ATONEMENT

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 21, 2014
344
5
0
#1
I will be studying ATONEMENT in the Sacred Word beginning in Leviticus Chapters 16 and 17. This will be an in depth studying with Hebrew definitions and information. Before I study those two chapters in Leviticus, I must pray to ABBA for guidance through the Holy Spirit of Truth and understanding of the Sacred Word. When I write the new thread please do not DISRESPECT the subject ATONEMENT because it is HOLY!

Terminology: Yom Kippur
kippur: atonement
Original Word: כִּפֻּרִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: kippur
Phonetic Spelling: (kip-poor')
Short Definition: atonement

  1. Yom Kippur is probably the most important holiday of the Jewish year. Many Jews who do not observe any other Jewish custom will refrain from work, fast and/or attend synagogue services on this day. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day of Tishri.

    Terminology: Kaphar
    Strong's Concordance
    kaphar: appease
    Original Word: כָּפַר
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: kaphar
    Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-far')
    Short Definition: appease
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
    [TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 320"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Strong's Number: 3722[/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 120, bgcolor: #ECD8A5, align: center"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Browse Lexicon[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="colspan: 2"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Original Word[/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word Origin[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"]rpk[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]a primitive root[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Transliterated Word[/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TDNT Entry[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Kaphar[/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TWOT - 1023,1024,1025,1026[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Parts of Speech[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]kaw-far' [/FONT][/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Verb[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5, colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Definition[/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
    1. to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch
      1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
      2. (Piel)
        1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
        2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
        3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
      3. (Pual)
        1. to be covered over
        2. to make atonement for
      4. (Hithpael) to be covered
    Terminology: Atonement

    1. 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.

      If anyone wants to add study tools, terminology, primary resources and scriptures please do.

    [/FONT][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/FONT]
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#2
I will be studying ATONEMENT in the Sacred Word beginning in Leviticus Chapters 16 and 17. This will be an in depth studying with Hebrew definitions and information. Before I study those two chapters in Leviticus, I must pray to ABBA for guidance through the Holy Spirit of Truth and understanding of the Sacred Word. When I write the new thread please do not DISRESPECT the subject ATONEMENT because it is HOLY!

Terminology: Yom Kippur
kippur: atonement
Original Word: כִּפֻּרִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: kippur
Phonetic Spelling: (kip-poor')
Short Definition: atonement

  1. Yom Kippur is probably the most important holiday of the Jewish year. Many Jews who do not observe any other Jewish custom will refrain from work, fast and/or attend synagogue services on this day. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day of Tishri.

    Terminology: Kaphar
    Strong's Concordance
    kaphar: appease
    Original Word: כָּפַר
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: kaphar
    Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-far')
    Short Definition: appease
    The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon[TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 320"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5"] Strong's Number: 3722[/TD]
    [TD="width: 120, bgcolor: #ECD8A5, align: center"] Browse Lexicon[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="colspan: 2"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]Original Word[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]Word Origin[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"]rpk[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"]a primitive root[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]Transliterated Word[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]TDNT Entry[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"]Kaphar[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"]TWOT - 1023,1024,1025,1026[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]Phonetic Spelling[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #FFF0BE"]Parts of Speech[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 50%"]kaw-far' [/TD]
    [TD="width: 50%"]Verb[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5, colspan: 2"] Definition[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="colspan: 2"]
    1. to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch
      1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
      2. (Piel)
        1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
        2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
        3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
      3. (Pual)
        1. to be covered over
        2. to make atonement for
      4. (Hithpael) to be covered
    Terminology: Atonement

    1. 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.

      If anyone wants to add study tools, terminology, primary resources and scriptures please do.

    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
Great topic!
Generally atonement (as a theological term) refers to everything Christ did on the cross for us. Of course to take specific Bible words & consider them is wonderful. At-one-ment is not a good definition of the Bible word(s) for atonement, though it is etymological. (What do stand & under have to do with "understand"?) I think the KJV is particularly poor on the atonement words -- check out such passages in the ASV (1901). The word translated "reconcile" also really is not well translated with "reconcile." God is never reconciled in the Bible; men are reconciled! You cannot say that God and man are reconciled, because God is never reconciled as you find the root all- in the word which implies to be otherized, and God is immutable.

The Hebrew language has several "binyanim," categories of verb usage; as an over generalization it can be said that the Qal is the simplest form, like I kill.
Niphal is the passive of the qal, like I am killed.
The piel is the intensive form like I slaughter.
Pual is the passive of the piel, like I am slaughtered.
The Hithpael is the reflexive of the piel (I slaughter myself).
Hiphil is the causative, like I cause to kill, I make to kill.
the Hophal is the passive of the hiphil.

Hebrew dictionaries typically list a 3 letter root verb form, then give the different meanings for each binyan (qal, etc.), meanings which often don't exactly fit the above generalization.
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#3
I think the Ministry of Reconciliation in the New Testament is best summed up in the following scriptures...

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

Note: In the above passage we can see beseech people to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. He says that "he has made him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" and then he speaks of "working together with him lest grace be received in vain."

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Note: This passage is a very good parallel to 2Cor 5:21-6:1 as it speaks of Jesus "condemning sin in the flesh" which is something the law could not do. Jesus did this that the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit. So if we reference back to 2Cor 6:1 which speaks of "grace" being effectual in an application of "working together" and we compare to...

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Thus "grace teaches" us the way we should go. "Working together with God" is very simply yielding to that grace (or walking according to the Spirit) by which we are made the righteousness of God in Him (2Cor 5:21).

Additional passages which reflect this are...

Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Note: Abiding in Jesus produces "ye are clean through the word" or...

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Which is why faith purifies the heart...

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.


Now keeping in mind that which is written above we can consider how many people approach the "Atonement" in Christianity of which there are different theories...

Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common theories are...

Christus Victor (Patristic Church)
Moral Influence (Patristic Church)
Recapitulation (Patristic Church)
Ransom (Patristic Church)

Satisfaction (Anselm - 11th Century)

Moral Government (Grotius but popularised by Charles Finney - 16th Century)
Penal Substitution (Protestant Reformation - 16th Century)


After studying all these views in depth I only uphold the views taught in the Patristic era as well as a view which isn't really expounded upon much which I would call the "Covenant View" which I see spoken of in Hebrews chapter 9. Thus I think Christus Victor, Moral Influence, Recapitulation, Ransom and Covenant all describe various aspects of the Atonement. I think the Ransom view ought to be the major focus as it teaches how we are set free from both the dominion and bondage of sin through Jesus Christ. I make a note though that the Ransom view is often misrepresented because many people will refer to Origen's (early church writer) explanation which I most vehemently disagree with (Origen taught that a ransom was paid to Satan).

I consider substitutionary views (Satisfaction, Moral Government, Penal Substitution) to be extremely dangerous views as they completely redefine the reconciliation process. I also consider the Penal Substitution view to be the most dangerous of all as it maligns the character of God and argues in favour for grace being a license to sin.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#4
Information Links

Christus Victor (early church)
Christus Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral Influence (early church)
Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.theopedia.com/Moral_Influence_theory

Recapitulation (early church)
Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recapitulation theory of atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Ransom (early church)
Ransom theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Satisfaction (11th Century)
Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satisfaction theory of the atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Moral Government (16th Century)
Governmental theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Governmental theory of atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Penal Substitution (16th Century)
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penal substitutionary atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Atonement
Atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale's English 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 James New 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.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#5
Here is an article I wrote on the Ransom view in opposition to Penal Substitution...

The Pearl of Great Price: The Blood of Christ: "Ransom" NOT "Penal Substitution"

A common error in the church system is the teaching that one is only set free from condemnation but that the bondage to sin still continues. It is a false message taught by a multitude of false teachers.

The basis of this freedom from condemnation is rooted in that of a fictional legal exchange propery termed Penal Substitution. Salvation is taught as purely forensic in nature. The doctrine of Penal Substitution basically teaches that Jesus swapped track records with the believer. God then punishes Jesus in the stead of the believer and God counts the believer righteous on account of the virtue of Christ.

If being accounted righteous by God was really due to a forensic transfer of the righteousness of Christ to the believer then John would not have written this...

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#6
Day of Atonement, or the Fast

let us read Leviticus 23:26-27, 31-32: “And the Lord spake … saying, Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls [fast] …. Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.”

Wonderful mystery! At-one-ment with God! Man at last made one with his Maker!

Again, in the 16th chapter of Leviticus, verses 29 and 31,where the symbolism of the Day of Atonement is explained, we find it instituted a holy sabbath to be kept forever: “And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you …. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.”

in Leviticus 23:32, the expression “from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” Every Sabbath keeper quotes this passage to show that the Sabbath begins at sunset. If we believe that, then why not keep the sabbath that this very text is speaking of—the high sabbath of the Day of Atonement, instituted forever?

The Day of Atonement pictures a wonderful and great event, to take place after the Second Coming of Christ, which the world is in total ignorance of because it has failed to see the true significance of these annual sabbaths holy unto the Lord. It has failed to keep them as a constant reminder of God’s plan of redemption!

The symbolism is all expressed in the account of the events of the Day of Atonement, as carried out before the crucifixion, in the 16th chapter of Leviticus.
Verse 5—“And he [Aaron, or the high priest] shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering ….”
Verse 6—The high priest offered a sin offering for himself and his house.
Verses 7 and 8—“And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; the one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat [margin,Hebrew, Azazel].”

The Comprehensive Commentary has:“Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosen …. The word scapegoat signifies the goat which went away.” The One Volume Commentary says: “The word ‘scapegoat’ in the av is not a translation.” It is merely an interpretation of the supposed meaning by the translators.

True, the English word scapegoat signifies “one who bears blame or guilt for others.” But scapegoat is an English word, and is not a translation of the Hebrew word Azazel. The word scapegoat, and the meaning attached to this English word, is not a translation of the Hebrew word Azazel, and therefore it is not the word inspired originally.Continues the One Volume Commentary: “Azazel is understood to be the name of one of those malignant demons.”

These two goats were, of course, types. Notice, it was necessary to be decided by lot, which one was qualified to represent Christ, and which Azazel. Some say both were qualified. The scripture does not say this. Let us not assume it.

Now one lot was for the Lord—this goat typified Christ—but the other lot was not for the Lord, did not typify Christ, but Azazel—Satan! These words most naturally suggest that Azazel is the name of a person, here contrasted to the Eternal! Notice the contrast—one for the Lord, the other for Azazel.

Now the goat which God selected—through lot, to represent Christ—was slain, as Christ, its antitype, was slain. But the other goat selected by God to represent Azazel was not slain, but was driven, alive, into an uninhabited wilderness. It was not a resurrected goat, symbolizing the resurrected Christ, for it never died. The uninhabited wilderness, to which this goat was driven, cannot, as we shall show, represent heaven, where Christ went. Heaven is neither uninhabited, nor a wilderness.

the high priest (verse 11) killed the bullock for a sin offering for himself, then took the burning coals of fire and the sweet incense into the holy of holies, also sprinkling the blood of the bullock before the mercy seat, typical of the throne of God, covering the tables of testimony (the law). This the high priest was required to do in order to purify himself to officiate, and to represent Christ as High Priest. In the antitype, this was not done, for Christ, our High Priest, had no need of this purification as the typical substitutionary priests did.

Next, the goat which God selected by lot to represent Christ, as the sin offering of the people, was killed. Thus the sins of the people were borne by the goat, even as Christ, finally, once for all, bore our sins on the cross. But Christ rose again from the dead, and ascended to the throne of God in heaven.

The risen Christ, now at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven (1 Peter 3:22), is called—what? Our High Priest! What was the earthly type of God’s throne? The uninhabited wilderness? No! That is where the live goat went!

The earthly type of God’s throne was the mercy seat in the holy of holies. After Christ died, He went to the heavenly mercy seat interceding for us, as our High Priest. “[E]ntereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec” (Hebrews 6:19-20).

Now, again, who, or what, in the Levitical ceremony of the Day of Atonement, typified the risen Christ, our High Priest, who went within the veil to God’s throne in heaven? The one goat had been slain. It represented the slain Christ. It can no longer represent the risen Christ. The slain Christ was not our High Priest, because the Levitical priesthood, with its high priest, did not end until Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven as a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. But the risen Christ was High Priest.

Now who took this part in the Levitical ceremonies, temporarily re-enacted year by year, on this eternal holy day? Why, it was the Levitical high priest, not the goat representing Azazel!

The High Priest—Type of Christ

As soon as the slain goat was dead, who went within the veil, presenting the blood of this goat before the typical throne of God?

Leviticus 16:15-16—“Then shall he [the high priest] kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and [now the high priest himself typifying the work of the risen Christ] bring his blood within the vail … and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place.

And so it was the high priest taking blood within the veil, to the mercy seat, that typified the risen Christ figuratively taking His blood, once for all, within the veil to the very throne of God in heaven, there to intercede for us as High Priest.

The high priest going within the veil, into the holy of holies, symbolized Christ’s return to heaven. The work he did while in the holy of holies symbolized Christ’s work these 1,900 years interceding for us, presenting His shed blood before the mercy seat in heaven. Now, coming back out, symbolizing Christ’s return to Earth, what did the high priest do?

“And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him [Fenton: shall carry upon itself] all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. And Aaron shall … wash his flesh with water …. And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat [Azazel] shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp” (verses 20-26).

Is not God a God of justice, as well as of compassion and mercy?Who is the real author of our sins? The devil is the author of them, even as Christ is the author of our salvation. Jesus took our guilt—our blame—our sins—upon Himself as an innocent substitutionary sacrifice.

Is it justice for Christ to bear guilt that is not His, while the devil goes off scot-free? Do you not suppose God’s great plan will finally work full justice by placing that original blame and guilt right where it belongs?

But justice certainly demands that God place right back on the head of the devil his guilt—not our guilt, but his own guilt—for leading us into sin. We were guilty, too—and our guilt Christ bore—yet all our sins belong right back on the devil as his own guilt!

The Azazel goat carries away the sins of all the people already forgiven. These sins already were fully paid for by Christ’s substitute sacrifice, symbolized by the killing of the innocent goat before those same sins were finally laid on the live goat. They had been previously paid for by the death of the slain goat.

The devil is the real author of all sin. Can we, then, be finally made at one with God, as long as this instigator of sin is with us? Can we not see he must first be driven away? And there would not be justice with God unless his own guilt in our sins were placed right back on his head? Is it justice for Christ to bear the devil’s guilt, as well as our own guilt, for our sins?

The driving away of the second live goat shows the final atonement, by placing the sins on their author where they belong, and the complete removal of the sins and their author from the presence of God and His people—and thus the complete deliverance of the people from the power of Satan.

after laying both his hands on the live goat, Azazel, Aaron had to wash and cleanse himself before coming in contact with the people. So, too, the “fit man” also had to wash his clothes and bathe himself after coming in contact with the Azazel goat, before he came into the presence of the people. The symbolism is certainly that of having come in contact with the devil!

Notice, now, this act of putting these already expiated and forgiven sins on the head of this live goat does not take place until after the high priest returns from the holy of holies within the veil—so this typified an act to take place after the Second Coming of Christ to this Earth!

and the high priest returning to place the sins finally upon the head of the live goat represented the return of Christ, who will place the sins He bore on their author, the devil, and who will send him away alive into a desolate uninhabited wilderness—the “bottomless pit,” or abyss, of Revelation 20:3.

In the 19th chapter of Revelation, we have the prophecy of the Second Coming of Christ. At the beginning of the 20th chapter, what is to happen?Exactly what the 16th chapter of Leviticus shows. The devil is sent away—the symbol here used is the “bottomless pit” symbol of an uninhabited desolate wilderness (Revelation 18:2)—and he is sent there by a fit man—an angel from heaven. Now the devil is not killed. He does not die. He is still alive a thousand years later—after the Millennium (Revelation 20:7).

Both goats were “[presented] before the Lord.” Can Satan be presented before the Lord? Job 1:6 and 2:1 say he has presented himself before the Lord. Note, too, Azazel was driven away from the holy of holies, a symbol of God’s presence.

And so the annual Day of Atonement was instituted forever to keep continually before God’s children and His Church the plan of redemption, to occur after the Second Coming of Christ.

And we find this annual holy day recognized in the New Testament. In Acts 27:9, it is recorded that Paul was on his perilous sea voyage to Rome, “when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past ….” See the margin in your Bible. The fast refers to the Day of Atonement—the 10th day of the seventh month.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#7
Problems with Penal Substitution

1. Penalty Paid = Penalty Not Forgiven

2. Penalty Paid = Limited Penalties Paid (Jesus only died for a select few) or All Penalties Paid (Universal Salvation)

3. Penal Substitution is only 400 years old.

4. Early Church did not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution

5. Bible does not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution, the doctrine is read into select passages via the use of rhetoric and conjecture.

6. Penal Substitution destroys the Gospel because reconciliation with God is premised on a mere "legal exchange" as opposed to the "true state of the heart." In other words Penal Substitution teaches that it is God that has to change in the reconciliation process not man. God merely PRETENDS the sinner is innocent and righteous due to the double imputation legal exchange taught in the Penal Model.

Conclusion - Penal Substitution is Satanic heresy and is very easily exposed via the use of reason, common sense and the Bible. Penal Substitution puts the burden of change on the offended party in the reconciliation process instead of upon the offender. Thus it turns the message of the Bible completely upside down
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#8
Problems with Moral Government

1. The death of Christ is viewed as a substitution, thus whilst the "literal penalty" is not substituted as in the Penal Model, a satisfaction of that "literal penalty" is still made. The problem with this is that if an individual re-offends then another satisfaction would be required to be made in order for forgiveness to be granted lest the death of Christ become a license to sin. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ cannot be crucified again and that if we willfully sin after having been sanctified by the blood then no more sacrifice remains. This one point alone completely destroys the Moral Government view as being tenable. There is no way around it.

2. The focus of the death of Christ is a "satisfaction of justice" as opposed to the "establishing of a covenant" and a "redemption from iniquity" as the Bible teaches. Thus the means of "entering into the covenant" becomes a secondary issue to the primary focus of "trusting in the satisfaction" that was made. With the "entering into covenant" being secondary the focus upon the actual "purging of sin from the conscience by the blood" is overlooked. That is why entire books can be written on the "Atonement" from the Moral Government perpsective (eg. Understanding the Cross, by Rohan Holts) or eloquent lectures given (eg. Jesse Morrell) with not a SINGLE mention of the "purging of sin" or even being "enjoined into covenant."

3. Moral Government proponents generally twists 2Cor 5:21 into it teaching a substitution which one "trusts in" as apposed to teaching that it is speaking of a transformation which one "abides in" (Charles Finney does this). This is one of the most dangerous aspects of Moral Government and it appears that it is the reason that the proponents of Moral Government imply that one can sin and not surely die via an easy revolving door justification. In other words so long as sin (willful sin, not speaking of sins of ignorance here) is the exception and not the rule then one just need to be on the "repent side" when they die. What the Moral Government view does is shift the focus away from "manifest purity of heart" and replaces it with "best intentions" overall. Yet God doesn't reckon "best intentions" as righteousness, He reckons genuine faith as righteousness because genuine faith works by love and love works no ill. It is a very subtle deception, much more subtle than anything taught in the Penal View.

4. Moral Government is read into various passages of the Bible via the use of rhetoric and conjecture.

5. Moral Government is only about 400 years old although it is similar in many ways to the 11th century Satisfaction view.. The early church did not teach it.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#9
I also consider the
Penal Substitution view to be the most dangerous of all as it
maligns the character of God
That is preposterous.

and argues in favour for grace being a license to sin.
Pure nonsense.

You are quite misinformed.
 

vic1980

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2013
1,653
199
63
44
#10
Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

purged- yə-ḵup-par יְכֻפַּ֣ר - appease, make an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon,
 
Last edited:
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#11
Not to be disrespectful to anyone or anything, but I have to agree that Penal Substitution just doesn't fly.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#12
Not to be disrespectful to anyone or anything, but I have to agree that Penal Substitution just doesn't fly.
Are you sure about that?

The whole OT sin sacrifice (propitiation) system was substitutionary atonement.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. . .
the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
(Isa 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."
(2Pe 2:24)

"And he is the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 2:2)

". . .he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 4:10)

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (propitiation) through faith in his blood." (Ro 3:25)
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#13
Are you sure about that?

The whole OT sin sacrifice (propitiation) system was substitutionary atonement.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. . .
the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
(Isa 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."
(2Pe 2:24)

"And he is the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 2:2)

". . .he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 4:10)

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (propitiation) through faith in his blood." (Ro 3:25)
It's the "Wrath of God" part I object to.... God killing Himself to satisfy Himself.
 
S

Sophia

Guest
#14
Penal Substitution is something that most Pentecostals and Pentecostal leaning groups will not understand.
Penal Substitution does not excuse sin, just as Christ never excused sin, but always called it for what it is, and rebuked it.
If you accept God's grace, then you accept penal substitution. The price for sin must be paid, and it was and is through Christ. God's Justice is not a joke, and nor is His Grace.
 
S

Sophia

Guest
#15
It's the "Wrath of God" part I object to.... God killing Himself to satisfy Himself.
The only other option is a works based Gospel, where we pay our own way. Either He paid it all, or He only paid some of it, and we must pay the rest.
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#16
The only other option is a works based Gospel, where we pay our own way. Either He paid it all, or He only paid some of it, and we must pay the rest.
God simply allowed the consequences of sin to become a Spiritual "law" (reality). He no more killed Jesus than He kills someone if they step off a 100 foot building, violating the "law" (reality) of gravity and falling to their death.

Simply put, He rescued Jesus from the consequences due us. He did not punish Jesus.
 
T

The_highwayman

Guest
#17
God simply allowed the consequences of sin to become a Spiritual "law" (reality). He no more killed Jesus than He kills someone if they step off a 100 foot building, violating the "law" (reality) of gravity and falling to their death.

Simply put, He rescued Jesus from the consequences due us. He did not punish Jesus.
God did neither....In John 10.17-18 Jesus says:
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

[SUP]18 [/SUP]No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


Jesus laid his life down freely and took on the SIN of all of mankind...so that all mankind could be made righteous.

He was the perfect substitution
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#18
God did neither....In John 10.17-18 Jesus says:
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

[SUP]18 [/SUP]No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


Jesus laid his life down freely and took on the SIN of all of mankind...so that all mankind could be made righteous.

He was the perfect substitution
I see no one arguing that.
 
S

Sophia

Guest
#19
God simply allowed the consequences of sin to become a Spiritual "law" (reality). He no more killed Jesus than He kills someone if they step off a 100 foot building, violating the "law" (reality) of gravity and falling to their death.

Simply put, He rescued Jesus from the consequences due us. He did not punish Jesus.
Christ obeyed the Father unto death. That's not really debatable in the light of the Book of John, especially minding the last half of the book.
Jesus overcame. He was not rescued.
You'll have to elaborate, as I don't understand where you are coming from, nor where you would go with such a thought.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#20
Originally Posted by Skinski7

I also consider the
Penal Substitution view to be the most dangerous of all as it
maligns the character of God
That is preposterous.
and argues in favour for grace being a license to sin.
Pure nonsense.

You are quite misinformed.
Is it?

Let us use common sense here.

The premise of Penal Substitution is a forensic or positional legal transaction. It is taught that the actual sinners sin (all of it, past, present and future) is credited to the account of Jesus and Jesus is then punished as a substitute for the sinner. It is also taught that the obedient track record of Jesus is then credited to the account of the sinner and God then looks at the sinner and pretends they are righteous.

Thus under this "cloak" provided by the Penal Substitution model the sinner can sin without undergoing the penalty for the sin.

That is a license to sin.
License - a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful
License - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Now an adherent of Penal Substitution is never going to say that God has given them "permission" to engage in an "otherwise unlawful activity" of course, what they will say though is that if one does in fact engage in the unlawful activity that the penalty due has already been paid for.

It is kind of like having all one's future speeding fines paid for in advance by some benefactor. Whilst one "ought" not speed, if one does then the legal penalty is already paid. So in practical effect the driver has a license to speed.

The Bible does not teach anything close to that.

The Bible teaches that the "wages of sin is death" and that the "gift of God is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ."

Those are TWO ROADS or TWO PATHS not "fine not paid for" or "fine paid for."

We know this because the Bible says this...

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


There is "no condemnation" for those IN Christ Jesus. Those IN Christ Jesus don't WALK after the flesh, they WALK after the Spirit.

This is because the "law of the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ" is what sets us free from the law of sin and death, not by a "fine paid" but rather by a WALKING AFTER THE SPIRIT.

Jesus came to planet Earth in the flesh and condemned sin in a flesh body (He overcame it) and the reason He did this was so that the "righteousness of the law" be fulfilled IN us. With a fulfilled righteousness IN us (pure hearts) due to us WALKING after the Spirit we no longer "sin unto death." Thus we are set free from the law of sin and death by the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. Hence the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ.

Paul stated...

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Whom we OBEY reveals whom we belong to. We either obey "sin unto death" (ie. earn sins wages) or we obey unto righteousness (abide in Jesus Christ WALKING after the Spirit). This is why it is OBEDIENCE FROM THE HEART that SETS US FREE FROM SIN and produces a SERVANT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

That is what the Bible so plainly and obviously teaches. It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. It is black and white. It is as clear as day.

Penal Substitution totally destroys what I have written above by substituting it with a mere notion of a POSITION held which is totally disconnected from DOING. In general, any teaching that requires DOING is utterly rejected by the Penal Substitution adherents because they view DOING as being a WORKS SALVATION and they abhor the notion of that because it implies ADDING SOMETHING to the LEGAL PROVISION EXCHANGE they believe.

The truth is that when the Bible speaks of "not of works" it is speaking of "outward deeds done apart from 'grace THROUGH faith'" which are dead deeds because there is no spiritual root in them. We have to plug into God so to speak so that His Spirit works through us and we walk according to it.

This is all common sense.

Remember...

Sins paid for = sins not forgiven.

A fine paid for is not a fine forgiven. Common sense. Yet many throw reason out the window because they find an emotional comfort in magical teachings like Penal Substitution.