Deeper Life Women
Home » Theological Doctrine » OT Theology » OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin.
OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12351] Mon, 01 January 2018 12:05 Go to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 609
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Doctrine of Sin
The Hebrew concept of Guilt
The Old Testament Concept of Salvation
The Wrath of God
The Doctrine of Propitiation

The Doctrine of Atonement in the Old Testament

The concept of Imputation
The Necessity for the Blood Atonement

[Updated on: Wed, 03 January 2018 14:58]

OT Theology # 3 The Doctrine of Sin. [message #12352 is a reply to message #12351 ] Mon, 01 January 2018 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 609
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Doctrine of Sin

Why study it.

a) It is in the OT that sin is introduced to the human race
b) The consequences of sin are shown here
c) The remedy for it is shown here. Typified in the OT sacrifices.

The Biblical view of Man

a) Man has great dignity conferred on him by being created in the image of God
b) Man is also portrayed as a sinner.

The Liberal view of Man

a) He is not morally depraved but merely misguided. He needs education to straighten him out. Sin is merely a stumble in his upward evolution.
b)Since finite man cannot sin infinitely then infinite hell & punishment in an eternal hell is impossible.
c) Man is inherently good.

The conclusion

In both OT & NT the relationship between God & man because of sin is absolute alienation. Gen 3 God cursed man.
Ps. 58/3, Ps. 14/1-3, Ex.23/7, Ex. 34/7 Jer. 17/9

The Nature of Sin & Guilt in the OT
It falls into 5 classes depending on the term used.

a) Chata- to miss the mark or goal. This is the common word for sin in the OT. It includes sin against sin against God or man. This term signifies the objective act of sin ie. ones conduct, disobeying God.
Gen. 40/1, 42/1

b) Rasha- to be wicked. It expresses the inner character of the sinner. Also indicates an unregenerate man. a saint in the OT can sin but he is never called Rasha. The term usually denotes one who is guilty of a crime or who is disobedient & deserves punishment with the cause of it in himself. ie: he is wicked

c) Avah- To bend or twist- to pervert. This term speaks of the perverted inner character of the the wicked. Prov. 12/8, Jer. 23/31

d) Asham- denotes the state of the sinner before the law. He trespasses or is guilty. The term signifies liability & guilt to punishment through transgression of the law. The term is legal in character

e) pasha - The wilful rejection of Gods will and the refusal to obey him. The Jew viewed the whole OT as the law and viewed sin as not merely an error in judgement or merely missing the mark. But this term describes sin as an act of defiance against God.
Ezek.2/1-3, 7-8
Personal self-willed conscious defiance of the will of God.
Isaiah 43/27, 1/2, Jer.2/29

This is the basic term used in the OT to describe the deep nature of sin & rebellion against God.

[Updated on: Wed, 03 January 2018 14:58]

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: 609
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"
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: 609
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


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: 609
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Doctrine of Propitiation


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.


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: 609
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: 609
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 message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 609
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
The Necessity for the Blood Atonement


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.
Previous Topic:OT Theology # 18 The Theocracy of God
Next Topic:OT Theology # 19 The Election of Israel
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Mon Sep 24 20:09:49 CDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00940 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::. is Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.3.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software