; the One who died to gain us as His inheritance.

We are saved by grace. Not be expended wrath.

God Bless
 
Jesus and the Apostles said in many places who was responsible for it in the passages I quoted that were all in complete agreement.
Yes, THEY killed him. That's not disputed, but, at least in my opinion, physical death alone is not how he carried our sins. When a person physically dies, their sin is not therefore and thereby atoned for, nor is their account balanced. They will still pay, in the torments of the Lake of Fire, precisely and thoroughly according the kind and degree of their sin.
 
Death is the punishment for sin. We die because we sin. If God had not been rich in mercy and the great love with which He loved us, we would sin and die and the story would be over.

So death is the punishment for sin.

God sent His Son into this world to be the sin offering that removes the need for us to be punished by being the perfect sacrifice that atones (makes amends) for our sin. The atonement did not happen because God killed His Son. It is because the Son willingly, with the authority from our Father, gave up His life on His own and no one could have taken it from Him; this of course means no one could kill Him without His consent. (ref: John 10:18)

God's will was for His Son to die for us because God loved us. And we know Jesus loved us by what He did, but He also said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.".

Our Lord gave up His spirit once all the scriptures were fulfilled. He did it out of love for His Father and love for us. This is fulfilling the heart of the Law, loving God with your whole life and loving your neighbor as yourself. The Apostle Paul said, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Ref: Rom 5:18)

We are not saved because God vented His wrath for our sins upon His Son. We are saved because God sent His Son into this world to willingly give up His life out of love, and this single act of our Lord amends for our sin.

How could that amend of our sin? How does that take away the need for God's wrath for our sin? Because God honors the righteous man who intercedes on behalf of the sinner. And our Lord certainly interceded for us. He stood in the gap (ref: Ezekiel 22:30) before God on our behalf. This is why we look at God through Christ Jesus and God looks at man through Christ Jesus; for He has died for everyone, and is the Mediator of the New Covenant, and is the Judge of every man. God has given everything into the hands of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ; the One who died to gain us as His inheritance.

We are saved by grace. Not be expended wrath.

God Bless
When we physically die, is our sin paid for by that, and we suffer no torment in hell?
 
Jesus saves us from Gods wrath which is still future and it doesn't say Jesus received Gods wrath anywhere in scripture.Thats a huge assumption and an eisegetical position.

Besides the above Jesus is the One who dishes out the wrath of God upon the wicked in Revelation.
That seems to me an entirely time-dependent point of view.

But would you say that the wrath of God is not being poured out upon the sin/sins of those who die and go to hell, before others die?

Let me put it like this, and I'm not saying that this is "the way it is", because I can't see from God's POV either, but: God being "outside of" time, and not being bound by it, sees all things as made, begun and completed —Christ slain from the foundation of the world, and the "already and not yet" of our being "in Christ" and "the Body of Christ", chosen from the foundation of the world.

Is it not only a humanly necessarily temporal construction that needs 'soul-sleep' or other such notions to account for the time passage between death and resurrection? What if, from God's point of view, there is no time passage there? (Ha ha, yes, I know, that statement, too, is a bow to time-dependent language.)
 
Hebrew Word: kapar
Strong's Reference: H3722
Definition: I, make an atonement, make reconciliation, purge. (Denominative verb.) This root should probably be day of atonement. place of atonement; KJV, mercy seat.

The root kapar is used some 150 times. It has been much discussed. There is an equivalent Arabic root meaning "cover," or "conceal." On the strength of this connection it has been supposed that the Hebrew word means "to cover over sin" and thus pacify the deity, making an atonement (so BDB). It has been suggested that the OT ritual symbolized a covering over of sin until it was dealt with in fact by the atonement of Christ. There is, however, very little evidence for this view. The connection of the Arabic word is weak and the Hebrew root is not used to mean "cover." The Hebrew verb is never used in the simple or Qal stem, but only in the derived intensive stems. These intensive stems often indicate not emphasis, but merely that the verb is derived from a noun whose meaning is more basic to the root idea.

koper. Ransom. Every Israelite was to give to the service of the sanctuary the "ransom" money of half a shekel (Exo_30:12). Egypt, in God's sight, was given as a "ransom" for the restoration of Israel (Isa_43:3). This word "ransom" is parallel to the word "redeem" (pdda, which see) in Psa_49:7. There is a warning that a man guilty of murder must be killed-no "ransom" can be given in exchange for his life (Num_35:31). The word is also used in a bad sense as a "bribe" which wrongly purchases favor (1Sa_12:3).

From the meaning of koper "ransom," the meaning of kapar can be better understood. It means "to atone by offering a substitute." The great majority of the usages concern the priestly ritual of sprinkling of the sacrificial blood thus "making an atonement" for the worshipper. There are forty-nine instances of this usage in Leviticus alone and no other meaning is there witnessed. The verb is always used in connection with the removal of sin or defilement, except for Gen_32:20; Pro_16:14; and Isa_28:18 where the related meaning of "appease by a gift" may be observed, It seems clear that this word aptly illustrates the theology of reconciliation in the OT. The life of the sacrificial animal specifically symbolized by its blood was required in exchange for the life of the worshipper. Sacrifice of animals in OT theology was not merely an expression of thanks to the deity by a cattle raising people. It was the symbolic expression of innocent life given for guilty life. This symbolism is further clarified by the action of the worshipper in placing his hands on the head of the sacrifice and confessing hi s sins over the animal (cf. Lev_16:21; Lev_1:4; Lev_4:4, etc.) which was then killed or sent out as a scapegoat.

kippur. Atonement. kapporet. Mercy seat. These two nouns are derived from the verb as used in the intensive stem: The first is used today in the name of the Jewish holiday yom kippur "day of atonement" (used only in the plural in the OT) which was the tenth day of the seventh month, Tishri. This solemn day was the only day of fasting prescribed for Israel. It was celebrated by a special sin offering for the whole nation. On that day only would the high priest enter within the inner veil bearing the blood of the sin offering (cf. Heb_9:7). A second goat was released as an escape goat to symbolize the total removal of sin (see 'aza'zel "scapegoat").

kappboret. Mercy seat. This noun is used twenty-seven times and always refers to the golden cover of the sacred chest in the inner shrine of the tabernacle or temple. It was from above the mercy seat that God promised to meet with men (Num_7:89). The word, however, is not related to mercy and of course was not a seat. The word is derived from the root "to atone." The Greek equivalent in the LXX is usually hilasterion, "place or object of propitiation," a word which is applied to Christ in Rom_3:25. The translation "mercy seat" does not sufficiently express the fact that the lid of the ark was the place where the blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement. "Place of atonement" would perhaps be more expressive. R.L.H.
 
When we physically die, is our sin paid for by that, and we suffer no torment in hell?
I think these verses adequately answer your question.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: (Joh 1:12)

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:16)

One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (Joh 3:36)

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Act 20:28)

For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:17)


God Bless
 
Back
Top Bottom