Deeper Life Women
Home » Theological Doctrine » OT Theology » OT Theology-Complete Outline
OT Theology #14 Literature (exile) [message #12474 is a reply to message #6441 ] Thu, 10 May 2018 11:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Literary Productions of the Exile

1/ The Canonical books
Esther,Ezra,Nehemiah,1&2 Chronicles
All these were written during the exile

2/ The Septuagint

250 BC
The Bible (OT) was translated by 70 Jewish scholars into Greek because many Jews spoke Greek.
Sometimes called the LXX after the Latin Roman Numerals for 70

3/Apocrapha

Very important history contained here. The word Apocrypha means hidden or spurious. We don't know who wrote them. It got into the Latin Vulgate bible which became the Roman Catholic bible. So the 11 apocaphal books are part of the RC bible.
The canon of scripture was closed in 90 AD. There were no extant copies of the apocrapha so it didn't make it into the bible. For more info see OT Survey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

The Pseudopigrapha

They are called "Pseudo" because they wern't written by the people whose names are on them.

1. The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs
2. The Psalms of Solomon
3. The Lives of the Prophets
4. The Book of Jubilee
5. The Testament of Job
6. The Gospel of Enoch
7. The Martyrdom of Isaiah
8. The Life of Adam and Eve
9. The Assumption of Moses
10.The Apocalypse of Abraham
11. 3 & 4 Maccabees
12. Various others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

[Updated on: Fri, 11 May 2018 10:45]

Re: OT Theology #14 Literature [message #12475 is a reply to message #12474 ] Thu, 10 May 2018 11:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The NT Apocrapha

See NT Theology

Writings of the Early Church Fathers

These were written by devout learned men. They just didn't get into scripture.
EG. Nicene, Post Nicene, Ante Nicene fathers

The Targums

These were Aramaic translations and interpretations and paraphrases of parts of the OT. They were written about 100 AD. They are important because most Jews of the time spoke Aramaic.

The Talmud

The word means to study learn or instruction.
There were two Talmuds
1. The Palestinian Talmud. Written in Palestine about 275 AD
2. The Babylonian Talmud. Written by Jewish scholars in Babylon about 500 AD

The Talmuds are collections of oral tradition and interpretations of the scriptures and divided onto two parts.
1. The Mishnah. A collection of oral tradition and interpretation after Ezra until about 500 AD
2. The Gemara. A commentary on the Mishnah.
OT Theology #15 Idolatry in Israel [message #12476 is a reply to message #6441 ] Fri, 11 May 2018 11:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Baalism

Bro Freeman (as the professor teaching the course) gave an assignment to study Idolatry under the false Gods heading in a conservative Bible encyclopedia eg Wycliff

Introduction

We are studying Baalism as representative of idolatry in Israel. Baalism was the most serious threat to Israel in its history. There were two times in Israels history when it was almost destroyed.
1. Esther and Hamen
2. Elijah and Baal

This is a very important subject. In the book of the kings there is 1/2 chap given to each king (other than David/Solomon). Then 6 chap to Ahab/Jezebel. The only explanation is the presence of Baalism.
It wasn't just a religion but under Ahab it became the state religion. This also explains the presence of strong prophets (Elijah/Elisha) and good kings (Asa/Jehoshaphat) at the same time.

Terms

Baalism - meaning

1. owner - eg. a bird baals his wings
2. a husband
3. lord or ruler - in the sense of diety
Eventually Baal became the name of one God who was worshiped by the Canaanites and philistines.

Asherah was the other of Baal
Ashtoreth was the consort of Baal
Istar,Astarte from Babylon and Venus from Rome - all refer to the same god

1 Kings 18 450 prophets of Baal 400 prophets of Asherah (the groves)It became the state religion. 1Kings 16/32 11Kings 11/18
They persecuted the true prophets

Re: OT Theology #15 Idolatry in Israel [message #12477 is a reply to message #12476 ] Fri, 11 May 2018 11:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Two main aspects to Baalism

1. Sacrifices - this included human sacrifice.
2.Festivals - early spring,summer and fall. The goddess came into prominence here. The evergreen tree was her symbol.

Baalism was a fertility religion with sexual excesses. Worshiped in the groves of evergreen trees. Both male and female prostitutes were used in the temple. It was because of this filth and uncleanness that God had the Israelite's destroy them when they came into the land.

The worship of Baal was inseparably related to the growth of crops. In fall they when everything died they would weep mourn and cut themselves. In the spring when he (the crops) came alive they would rejoice. In the midst of all this was much sexual license.

The danger of Baalism came from 2 sources

1. It appealed to their flesh (like satanism does today). They could worship their god and satisfy their flesh (sexual license)

2.The necessary change that occurred when the nation moved into Israel. The command to drive out the Canaanites was so they wouldn't be thorns in their sides and they didn't succeed in that.
The necessary change was learning how to be farmers. There was much to learn and they learned both the farming and the Baalism from the Canaanites


OT Theology #16 Prophetism [message #12478 is a reply to message #6441 ] Fri, 11 May 2018 11:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Prophetism

This entire subject is covered in the OT prophets book Part 1

https://www.amazon.com/introduction-Old-Testament-Prophets/d p/B00071STYQ

I'm going to put notes from the book up here but that is going to take more work.

[Updated on: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:40]

OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12480 is a reply to message #6441 ] Sat, 19 May 2018 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The sovereignty of God

The Nature of Gods Sovereignty

The meaning of Gods sovereignty to the OT writers was synonymous with the fact that God was God. They considered that an affirmation of his existence was an affirmation of his sovereignty and absolute kingship.

They ascribed to him the right to govern his universe the way he wanted to. He is sovereign in the exercise of his power as well as the bestowal of his love grace and mercy. There is no such thing as a non-sovereign God. Thats why there can only be one God not two.

God over everything is sovereign
Isaiah 57/15, 66/1, 40/25, 43/10, 44/6, 45/18, 42/5, 40/13-14, 41/18-20, 48/6, 40/2-23

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:17]

Re: OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12481 is a reply to message #12480 ] Sat, 19 May 2018 15:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Ground of God's Sovereignty in the OT

1/ His Omnipotence

This is the power of God. It is his most frequently mentioned attributes in all the OT. His power is demonstrated in his names. eg. God Almighty, The Lord of Hosts etc

We see this demonstrated in the old songs of the OT. eg. Judges 5, Ex. 15, Deut. 34, 1 Sam.2

We see a demonstration of his sovereign power in creation.
We also see it in the exodus from Egypt
We see it in delivering Canaan to Israel

Ezek. 1 We see a picture of Gods sovereignty over all things
Dan.4/35 His power is so sovereign even the heathen acknowledge it.

The Significance of Gods omnipotence

a/ It shows he is able to fulfill all the promises of his word. His word has the power to bring his promises to pass. Is.55/11

b/ His omnipotence is shown in the OT by his power to protect his people from anybody and anyone.
Ex.9/16 God hardened Pharaoh's heart to demonstrate his power and glory. From Pharaoh's side he did what he wanted. From god's side he couldn't do anything else. Is.46/8-11, Dan. 6/26-27

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:17]

Re: OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12482 is a reply to message #12480 ] Sat, 19 May 2018 15:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
2/ The Omnipresence of God

He is personally present everywhere at one and the same time everywhere in heaven and earth. Not "in" heaven and "on" earth but he fills heaven and earth.
He sees everything Prov.15/3
This is the basis for his judging everything Amos 9/2-4

It also means he is present with his people all the time and not afar off. In the OT he was with them. In the NT he is with us by the HS Baptism. Ps.139/7-12

His omnipresence and his spirit are the same thing.

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:18]

Re: OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12483 is a reply to message #12480 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
3/ The Omniscience of God

This is his perfect wisdom and knowledge of all things past present and future. The significance of this is he is in control of everything he created including inanimate life. all the stars in the universe for example. He doesn't just control them he named them.

Ps. 147/5 Not only the real and actual events but all the possibilities as well. He has perfect knowledge of his animate creation. both man and animals. Ps.50/11

Ps. 94/11 Jer.17/10 he knows the hearts of men
Is.48/5,42/9 He knows all things past present and future
The predictions of the prophets were grounded in god's sovereign omniscience. Amos 3/7


[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:18]

Re: OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12484 is a reply to message #12480 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 16:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
God's Sovereignty as Expressed in Creation and Providence

Before anything existed God was content with just himself. When he created it was to reveal himself because it couldn't be an end in itself. Creation wasn't an end itself. It is an instrument in Gods hands to show his glory.
Ps.8, Ps.19
Is.43/7 is why we were created.

God's sovereignty over Nature

Ps.104 Job 38-41
He can control nature as a means to his end. Eg. the great plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea and Jordan, The Sun stood still, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood

God's Sovereignty in Miracles

In the OT it came generally in 3 time periods

a) The creation of Israel in the Exodus
b) Elijah against the threat of Baalism - this was the greatest threat against true religion that ever was. There were only 7000 left and Elijah.
c)The fall of Israel exile and restoration

I am going to disagree here with Bro. Freeman(looks around nervously)

I'm quoting directly here from my notes on Strange Fire

So were there only 3 primary periods? Of men having miracle working power?

It would be more correct to say that every time in the bible where it takes a close look at a man or a time we see lots of supernatural happening. Most of the bible is just a quick glimpse because to record everything would require a lot of libraries. Wherever it zeros in we see God acting supernaturally.


http://overcomersonline.com/FUDforum2/index.php?t=msg&th =1030&start=0&S=ab9ff245bff6f23426af1b0b8a4ceb8e

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:18]

Re: OT Theology # 17 God's Sovereignty [message #12485 is a reply to message #12480 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 16:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Gods sovereignty over History

The prophets and writers of the bible saw all history as a drama with all the strings in Gods hands. god has designed history and now is working it out. The events of nations outside Israel were designed to be instruments in his hands. Is. 10

The absolute proof he is Lord of history is the fact that he predicts it will happen before it happens Is.42/9

The Sovereignty over Israels History


1. He delivered Israel in the exodus. Israel had no history until he created the nation
2. He made a nation out of a group of slaves Is.43/1
3. He has restored them as a nation today
Ezek. 20 He is going to purge out the rebels

Gods Universal Sovereignty over all History

Not just Israels but all history.
Amos 9/7 He creates nations
Dan.4/17 He controls nations
Nahum 3/7-10 He destroys nations when they disobey

All the prophets prophesied against the nations. If he can judge them he can control and be sovereign over them. Jer. 27/5

The purpose of god in History

Is.45/6 So that men will know that there is only one God
Is.45/22 His purpose is the key to history
For God to reveal himself in his glory and establish his kingdom on earth

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:18]

Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12486 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Psychology of the Hebrews

The OT is filled with references to the body and parts of it that have spiritual and moral significance.

The body The nephesh. The spirit. The heart. The inward parts.

The body.

Heb. geviggah
- Gen.47/18 used of a living human body
- 1 Sa. 31/10 used of a dead body

Heb. Basar. flesh. A more common term. This word lends itself to a more comprehensive use.
- Lev.14/9 it is equates with the body
- Is. 58/7 it can refer to blood relations
- Num.16/22 It is used of all mankind
- Gen.7 it is used of the animals

It also has a ethical and moral usage in the OT. This is where Paul got his idea of flesh vs spirit. The moral useage of the term Basar is seen in ceremonial defilement.

Ceremonial defilement resulted from
- various diseases
- touching a dead body
- women in childbirth
- etc

For any of these things a sin offering had to be offered. In Gods sight it was a defilement of the spirit & hence the sin offering.
This is the basis of Pauls teaching in the NT on flesh vs spirit. External purification was symbolic of internal cleansing. The moral defilement of the body was seen in the fact that a sin offering was required to be offered.
Lev. 12, Lev 14 Num.6

Question:

Why did a sin offering have to be offered for ceremonial defilement?

a) All disobedience even disobedience to levitical law was sin. It wasn't ceremonial uncleanness. It was disobedience to God's revealed will.

b) Man as flesh is mortal creaturely & impure. All manner of disease, sexual emission, touching the dead etc. tended to emphasize man's mortality and impurity in his basic form. To the Hebrews these things along with ceremonial defilement eventually brought a natural relationship between them and mans natural corruption.

c) Man is flesh in contrast to a holy righteous God was sinful and impure and could not come into the presence of God. The blood of the sacrifice provided a covering for the person who had sinned (ceremonially or otherwise)so they could come back into fellowship with God.

Jer.17/5 11 Chron. 32/8 Is. 31/3
flesh is used all through the bible as more than a word meaning the body. Gen.6/3,12-13 Job 10/4 Ps.78/39

Moral & ethical uses of the word flesh. There is often a relationship beteen sickness and sin
- Ps.103/3- a direct relationship between sickness & forgiveness.
- Deut.28 sickness in the body is a direct result of sin.
- Jesus said to the man at the pool of Siloam- go and sin no more
- James 5- confess your sins and be healed
= 1 Cor.11 communion
- Ps.78/38-39
- Job 4/17-19 mans moral impurity & the flesh are equated

Sin is not in the flesh but in the heart. Flesh becomes a figure for the carnal man, the worldly man, unregenerate man or the normal appetites when allowed to run wild.

The Hebrew did not divide the body up as body soul & spirit like the Greeks. A man "is" body soul & spirit but he doesn't "have" a body a soul a spirit. The Hebrews saw man as a unit Ge. 2/7. A living being came alive when God breathed in the spirit and he became a living soul.

To the Hebrew he could understand why Adams body had to die when he sinned. When you divide body & spirit something unnatural occurs ie: death. This is why the NT calls the gospel the resurrection of the body. The Hebrew concept of the unity of man emphasizes the truth that there is an inseparable relationship between the body and spirit.
Rom. 5/12,Rom.7/18

Conclusion
It is significant that in the OT sickness is viewed as defilement and a sin offering had to be offered for certain diseases. touching a dead body, leprosy, childbirth, etc. signified that man was a sinner.
Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12488 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Nephesh or Soul

The word is translated as soul, life, self, person, emotion, or appetite

The Greek word is Psuche (used in the Septuagint) The Hebrew writing this NT Greek saw this word the same as the to word Nephesh.There is a difference between NT Greek and Greek philosophical thought.

OT uses of the word.

The Life the self the person and as consequence of that means the seat of the emotions appetites & desires. The soul is never to be thought of as an entity apart from the person himself. In the OT at death it is the person or personality that survives as the nephesh.

1/ the life or self or person

a) it is used of the inner being of man or the immortal part of man as distinguished from his flesh. It is not something just stuck inside.
Is.10/18, Deut.12/23, Job 14/22

Ps. 16/10 Its often said in the OT that the soul is delivered from death. Acts 2- Jesus. The body was in the grave and the desire was to have the soul delivered from death.

b) The nephesh is the life of the person.
Ex. 21/23, 11Sam.23/17
Jonah 1/14 Heb. word here is nephesh but it properly translated life.
Lev.17/11 the life process.

c) It is a synonym for the person
- Gen.49/6 me
- Ps.25/13 he
- Ps.124/7 we
- all have a pronoun attached to word nephesh.
- Job 9/21 myself
- Duet.4/9 thyself
Gen. 2/7 We were created out of dust with spirit breathed into us and the result was a living soul.

2/ Nephesh stands for the source of the emotions appetites & desires.
- Ps.107/9 hunger
- Deut. 12/20 desire
- Lev.26/11 loathing or abhorring
- Jer. 13/17
- Gen.42/21 anguish
- Ps. 35/9 joy
- Son of Sol. 1/7 love
-b Ps 11/5 hate

The soul is sometimes said to be one of the functions of rational personality ie: capable of mental acts. almost a synonym for the mind.
- Ester 4/13 soul meaning mind
- Ps. 19/2 Knowledge- mind

That the nephesh signifies the life or the person is seen in the OT concept of the state of the nephesh after death. It is the nephesh that leaves the body at death but it is the life of the person thats leaving. The Heb went onto say that the nephesh survived and would one day be restored to normal personality with a body.
Gen.35/18 at death the nephesh left the body. 1King 17/22

The OT concept that the nephesh departs at death (that is the person) is found in the Heb. belief of the life of the person continuing in the after life.
1Sam.28, Ps.16/10,Ps. 49/15, Job 19/25-27

The nephesh departs at death. The person departs at death. The soul is not some abstract thing that floats away at death. It is the person. The source of sin or righteousness in the nephesh not the body. The Bosar(flesh) is merely the instrument through which the appetites & desires can be expressed.

The eyes can express the hate love compassion etc of the person but can only express what is inside. The tongue will lie idle until the nephesh puts it in operation. Strong emotions like joy grief anxiety can be felt in the stomach region.

It is the basar that requires nourishment but it is the nephesh that desires it. Without the nephesh the basar would have no consciousness of these things. That it is the nephesh and not the basar that desires these things is shown in that the body loses all interest in them when the nephesh leaves the body.
Ps.51/6-10, Prov.20/9, Matt 5/27-28
Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12489 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The spirit.

Gen. 2/7 The body plus the spirit makes a living nephesh.

a) Lev.17/14 The blood is the nephesh of the basar. The blood is the life of the body. Not the life of the person. Without blood your body would die.

b) The life of the person is not in the nephesh.The soul of the person results from the impartation of life to the body. Once it comes into existence it is immortal. After Adam it happens at conception. In the NT the soul always meant the life of the person or the person himself.

Spirit Heb. Ruach- spirit breath wind
In the OT the context determined which word is used.

a) It stands for the life principle. The animation in man and animals

b) It stands for disposition, temperament, attitudes
- Prov. 16/18 a haughty spirit
- Prov.29/23 a humble spirit
- Prov.14/29 a patient spirit
- Ps. 51/17 a contrite spirit
- Gen.45/17 a synonym for animation
- 11Kings 10/5
- Joshua 5/1 2/11 courage
- Judges 15/19 strength
- Isaiah 11/2 sometimes used for mental endowment
- Ex.28/3 a spirit of wisdom
- Prov.17/27 a prudent spirit
- Job 20/3 an understanding spirit

You have to make a distinction between soul and spirit but occasionally the spirit express emotions (anger,hate). The spirit is not the seat of the emotions and speaking of the spirit in relation to the emotions is to speak of ones temperament or disposition

When the spirit is used to express emotions it is used to express the attitude of the nephesh. It is the person who is angry but it can be expressed as a spirit of anger.

The spirit also stands for the life principle.

The spirit comes from God. He is the source Zech.12/1 Eccl.12/7 It is sustained by God. Job 10/12

It can be designated the spirit of life and thus it is the life principle.It can be expressed just as easily spirit of life as breath of life. Gen.6/17, Gen.7/15. It is translated breath but the word used is spirit.

Ezek.37/5 breath is spirit. Breath is just air and should be translated spirit. We're saying it is spirit not breath because at death the spirit leaves not breath.
Eccl.12/7, Ps. 146/4

The spirit is the life or animating principle. When it departs death occurs. The spirit and soul are to be distinguished because there are separate terms for them in OT & NT.


The uniqueness of man does not lie in the fact he has a nephesh. Both man and beast have a soul. Gen.2/17,19.
There is a 3/fold distinction.

a) Animals and creatures came into existence at Gods command. Gen. 1/20-25. Man was the workmanship of Gods own hands. He is unique

b) Man received a personal divine inbreathing.

c)Man is created in the image & likeness of God
Gen.1/26-27 2/18-20

There is a similarity and a distinction between the spirit that man & beast receive.

a) the similarity is both man & beast have the spirit from God ie: the life principle. Eccl.3/21, Ps. 104/21-30

b) The difference is the spirit imparted to man as a consequence of the divine inbreathing is not only the animating life but the divine image.
It is also the spirit of man is the seat of mental endowment and temperament. The spirit of man like God is morally oriented
Ps.51/10, Num.14/24, Ezek. 11/19,36/26
An animal has the life of God but in man it is the divine image.
Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12490 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The relationship between body Soul & Spirit

The spirit comes from God so that makes it Gods. The soul comes from man so that makes it mans. The soul is the man himself, his personality, his individuality. The soul is him but the spirit is Gods. Eccl. 12/7

Man in not spirit but he is soul. As long as the spirit is united with the body the "you" is there. God is spirit man is flesh.

Gen.2/7 man is formed out of the earth. God breathed in his spirit and the result was a living person. A soul. Over and over in the bible the word translated soul should be translated person.
Ps. 23/3 Soul is me.

Man is not spirit. Luke 24/36-39. This was following the resurrection. In eternity Jesus was eternal spirit but following the incarnation he became and remains God and man forever. Is Jesus a spirit? No he has taken on flesh and bones even after the resurrection.

The life of the body is the blood. After the resurrection it is a spiritual body. It no longer requires blood. But it is a body. The resurrection body he had then is what he has now. The bodies of the saints who have died & crumbled to dust. somewhere a speck of that dust remains & God will use it to make a new resurrection body out of.

1 Cor. 15/42-47 a natural body vs a spiritual body.
Matt. 27/51-53, Heb. 1/7, Heb. 2/7, John 4/24

Man is not spirit he is soul. The soul came into existence by virtue of the union between the spirit of God and our flesh. When that happens an immortal being comes into existence which had no prior existence until the spirit met flesh. Adam was only clay until the spirit was breathed into him.

Once that immortal soul is created by the union of Gods spirit & flesh that immortal soul is no longer dependent on the flesh for existence. it will continue to exist but in an incomplete state.
Dan.12/2, Is. 26/19, Ps. 49/15

The spirit or animating life within man is Gods but once it is imparted to man the bible speaks of it as being mans spirit.
Ps.104/29, Job. 32/8,18 - for both man & animal.
Job 10/12, Eccl.3/21

The nephesh indicates that man is a conscious creature with personal life or personality, appetites, drives & emotions. The ruach indicates he is a moral spiritual rational & immortal being in the image of God
Animals have irrational souls but we have rational. They have spirits but it is just the animating principle or life force. In us it is the image of God. This is why men prior to salvation are like beasts. At salvation we desire the things of God.
A bull can gore you a lion can eat someone but they have no moral awareness of the act as they have irrational souls.

This is why the bible always speaks of the salvation of the soul in both OT & NT. Heb. 12/23, 1 Cor 5. speaking of the immortal part of man a synonym for the soul.
Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12491 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Heart

It is the central physical organ of the body and as such its the focus of the life of the body. This is why it is referred to so much. It came to be used as a figure of all spiritual functions.

a) A synonym for the nephesh. Ps.51/1, Neh.9/8, Ps. 101/4, Jer. 32/39-40, Ezek.11/19

b) A judicial blinding as judgement on the wicked eg. Pharaoh. a hardening of the heart. Ex. 4/21, Joshua 11/18-20

c) It stands for the feelings and emotions. Duet.6/5, Lev. 19/7, Is 30/29, Ps. 25/17, Deut 15/10, Duet 28/67

d) It also stands for the will which is a function of the nephesh. So the heart means the person. 1 Sam. 14/7, 1 Kings 8/18

e) It is a synonym for the mind. The mind is the rational consciousness of the nephesh. The Hebrew unlike the Greeks & westerners never depicted the source of intelligence as the brain or head.
1 Kings 10/2, Prov.3/3, Ex.31/6, Prov.23/7, Ps.73/7
There is no word for brain in OT Heb. In modern Heb there is one as one is needed.

The varied uses of heart as shown here give more understanding into the nature of & function of man as a nephesh.

Deut 6/5 with Luke 10/27 Heart is a figure of the center of the person (emotions & desires) Soul is the whole person. Strength is all your vitality & power. Mind is all your rational processes. He is using a variety of expressions to show you must love God with all your being.

The inward parts

KJV - the bowels. eg liver intestines etc.
It became a synonym in the OT for the seat of the emotions (OT & NT) & a synonym for the nephesh

Why?
Its not just an arbitrary term because we actually experience our feelings and emotions in that area of the body.

solar plexus - Lords anointing and occult seems to originate here.
Jer.31/20 a figure for compassion
Is. 16/10-11
Jer. 4/19 distress
Son of Solomon 5/4 Lit. the inward parts - an expression of love.
Phil.2/1 KJV. bowels & mercies- Gr. inward parts

Belly - Job 20/20 - the seat of the emotions
Job 20/15 - a synonym for greed
Prov.18/8 - a synonym for the nephesh

Liver- As the heaviest organ of the body it was regarded as the seat of the heavy emotions. It signified that part of the person that became weighted down with heavy grief emotion and anger. The Heb. word for liver is the same as the adjective for heavy.Lam. 2/11 - a figure for sorrow
Ezek. 1/21

Neck
The neck is used as a figure to signify obstinance & stubbornness. An unyielding heart. A characteristic of the human race. Acts 7 - Stephen Prov. 29/1, 11 Kings 17/14, Neh.9/16-17,29

The significance of the bibles use of the physical organs & the flesh to convey moral spiritual & ethical truths is because man is body soul & spirit in an inseparable bond.


Note from Mark

This is not in my notes here from HEF. Just my opinion. I have long believed our bodies are a unified whole. Freeman points out that we body soul and spirit are in an inseparable bond. I believe the body is as well.

I think removing a part of the body or hindering its effective operation by surgery has an impact on us physically and spiritually. In other words removing an organ because of sickness or pain only creates a problem somewhere in the rest of your life. Gall bladder, hysterectomy, appendix, vasectomy etc. Our bodies are a unified whole. A vasectomy for eg means you lose part of your manhood. Even if you don't notice it. You can't remove a part of your body and not have it have an effect on the rest of your life. It will show up somewhere.

Also I'm not trying to condemn those who needed help and didn't have the faith or whatever and just went and got help. If I didn't have the faith that is what I would do. We need to understand though that there are consequences. ie a disruption in the natural life God gave us. If you're in the situation of having had surgery look to the Lord for restoration and for healing.

Re: OT Theology # 2 Man [message #12492 is a reply to message #12374 ] Sun, 20 May 2018 18:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Man in the Image of God

a) The purpose.

This term is ascribed to no other creature but man. Man was given this nature because it was called for by the divine purpose for him. Since the central purpose of God in making man in his image was fellowship with God then he had to bear some resemblance to his maker

b) Meaning.

The image of God is a synonym for the unique inner nature of man. It means he is personal moral ethical & rational. This is not said of the animals and can't be. The image of God does not mean he is like God but that he is in Gods likeness & his likeness is personal moral ethical and rational. The bible shows man is flesh and God is spirit. Man is not spirit but he is spiritual in his inner nature. Zech. 12/1, Eccl.12/7 Prov. 20/27

The image of God denotes a sacredness of personality unlike animals. Ps 8
OT Theology # 18 The Theocracy of God [message #12494 is a reply to message #6441 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Old Testament Theocracy

1/ The Origin of the Term

Josephus said "Some have monarchy and democracy and oligarchies but God wouldn't have any of these. He established a theocracy assigning the rule and power to himself."

This means the state is established upon pure religion and God is the king and also the God they worship. All laws and affairs of state come from him. Even if sometimes they come through man.

The Theocracy

a. Origin of the conception of Yahweh being King

He became the king of Israel when he bound them to himself in covenant during the exodus. Ex.15/18
Deut.33/5 Jeshurun is a poetic name for Israel Is.44/2.
This was the beginning of his kingly rule. Is.43/15, Is. 33/22

We see God as king through Moses leadership
Judges 8/22-23 We see God as king in the life of Gideon.
We see all through the OT that prophets like Samuel pointed to God as king. A leader was judged as leader not as a great warrior but on religious grounds. ie. His relationship to God.

Psalm 2,24 It is said over and over in the Psalms and Prophets. God as king is not a figure of speech. When he delivered them and entered into covenant with them and built a tabernacle. He took the ark as his throne and his personal presence was there in the midst of Israel.
Zech. 14/9 He will one day rule over all kingdoms

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:20]

Re: OT Theology # 18 The Theocracy of God [message #12495 is a reply to message #12494 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
b. The Vice-Regency - Yahwehs Representative - The Judge

God as invisible Spirit ruled through selected representatives. The earthly representative of divine sovereignty power and presence.
Samson represented God's power.
Gideon with 300 men overcame millions
The point here is the judge didn't do things on his own initiative but only as Gods representative when God anointed him.

c. The Vice-Regency - Yahwehs Representative - The King

The Holy Spirit came upon a judge but a king was anointed with oil. The oil being representative of the HS.
1 Sam. 24/6,10, 11 Sam.1/14-15

d. The Vice-Regency - Yahwehs Representative - The Ideal king

It is referring to the Messiah
Micah 4, 5/2, Is.2, Zech.14, Is.9/6-7 Jer. 23/5-6 Ezek 24/34
Dan.2/24 The sovereign and eternal naturre of this kingdom. It will come and destroy all other kingdoms.

e. The Vice-Regency - Yahwehs Representative - The Prophet

Originally the kingdom was a loosely knit group of tribes in Palestine ruled by judges. Then the kingship was established.
God remained king and showed himself as God and one way was by special anointed spokesman. ie prophets. they spoke for God.

The involvement of the prophet in the Hebrew kingship was an indication of the subordination of the earthly king to the divine.
The prophet was so uniquely related to God that he could do what the king couldn't.
eg. David wouldn't speak against Saul but the prophets did.
Nathan rebuking David 11 Sam. 12
Nathan participated in the appointment of Solomon 1 kings 1
Abijah encouraged the revolt against Solomon 1 Kings 11
Elijah rebuked king Ahab

Thus in Israel the king does not dispossess God of his kingship. He merely represents him. God sets him up and God removes him. Usually by a prophet.

The Purpose of the Theocracy

The prophets were convinced that history was moving toward a specific purpose. Zech.14/9 The kingdom of God on the earth- The millennium

[Updated on: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:20]

Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12496 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Hebrew concept of Guilt

The Hebrew term.
The Hebrew had only one word for guilt. asham The same word as sin.
The term stands for
- the sin (the act of sin)
- the guilt of sin (it made him guilty)
- the sacrifice for the sin
All the same word

The nature of guilt in the Old Testament.

There is an important distinction between the sin offering and the trespass offering.

The sin offering (Heb. Chata) was to cover sins in general. The trespass offering had reference to certain concrete violations of the law. On the day of atonement the sin offering would cover everyone's sins for the year. Sin offerings were offered at a ll times & feasts& joyful occasions. It was a general sacrifice made to keep Gods people clean before him and in covenant standing.

The trespass offering was never offered for sin in general but for trespasses of the Levitical law or against your bro. Therefore quilt emphasize the condition of the individual or the nation before the law as a result of the violation of some specific commandment.

Contrary to the Liberal view which is that God is a loving father the solemn nature of guilt in Gods sight is seen by . . .

a) There is some guilt for which there is no sacrifice (or forgiveness.) The person had to die. ie: murder, wilful sin (Heb. sin with a high hand)
This doesn't mean the person can't be forgiven. eg. David's murder of Uriah. 2 Sam.12/9-13 It does mean there was no place in the law for forgiveness. (Mark)

b)That the OT shows that guilt is not only individual but collective as in family, nation etc. The prophets said over and over that the exile would punish the nation (including the innocent & children etc.). The sin of the parents was sometimes carried to the third & fourth generation. Num. 14/18, Jer. 9/1-2

The relationship between sin guilt and its punishment

These three things are always together in the Bible. Guilt is the relationship between sin and its punishment.There is no such thing in the bible as sin without punishment. God says he won't clear the guilty. The issue here is not redemption but the awful nature of sin & guilt.

This is why in Isaiah 53 it s says he was a guilt offering not a sin offering. The animal was not actually guilty but legally guilty. The animal paid the legal price for the guilt. ie:death
Isaiah 53 is the transitional place in the OT. It has all the sacrifices typified here & points forward to the atonement. Isaiah 53/10 Heb word is guilt offering not sin offering. Jesus paid the legal penalty for our guilt.

You can't make an innocent person guilty.
a) because Jesus was guiltless he could offer himself as a guilt offering
b) Jesus could bear the punishment.

It was always an animal for sacrifice that was which was spotless & pure and always guiltless itself.
Gen 6/7, Ex. 21/28 God says the animals had corrupted themselves as well. An animal had to die for its own guilt. It couldn't be used for an offering.
The sin offering was most holy. Lev.6
Jesus was called an"asham" not a "chata"

[Updated on: Tue, 02 October 2018 21:44]

Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12497 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Old Testament Concept of Salvation

The Hebrew Term for salvation- Yeshua ,Yeshuah

Salvation in the OT is viewed as two aspects:

a)General Usage.- temporal deliverance

deliverance from human enemies Num.10/9
The Gr. equivalent is "Sozo"
The OT implies because this term "salvation" is used in these contexts that temporal deliverance is meant as well.
fire flood pestilence poverty

b)Spiritual Usage.-

spiritual deliverance eg: life in the eternal state.Ps.79/9,Ps.59/-2, 49/6, Zech9/16

The Wrath of God


Apart from the wrath of God OT sacrifice has no purpose. Num.15/26 The atonement and the wrath of God are closely connected. All they had time for was to take fire off the alter.

a) The Liberal View

One of their major planks is to deny the wrath of God. They either deny his wrath or limit its meaning.

b) The Biblical View

The Hebrew terms.

"aph" wrath / anger
"qetsaph" wrath

Usage.

The usage of wrath is in the OT shows it is a reality.
Num.16/46 The rebellion of Korah
Deut.9/18-22 against Israel
Ps.21/8-9 Hosea 5/10
The flood, Sodom & Gomorrah

The term or idea of God pouring out his wrath occurs over 580 times in the OT. If it stated once in the bible it is sufficient to compel our obedience

c) The nature of God's wrath

The effect of sin on God is to immediately arouse divine displeasure expressed as anger or wrath. The wrath of God is not an attribute like love or holiness but wrath is a disposition. It is an expression of his holy displeasure against sin & rebellion.
His wrath is transient meaning it can be removed if you meet the conditions. His wrath is as holy as his love. To understand his love you have to understand his holiness.
Therefore wherever holiness meets unholiness there is inevitable conflict and divine wrath is as natural a consequence of unholiness as love is to toward those who are holy.

Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12498 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Doctrine of Propitiation

Introduction

Propitiation: Understanding the meaning of propitiation (which is the appeasing of Gods wrath to sin) is absolutely essential to understanding the biblical meaning of atonement which brings salvation.

Having studied the biblical teaching concerning wrath we need to understand how to get or keep his wrath off us. We have to accept the fact that Gods wrath (mentioned 580 times in the OT) is real and directed against sin and sinners and propitiation is the means of appeasing that wrath. The death of an animal substitute signifies that something must be horribly wrong with man t require such a sacrifice.

The Linguistic (or language) Basis of Propitiation.


The effects of OT sacrifice including the death of Christ is 3/fold. It is designated in scripture as . . .
- a covering for sin
- which propitiates the wrath of God
- which results in a reconciliation between God and man

Greek and Hebrew terms.

Propitiation

Hebrew
Kippur (verb) to Cover
the derived meaning is to appease Gods wrath. The KJV translates it "atonement".

NT Greek & Septuagint

Hilaskomaia (verb) to appease or propitiate
Hilasmos (noun)- propitiation

Katallage =-reconciliation. Lit. to change
In classical Greek Katallage meant to change a persons enmity into friendship. Hillasmos in classical Greek meant to propitiate an offended deity by means of sacrifice.

In the Septuagint the Heb. scholars who knew both Heb & Gr. selected Hilasmos to translate Kippur.
The NASV correctly translates these terms
Heb.2/17,1 John 2/2, 4/10, Rom.3/25

Significance of the Hebrew term.

The significance of the term Kippur is that it is used by God to describe the effect of the sacrifice.
- with respect to sin it was a covering
- with respect to God it was a propitiation
- with respect to man it effected reconciliation

The significance of the term Propitiation is that on the day of Yom Kippur the blood of sacrifice was brought to the Holy of Holies & sprinkled on the "mercy seat"- Heb. "the covering"
It was the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the ark was the stone tablets with the 10 commandments, Aarons staff, the pot of manna.

The point is the law was inside (the ark)& it was broken and Gods wrath was upon them. The blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat. Heb. The Propitiatory or covering. The place where propitiation was obtained. The importance of this is shown by the OT calling this the house of the propitiatory
1 Chron. 28/11 Lit. the house of propitiatory.

Kippur: The basic meaning of cover express the effect of the sacrifices by covering the sin & propitiating Gods wrath against it.

Rom.5/11 This is the only place in the bible where the popular word atonement is used but it is the Gr. word Katallage meaning reconciliation. The word atonement is trying to express the reconciliation we obtain from God. Propitiation has reference to quieting Gods anger.

The emendation of the term "propitiation" to "expiation" by the critical interpreters.

The Liberals (and the RSV) ignores the Septuagint, the classical meaning of the term and the Hebrew. They translate the term "propitiate" with another term "expiation" A term entirely different in meaning.

Propitiation means to appease Gods wrath by sacrifice
Expiation means to cleanse or remove defilement.

[Updated on: Thu, 24 May 2018 21:50]

Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12499 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Doctrine of Atonement in the Old Testament

For the purposes of this study we will use the English term "atonement" and mean by it a covering which propitiates the wrath of God

Historical Theories

The Patristic Period.

a) The Recapitulation Theory.
the view of Ireneuis. Christ recapitulated (summed up) all mans experience. He was an infant boy & man like we are. He was emphasizing identification (but not like the Liberals do) He identified with us perfectly and then died on our behalf.

b) The Ransom Theory.
He presented his life a ransom for us. to buy us back

The Medieval Period.

a) The Satisfaction Theory.
He satisfied Gods wrath against sin.

b) The Moral Influence Theory.
Abelard's View. His death influences us morally

c) The Merit Theory.
Thomas Aquinas view. A treasury of merit is stored up by Jesus and us and we can access it.

The Reformation Period.

a) The Socinian or Example Theory.
He was just a good man. His death is an example for us.

b) The Government Theory.
The atonement satisfies divine government.

c) The Penal Substitutionary Theory.
It s a death by punishment in substitution for sinners.

The Modern Period.

a) The Mystical Theory.
Christ had the consciousness of God in him. We should also strive for that.

b) The Vicarious Penitence Theory.
Christ repented for us by his death on the cross. Question is how can someone repent for another?

c) The Vicarious Sacrificial Theory of Horace Bushnell.
Just the basic liberal view

d) Neo-Orthodox view
In this modern period Neo-Orthodoxy emphasizes the incarnation of Christ and minimizes his death and therefore God redeems man by identification

The Theological Meaning of the word Atonement

The English term "atonement."

Some say it means at-one-ment. The restoration of man and God

The intended meaning.

A covering which propitiates the wrath of God

The Subject and Object of Atonement

a) The object
The object is sin. Lev.4/33-35. It covers his sin. The blood covers the sin from the sight of God.
Micah 7/19 The same idea is expressed here.
Isaiah 38/17 getting rid of sin.
It covers the person. Lev.17/11 I have made a covering for your soul.

b) The subject - God.
It is he who needs to have his eyes covered. Isaiah 53/6

c) God as subject and object.
He is also the object. Rom.3/25
Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12500 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The concept of Imputation

The Old Testament terms for imputation

a) Heb. Chashav - to think, to reckon, to impute Gen.15/6
b) Heb. Saval: to bare Isaiah 53/4
c) Heb. Nasa: to carry Isaiah 53/4

Imputation : definition

That which is placed or charged to ones account.In theology it means to attribute vicariously something to another.

Theologically imputation means :

a) to charge the consequences of Adams sin to his posterity
ie: physical and spiritual death & alienation from God
b) to charge the righteousness of Christ to a believers account. You can't make a believer righteous but you can count him righteous
c) to charge the guilt and punishment of sinners & sin to Christ.

This does not imply a transfer of moral qualities but rather a transfer of legal merit & demerit to Christ.

Imputation in the Bible means:

a) to charge to the account of persons things which properly belong to them. so to impute sin in this sense is to charge guilt upon the guilty. Lev.17/1-4, Ps. 32/2

b) It means to charge to a persons account things which do not properly belong to him. In this sense it is charged to Christ. This is the meaning of 11 Cor.5/21. Righteousness in 11 Cor.5.2 cannot mean intrinsic purity because Rom. 3/10 says we're not.
Conversely it cannot mean our sin was imputed to him intrinsically only legally.

intrinsic meaning "not naturally" or "its not natural to us"

The bible doesn't say we are righteous but it says we are counted righteous. The scriptures do not refer to an actual transfer of sin & guilt to Christ but a legal transfer.

The scriptures set forth 3 aspects to imputation

a) The imputation of Adams guilt to the human race.
1 Cor. 15/22, Rom.5
b) The imputation of our guilt & punishment upon Christ
Is. 53/5-6
c) The imputation of the righteousness of God to the believer.

Our only hope since we aren't righteous is by faith in Christ we receive his righteousness. This is prior to conversion. after conversion we have a new nature made in righteousness.
Rom.3/10 with Rom.3/20-22.

One Greek scholar said that in all Greek literature there is not one place where the Gr. word Dikaioo (to be righteous) is used to make one righteous. It is never used of man or God to make one righteous. The word means "to be righteous or to count as righteous" It is used of God as righteous and of us to count as righteous. The verb Dikaioo is not used in the sense of making one righteous.

Rom.5/19 "be made righteous" "were made sinners"
You can't make someone a sinner or righteous. The Gr. verb here Katastesso means to constitute set or appoint. The point is because the human race is in Adam they are constituted as sinners. They inherit the consequences of Adams sin. ie: unregenerate nature death & alienation from God. Rom.5/12 we make ourselves sinners by choice. Made righteous? When you believe in Christ God constitutes you or considers you righteous.

The biblical meaning is the count or declare righteous.The declarative meaning of righteous is seen in Luke 7/29, 1 Tim.3/16
Justified & righteous are the same Gr. word. They proved God was righteous by their repentance obedience. By Jesus life & death in obedience & faith he showed he was righteous. "justified in spirit" is not in the Greek.

Once Gods righteousness is imputed to us by faith in Jesus god counts us as righteous and declares us as righteous. Gen 15/16 This imputed righteousness of Christ which he charges to us( to our account) is not simply a figure of speech but by this legal and judicial act of God it is legally & judicially forever ours.
1 Cor1/30, Ps. 106/30-31

Rom.8/4 -He sees us as one who has fulfilled the law.

To justify a sinner God cannot ignore that a man is guilty therefore he must provide a way
a) not to overlook his sin
b) to satisfy the demands of the law.

You cannot make anyone a sinner. You cannot make Christ a sinner. You can only impute the guilt & punishment on him. God cannot say (arbitrarily) because of someones faith they're not guilty. What he does say is by our faith in Christ it is as if he has fulfilled my law and was never guilty.

How does he do that?

a) I will not impute his guilt t him
b) I will impute righteousness to him
c) I will impute the guilt & punishment of his sin upon myself (Jesus- you can't divide God up)

This means for our justification to be valid Jesus had to fulfill the OT type ie: a sinless substitute. The whole system of sacrifice in the OT was to show that all had sinned and that God would accept a sinless substitute in the place of the sinner.

Ex.23/7 God cannot arbitrarily justify a sinner
Prov.17/5 It is a personal affront to God. He won't do what he condemns me for.
Re: OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12501 is a reply to message #12351 ] Thu, 24 May 2018 21:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Necessity for the Blood Atonement

Question:

Was the penal substitutionary atonement necessary for us to be redeemed? Or could God have found another way. The answer is at the end of the section

Was the shedding of blood necessary?

a) The historical views.
All the early church fathers held to the position that the blood atonement was necessary.The central feature of the levitical sacrifice was the sprinkling of the blood on the alter.
Lev.17/11, Heb.9/22 (the blood represents the life)

b) The critical argument.
The critics deny this saying there were times when atonement was made without shedding blood.
Ex.30/16 1/2 shekel given as atonement money.
Num. 31/48-54 They gave of the spoils and gave part to make an atonement.
Num.16/46 After the rebellion of Korah. Fire as an atonement.
Ex.32/30 Moses intercession as an atonement.

c) Reply
The facts as the critics state them are correct. It is their inferences that are incorrect.
Heb.9/22 . . . almost all things & without shedding
Paul knew the OT thats why he said "almost all things" He knew there were exceptions. the law itself did not forbid God to make a provision for an atonement in some other way when he wanted to.

These were exceptional circumstances in the OT that God himself designated. Shekels & jewelry were provided by God for their soul (nephesh) Not as a covering for sin. He isn't dealing with sin here. It also provided for the temple and the priests.
Moses intercession & the atonement by fire. There was no sacrifice God would have accepted for those sins and for the nation to survive someone God could accept would have to make atonement. ie: Moses by intercession & Aaron as high priest by fire. God accepted the atonement but didn't just forgive. They spent 40 yrs in the wilderness as punishment. An atonement was made in the sense that Gods wrath was covered

To answer our Question

It must be seen that there is no special efficacy in the physical substance blood.
But- Lev.17/11 The blood symbolized giving up the life unto death. If it is the blood itself then why not just drain some out and sprinkle it on the alter? The blood is the life of the person or animal. The blood is the life. Lev.17/11 The point is the shedding of the animals blood shows he has given up his life as s substitute for the person.

The blood of Jesus has infinite value because he was the sinless Son of God who has infinite value in the sight of God. The efficacy of the atonement is in the method established by God. It doesn't lie merely in the blood apart from the giving up of the life or Jesus could have just shed some blood and sprinkled it. The penalty of sin is death so God loving man took on flesh because as Spirit he couldn't die and then died in our place.

The giving of the blood signified the giving of the life. Since the life is in the blood the shedding of the blood is the giving of the life. The blood of Jesus has infinite power because it represents his life shed on our behalf. It has infinite power and value because it is the blood of an infinite God.
OT Theology # 19 The Election of Israel [message #12505 is a reply to message #6441 ] Wed, 30 May 2018 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Ground for Israels Election

Their election was grace and unconditioned love

Israels election is inseparably related to the theocracy of Israel. Rom. 1 The whole world rejected God and his kingdom. God chose a nation to serve him. The election of Israel is closely related to the theocracy of Israel.

The theocracy was the result of Israels election and the ground of that election was based on Gods grace and unconditional love.

1. Grace must be sovereign or it isn't grace. It has to come to those least deserving or else they can appeal to merit. It is unmerited favor and God can give it to whomever he wants.

2. Gods love is unconditional. Deut.9/4-5 He chose her because he loved her not because of her righteousness or because they were a great nation. Deut. 7/6-8 It is bestowed upon those least deserving so it will magnify the grace of God.
Re: OT Theology # 19 The Election of Israel [message #12506 is a reply to message #12505 ] Wed, 30 May 2018 18:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Election The Hebrew Terms

a. Bachar - to choose Is. 43/10, Deut 7/6
This term is used over 150 times.
b. Yadha (yava)- To know - Amos 3/2
c. Qanah - To aquire or buy Duet.32/6

Bachar is used 30 times in Deut. The term was mostly used in the exile for Israel to know God had chosen her.
Jer. 33/24, Is. 41/9, 44/1-2, 49/7

Why was special election limited to Israel

Ps. 147/ 19-20

a. When he picked Israel she wasn't even a nation. 1 Cor. 1 God chooses the base and foolish.

b. The nations he didn't choose were responsible for departing from the light they had already been given way back in the beginning. Rom. 1 They willfully gave up their knowledge of God. He chose a loosely knit collection of tribes and made them into a nation. Deut.9/4-6

c. It was necessary for God to start somewhere in restoring true revelation and knowledge to the world

d. God's wisdom love and mercy is to be seen in election. Abraham and then Israel were the means by which he could bless the whole world with salvation.

e.The heathen nations already had a secular culture. Arts science astronomy God started a nation which had religion as its main culture and required holiness. He left the heathen world to itself for awhile until their iniquity became total.

f. Special revelation to Israel was special grace to an undeserving people.


Re: OT Theology # 19 The Election of Israel [message #12507 is a reply to message #12505 ] Sun, 03 June 2018 14:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Was Israels election arbitrary?

The problem

Some say it is Ok to elect nations but to elect individuals is arbitrary

The reply

If that is true then God could charge me with that. ie my marriage. I chose one women to bestow my love and affection upon. Why not love them all? Or for that matter my children.
God makes perfect choices from his wisdom not imperfect like us.

God doesn't choose a nation. He chooses the people in it.


Re: OT Theology # 19 The Election of Israel [message #12508 is a reply to message #12505 ] Sun, 03 June 2018 14:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The purpose of Gods Election of Israel

The Bible always shows it to be responsibility

1. To be custodians of the revelation of the knowledge of the true God. Ps. 147/19-20, Rom. 3/12 Knowledge about himself, his will, his requirements

2.Israel was elected to obedience. God created a nation that would serve and obey him. No other nation was doing that.

3. Israel was elected to reflect God's character. ie. Jesus in me. True holiness,justice,equality,righteousness,morality
Lev.19/2, Deut.7/6, Ex.19/5-6, Lev. 20/24-26

4. Preparation for the Messiah. Messianic prophesies, the law itself (as a tutor to bring us to Christ), the types (sacrifice priesthood) all these things were preparation to prepare them for the messiah.

5. A popular misconception is that Israel was raised up and called to be a missionary nation to the rest of the world. God told them to wipe out the Canaanites not preach to them. Only Jonah was sent to a foreign nation and even that was judgement. Missionary activity has to have something to preach. eg, the gospel. Proselytes came to Israel.
Israel was called to live the revelation

The conclusion. Did Israel accomplish its purpose

Answer: No it failed.
Is. 42/19-25, Matt21/43

Jesus will one day establish his kingdom and that will stand forever. As a nation and kingdom Israel failed but God's purposes will yet be fulfilled. Acts 1/6, Rom. 11 God messiah will not fail and the full purpose of Israels election will be realized in the millennium.
Lev. 26/44 Amos 9/11-15

Like much else in the OT the theocracy was typical of the future kingdom of God.


[Updated on: Sun, 03 June 2018 14:28]

OT Theology # 20 Covenant [message #12512 is a reply to message #6441 ] Thu, 14 June 2018 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Idea of covenant

Israel was to live her life between the terms of the covenant. It was unique among the nations in that other nations related to their God while God revealed himself to Israel. From Abraham to Moses God entered into covenant with individuals. eg Noah, Issac, Jacob. After Moses it became a covenant to a nation.

The Hebrew Term

Heb. Berit - the technical phrase is "to cut a covenant" Kerat Berit
The term stems from the idea of offering a sacrifice to seal the covenant them cutting it in half and walking between them.

The popular view of this is that it means this is what will happen to you it you break the covenant. Bro. Freeman believes that the slaying of the sacrifice shows the seriousness of it and both parties walking between it shows they are bound together in it.
Gen. 15/9-18, Jer. 34/18-19
God was appearing as a great light and a burning lamp.

The Origin of the Covenant Concept in the OT

Gen. 9/11 Between Noah as representative of the human race and God
Gen. 15/18 Between Abraham as founder of Israel and God


The Token of the Covenant

It was the slaying of an animal and walking between it.
A covenant can be confirmed by a gift 1 Sam. 18/3-4
A token can be a common meal eg Jacob and Laban Gen. 31/44
The token or sign of Abraham's covenant was circumcision Gen. 17
The rainbow Gen.9
The smoking furnace and flaming lamp Gen.15

Re: OT Theology # 20 Covenant [message #12513 is a reply to message #12512 ] Thu, 14 June 2018 12:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Nature of Israels Covenant

In ancient times there were two types of covenant

a) Parity covenant - This was reciprocal. Responsibility was required of both parties. Both parties had input dickering or barter. Both parties stipulated the terms.

b)Suzerainty covenant. This is a unilateral covenant.
One side gives the covenant. An eg would be between subjects and their king.

An eg of a) is Jacob and Laban
An eg of b) is God and Noah
The covenant at Mt Sinai was a Suzerainty covenant.

The Purpose of the covenant

It was the same as the purpose of Israels election:

1. To be custodians of the revelation of the knowledge of the true God.
2. Israel was elected to obedience.
3. Israel was elected to reflect God's character.
4. Preparation for the Messiah.
Re: OT Theology # 20 Covenant [message #12514 is a reply to message #12512 ] Thu, 14 June 2018 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Types of covenants in the OT

a) Those between men
Treaties - Abraham and the Amorites Gen. 14/13
Alliances between men - David and Jonathon

b)Covenants between God and Men

The Book of the Covenant

Ex. 19-34

- Ex. 19 preparation for the covenant
- Ex. 20 the 10 commandments
- Ex. 20/18-36 The general form of the covenant
- Ex. 21-23/13 Civil legislation
- Ex. 23/14-19 Ceremonial legislation
- Ex. 23/20-33 Concluding legislation
OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12525 is a reply to message #6441 ] Fri, 17 August 2018 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Meaning and Nature of Messianic Prophecy

1/ The Meaning

That prophecy that predicts the fulfillment of redemption. The establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth through the messiah. It is not limited to the prophets. It is also found in the Pentateuch, Psalms and historical books as well.

2/ The Nature

Messianic prophecy in the OT proceeded along two lines based on the covenant God gave Abraham. Gen. 12/2-3

. . . A great nation. This was pointing to Israel and the later kingdom of God
. . . All will be blessed. Points to salvation

Here is where messianic prophecy begins to take shape into two streams.
A. a glorious kingdom ruled over by a Davidic monarch
B. the messiah who is shown to be a suffering servant who dies for his people

A. The promise made to Abraham created the expectation in Israel for a kingdom and as the kingdom of God. This was heightened when Saul actually became king. The national conception of Israel as the kingdom of God. Then with David becoming king as a type of the messiah an even greater expectation came.

11 Sam.7 - God gave to David that his future son would be the messiah and establish an eternal kingdom.

With the ensuing disappointments of the kings after David ending in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile the hope of a messianic king in their thinking and theology became the hope of a messianic deliverer.

You see in the NT in John 6 the expectation of a messiah who would come and rule over them and deliver them from their enemies. The point here is that deliverer was never in the original prophecy. When they came back after 70 yrs exile they discovered Zerrubabaal was not the messiah. He was only a man and their hope of deliverance wasn't being realized.

Joel 2,3 Amos 9/11-15, Haggai 2/3, Ezek.3/11-13, Neh.9/32 These all show a hope of deliverance. Neh.9/32-37 His prayer shows his (their) facing up to reality that the promises were yet to be fulfilled.

So their expectation was yet to a future kingdom. The prophecies over the centuries showed a king would come like David but greater and establish a kingdom like David but greater.

B. The other stream of prophecy shows a suffering servant who would come and die. Is. 53, Ps.22, Zech. 13/7

According to David Baron in his book on Zechariah the Jews couldn't reconcile these two streams of prophecy so they formulated the doctrine of two messiahs. Messiah ben Joseph who would suffer and die. Messiah ben David who would rule and reign. We know now that it is two advents referred to. Luke 24 fulfills the first advent and Matt. 24 fulfills the second.

On pages 136-145 of the deeper life book here is a discussion of Messianic prophecies and the messianic kingdom prophecies.

[Updated on: Sat, 18 August 2018 00:20]

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12526 is a reply to message #12525 ] Fri, 17 August 2018 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Meaning and Usage of the Term "Messiah"

Heb. Mashiach
Gr. Christos

It comes from the Heb. verb Mashach - to smear or anoint.

a. to smear. to smear (paint) a house Jer. 22/14
Isaiah 21/5 to rub (smear) a shield with oil to protect it. (from rust)
Ex. 29 2 to smear unleavened cakes with oil.

b. to anoint. It came to mean Jesus name.
There is a close connection in the OT between anointing and consecration.

To anoint is used in two ways in the OT.
1. the literal sense where men were actually anointed with oil signifying their consecration to some office.
2. the metaphysical sense used of those who have been called and set apart by God but not actually anointed

Aaron was literally anointed
Num.7/1 the tabernacle
Ex. 39/26
1Sam. 9,10,`16 Kings were anointed
1 Kings 19/16 Elisha prophets and kings anointed

Oil symbolized consecration and setting apart to God.
Jewish patriarchs Ps. 105/15 they are called anointed but it wasn't literal.
Habakuk 3/13 Iswrael
Is. 45/1 Cyrus is called Gods anointed
The Davidic king or messiah is called anointed Ps. 2/2, 18/50,
89/38,51 132/10,17 1 Sam. 2/10,35, Dan. 9 25-26

[Updated on: Sat, 18 August 2018 21:19]

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12527 is a reply to message #12525 ] Sat, 18 August 2018 20:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The concept of the concept of a "Davidic" Messiah.

a. 11Sam.7 - speaks of a son of David to sit upon his throne but the language goes much deeper especially in vs 13,16

b. Ps. 2
vs. 2- his anointed
vs. 7- my Son
vs. 11- the Lord
vs. 12- the Son

c. Danial 9/25-26 "prince" establishes the fact that it is the davidic messiah

d. NT Confirmation
Matt.2/4, Matt. 16/16 Matt11/2, John 1/41, Acts 19/4


Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12528 is a reply to message #12525 ] Sat, 18 August 2018 20:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Messianic Names and Titles in the OT

Gen.16/7 The Angel of the Lord
Ex.23/20-21 The Angel
Is.63/9 Angel of his Presence
Mal.3/1 Angel of the Covenant
Ps.2/2 The Anointed One
Zech.3/8 The Branch
Josh.5/14 The Captain of the Host of the Lord
Is. 9/6 The Child
Is.43/15 The Creator (John 1, Col 1)
Zech. 10/4 The Cornerstone
Jer. 30/9 David
Haggai 2/7 Desire of All Nations
Is/9/6 Father of Eternity
Zech.13/1 The Fountain
Is. 41/14 The Holy One of Israel
Is.54/5 The Husband
Ex. 3 I AM
Is.7/14 Emmanuel
Zech. 14/9 King
Is.9/6 Mighty God
Is.59/20 Redeemer
Jer. 23/6 The Lord our Righteousness
Deut.32/15 The Rock
Micah 5/2 The Ruler
Is.42/1 The Servant
Gen.49/10 Shiloh
Dan.7/13 Son of Man
Is/9/6 Wonderful

[Updated on: Sat, 18 August 2018 21:17]

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12529 is a reply to message #12525 ] Sat, 18 August 2018 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Messianic Prophecies

1/ The Protoevangelism Gen.3/15
This is the first prophesy. Women don't have seed so it must be an unusual event. Bruising the head is a reference to the cross and resurrection.

Gen.4/1 Heb. - I have gotten a man: Yahweh
It is a very popular view that Eve was expecting that their first child born was to be the deliverer that God would send.
Enoch only 7 from Adam was prophesying of Gods return. So there is no reason not to believe this what Eve meant. That this son was the messiah to come.

2/ The Blessing of Shem Gen.9/25-27
3/ The Blessing of Abraham Gen. 12/1-3
4/ The Blessing of Judah Gen. 49/8-12
5/ The Blessing of Israel Num. 2417-19
6/ A prophet like Moses Deut.18/16-19
7/ 1Sam.2/27-36 The Faithful Priesthood and Yahweh's anointed
8/ 11Sam.7/11-16 The Eternal Kingdom of the Davidic King
9/ Messianic Psalms Psalm 2 (22, 110)

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12530 is a reply to message #12525 ] Sun, 19 August 2018 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Messianic concepts

A. The Immanuel prophecy Is. 7/14

The Background: Israel (Ephraim) and Syria want Ahaz (Judah) to join their rebellion against Assyria.

Various Interpretations

1/ the virgin was Ahaz wife. The son was Hezekiah. 11Kings 18/2 Ahaz wife name was Abi and the son was Hezekiah. They say Hezekiah fulfilled this prophecy because he delivered Israel from Assyria
11Kings 16/2, 18/2 When Isaiah gave this prophecy Hezekiah was 9 yrs old so not much of a prophecy to prophesy he had a son 9 yrs ago.

2/ The virgin is Isaiah's wife and the son Maher-shalal-hash-baz. They insist this fits the context of Is. 8. The reasoning is because "conceive" is a participle which has no tense it should read "the Almah is pregnant and have a son". It is present tense so it is Isaiahs wife.
- They say vs 16 shows the sign will be fulfilled in Isaiahs time and not the birth of Christ later.
- There is a definite article in front of Almah so it must mean someone they knew.
- The term Almah doesn't mean virgin but "a girl of marriageable age" There is a Heb word for virgin "Betulah"

The miracle then in this view is that Isaiah predicted a boy and not a girl.

3/ The virgin is a personification of the house of David. The answer to that is there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

4/ The double fulfillment view. This is held by some conservatives.

There is a virgin in Ahaz day who although married is yet a virgin (unconsummated) and will conceive a bare a son. but this is not a virgin birth. This would bring fulfillment as far as Ahaz day in concerned but the immediate fulfillment does not exhaust the prophecy. Its ultimate fulfillment is with the virgin Mary and Jesus. Some prophecy is like that. eg. Hosea 11/1, Matt 2, 11Sam. 7

This view says that not every detail has to fulfill both ends of the prophecy.

5/ The absolute Messianic view or Exclusive messianic view.

This is Freemans view and conservatives have always believed this.
It is entirely possible that Isaiah saw this as future together with some immediate circumstances in King Ahaz.

The prophecy cannot refer to a mere human child as his name (Immanuel) means "God with us" His name shows deity. Isaiah 8/8 Immanuel is God.
Is.9/6-7, 11/1-5 Some professor somewhere would have to teach you that these passages aren't referring to the same person because they are.

It is incorrect to say participles can't be translated into future time. There is not time in a participle but time is determined by the context in which it is used.

Is. 7/14 "shall conceive" and Gen. 17/19 "shall bare" The same Heb word is used.

If Isaiah was referring to his wife he would have used the common term for wife "Ishah" His use of the term Almah must have some significance. The use of the definite article with Almah points to it being significant. Both Ahaz and Isaiah had children at the time of the prophecy.

Is. 8,9 and Micah. No father is mentioned and that is very unusual in Heb. because lineage is always traced through the father. No father is ever mentioned in all the prophecies.

What significance could this sign have for Ahaz as it is several centuries in the future?

The answer is not any! Many signs had no immediate significance. eg Jonah. The offer for a sign was a valid one but Ahaz refused it and God used it for his own ends.

The meaning of the term "Almah"

Is the term "virgin" the correct term? The RSV and the liberals say this Heb term never means virgin and can designate a married women. They also say if Isaiah wanted to use virgin there is a Heb. word available - Betulah

Answer.
Every place Almah occurs the meaning of virgin can fit the context and it cannot be denied in any of the passages it is used.
Gen. 24/43, Ex.2/8, Ps.68/25, Son of S. 1/3, 6/8, Prov. 30/19
Gen 24/16 is Betulah Gen. 24/43 is Almah.
So Almah can mean Betulah. An Almah can be applied to one who is properly designated as a virgin.

If Isaiah wanted to convey the idea of virgin birth then why didn't he use the the term Betulah?

a. Betulah often needs some qualifying phrase to show virgin is meant. Gen. 24/16 Almah is never used that way.
Judges 21/12 Betulah
Betulah doesn't automatically mean virgin.

b. Betulah can also mean a married women.
Deut.22/24, Joel 1/8
It is not true that Almah can designate a married women. Betulah can but Almah not. There is not one instance in the OT or extra biblical literature where Almah is used to designate a married women
Where Almah is used it means a virgin or a young unmarried women.
The prophet used Almah because Betulah would have required some qualification.
Almah can mean a young women but it is always a virgin. Almah should b e translated unmarried damsel or virgin and virgin is implied in Heb. by saying unmarried.
The LXX translated it Parthenos which can only mean virgin. The HS in translating Is.8/14 in Matt. 1/23 used the Greek word Parthenos.

[Updated on: Tue, 21 August 2018 11:34]

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12535 is a reply to message #12525 ] Tue, 21 August 2018 12:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Messianic concepts

B. The Branch Prophecies

Zech. 3/8, 6/9-13

Term: Branch. - Heb. Tsemach
Is.4/2, 11/1, 53/2 some of the terms are a little different but the same idea.
Is.5/1-2f, 6/11-13 these speak of a parable of Israel as a vineyard and only a remnant or root will be left.
Is. 11/1 speaks of a branch growing out of that root.
Is.53/2 now we understand why a root is coming out of dry ground.
Jer.23/5-6, 33/15-16


Denial of the Messianic reference in Is. 4
They say it is just vegetation he is speaking of

Reply:
all the references use the same Heb. term for branch and to mean Messiah. It is unlikely Isaiah would use it differently.
Jer.23 - the branch is called the king
Zech. 3/8 God calls him my servant
Is.4/2 the branch of the Lord
Is.11/2 the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him. Its not a twig

Another view is the branch is the nation of Israel
Reply: it says the branch is for Israel

The Branch in Zech.3 & 6

The critical view is that the branch refers to either Joshua or Zerubbaal.
(Zerubbaal was the governor and Joshua was the high priest in Israel after the exile)

Reply:
- 6/12-13 "Behold the man" that eliminates Zerubbaal.
- priests cannot be kings and vs/vs
- both chap go together - in chap 3 they are being prepared for chap 6 - 3/8to Joshua and his fellow priests. They didn't have to understand what the sign was. The point is Joshua is being told he is a sign. He knew he wasn't the branch.


Critical view: 6/11 - is that the branch refers to either Joshua or Zerubbaal. They say crowns refers to Joshua and Zerubbaal but Zerubbaals name was dropped from the text. They say 6/13 "between them both" this refers to both men and Zerubbaal was simply dropped from the text.

Reply: crowns can simply mean a two tiered crown or two different metals like silver and gold. Only one crown was made and it was set on the head of Joshua.
All mention of Zerubbaal was not included in the text so that such a misunderstanding wouldn't take place. So we would know who Joshua was supposed to symbolize.

It is utterly impossible for a priest to be king.
It is impossible for Zerubbaal to be king as no Jewish man was allowed to be king from Zedekiah until now.

6/14 says to put the crown in the temple for a memorial. It wasn't even supposed to be worn.

Re: OT Theology #21 Doctrine of the Messiah [message #12537 is a reply to message #12525 ] Tue, 21 August 2018 14:24 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 610
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
Messianic concepts

C. The Servant prophecy of Isaiah 53

The Nature of the Prophecy

It is a transitional prophecy between the OT sacrificial type and the NT lamb of God. It is significant because it is the basis for NT teaching on the atonement.
Ps.22 Zech 12/10 speak of his sufferings but Is 53 is the clear passage
The importance of Is 53 to NT doctrine is seen in Jesus appealing to it right after his resurrection. Luk 24/25-26, Acts 3/18,26 Acts 88/26-31

Within Isaiah there are 4 servant poems:

Isaiah 42/1-9
Isaiah 49/1-9
Isaiah 50/4-9
Isaiah 52/13-53/12
Between Isaiah 40 and 53 servant is referred to 20 times

There are two general classifications or interpretations.

1. The servant is Israel or a remnant of it.
2. It is an individual

1. The servant is Israel. Between chap 40 & 53 the term servant is applied to Israel on numerous occasions. Until Pentecost the Jews believed Isaiah 53 to be messianic. After Pentecost they applied it to Israel. In the 19th century the critics picked up the Jewish view.

Israel and the critics believe the servant is Israel because :
a. Is.40-53 calls Israel Gods servant
b. Is. 52/13 - 53/12 depicts the substitutionary sufferings of Israel in Babylon.
Why?
Is. 40/2 Israel suffered and was cleansed and now is Gods servant to the nations.
When the nations view Israels double sufferings in the exile it moves the nations to repentance.

The biblical view is that Israel was punished for her own sins. Jer. 25/1-10

Jer. 15/1, Ezek.14/14,20 Because of their evil God said he would not honor the prayers of men whose prayers for Israel he honored before. The picture here is anything but redemptive suffering. The OT substitute had to be holy.

The servant is a pious remnant. Some say the servant is a pious remnant within the nation of Israel.
eg. The prophetic body in Israel because they always have and always do suffer
Some say it is the priesthood as a body. some say it is a group of Isaiahs disciples.

2. The Servant is an individual
eg.
- Isaiah Acts 8/34
- Jeremiah as he got a lot of suffering
- One of the kings

The Servant as Messiah. this is the biblical view

a. because of the objective statements made by Isaiah (42/1) it is unlikely he would have said this about himself.
b. Is.52/13, 15,53/11 The references there are to the future. That would exclude figures from the past.
c. His sinless character and the implications of his resurrection in Is.53/10
d. The nature and magnitude of his work as described in 42/4,49/5,53/4-6,7-12 go infinitely beyond any human figure.
e. The HS himself applies IS 53 to Jesus in the NT Matt. 8/16-17, Acts 8/32-35

[Updated on: Sun, 26 August 2018 14:46]

Previous Topic:Enoch
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Oct 22 23:02:55 CDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01899 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

OvercomersOnline.com is Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.3.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software