John S. Fe<strong>in</strong>berg, “<strong>Salvation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>” Tradition and <strong>Testament</strong>. Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Charles LeeFe<strong>in</strong>berg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.it seems obvious that one could hold <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of position I have espoused and rema<strong>in</strong> a consistentdispensationalist. Noth<strong>in</strong>g mentioned seems to contradict anyth<strong>in</strong>g essential to dispensationalism.Our discussion so far has stressed <strong>the</strong> unity <strong>in</strong> God’s method of salvation. But is anyth<strong>in</strong>gdifferent (besides <strong>the</strong> items mentioned) about be<strong>in</strong>g a believer <strong>in</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> times, asopposed to New <strong>Testament</strong> times? Certa<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> method of salvation is <strong>the</strong> same, but iseveryth<strong>in</strong>g else equal as well? This question is important for a proper understand<strong>in</strong>g not only of<strong>the</strong> two testaments, but also for a proper conception of <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ctions between biblical Judaismand biblical <strong>Christian</strong>ity. Moreover, <strong>in</strong> specify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> differences between <strong>the</strong> two, we want to becareful not to contradict what has just been presented, that is, we do not want to derivedifferences that will necessitate multiple ways of salvation, s<strong>in</strong>ce it has already been argued thatGod uses only one way. What, <strong>the</strong>n, seem to be <strong>the</strong> key differences?The first and obvious difference is that <strong>the</strong> content of faith presented to <strong>the</strong> believer and <strong>the</strong>expression of his faith differ, as has been noted. Second, <strong>the</strong> believer’s relation to <strong>the</strong> law haschanged (an aspect of <strong>the</strong> change particularly <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> expression of his faith). The Mosaicsystem dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between <strong>the</strong> moral law, <strong>the</strong> ceremonial law (rules and regulations regard<strong>in</strong>gclean or unclean, as well as <strong>the</strong> whole sacrificial system and all <strong>the</strong> regulations about <strong>the</strong>Tabernacle, for example), and <strong>the</strong> civil law (application of <strong>the</strong> moral law to certa<strong>in</strong> features ofIsrael’s community life). 21 But <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong> believer <strong>in</strong> Jesus Christ is no longer under <strong>the</strong>civil law or <strong>the</strong> ceremonial law. God’s standards of morality do not change. The two testamentstake different approaches toward obedience to <strong>the</strong> law. Put simply (perhaps too[p.63]simply), <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> approach can be characterized as “do and you shall live,” whereas <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong> <strong>the</strong> approach seems to be “you are; <strong>the</strong>refore, do.” But <strong>the</strong> oft-heard commentthat <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong> believers keep <strong>the</strong> law out of love, obviously imply<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>Old</strong><strong>Testament</strong> believers kept it out of obligation, is not consistent with passages such as Psalm 119:16, 35, 47, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174, which speak of delight <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> commandments of <strong>the</strong> Lord.Third, <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong> believer receives a much greater enablement for obedience to God <strong>in</strong>virtue of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dwell<strong>in</strong>g Holy Spirit. The <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> speaks of <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit com<strong>in</strong>g upon aperson for a special enduement of power for a particular task (e.g., <strong>the</strong> case of Saul as recorded <strong>in</strong>1 Sam. 10:6; 11:6; and 18:12; <strong>the</strong> case of craftsmen work<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> Tabernacle as noted <strong>in</strong> Exod.31:1-11; Micah as recorded <strong>in</strong> Mic. 3:8; <strong>the</strong> seventy elders as recorded <strong>in</strong> Num. 11:16-17, 24-30;and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cases of some of Israel’s judges as seen <strong>in</strong> Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19;15:14). But <strong>the</strong>re is no mention of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dwell<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit, as found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New<strong>Testament</strong> (Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 John 3:24). 22Fourth, <strong>the</strong> 'en Cristù (en christō) relationship, union of <strong>the</strong> believer with Christ, is part andparcel of <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong> believer’s salvation, whereas that relationship does not perta<strong>in</strong> tosalvation of an <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sa<strong>in</strong>t. Such union with Christ is accomplished by means of <strong>the</strong>m<strong>in</strong>istry of <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit whereby He baptizes <strong>the</strong> believer <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13). But <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit did not beg<strong>in</strong> to perform that m<strong>in</strong>istry until <strong>the</strong> day of Pentecost (Acts2).
John S. Fe<strong>in</strong>berg, “<strong>Salvation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>” Tradition and <strong>Testament</strong>. Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Charles LeeFe<strong>in</strong>berg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.F<strong>in</strong>ally, though <strong>the</strong>re was forgiveness for s<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> and <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Testament</strong>s, 23 s<strong>in</strong> wasonly fully and f<strong>in</strong>ally paid for when Christ made His sacrifice. This po<strong>in</strong>t is fully developed andexpla<strong>in</strong>ed below. 24SOTERIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICESAt this po<strong>in</strong>t, I should like to consider <strong>the</strong> function of <strong>the</strong> sacrificial system <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>.In particular, I am <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> clarify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> soteriological function of <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices.The Mosaic system of sacrifices is very complex, and it is not always easy to dist<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>the</strong>mean<strong>in</strong>g and function of <strong>the</strong> various sacrifices. None<strong>the</strong>less, for our purposes it would seempossible to clarify at least some of <strong>the</strong> different offer<strong>in</strong>gs that Scripture mentions. First, <strong>the</strong>re is<strong>the</strong> hl;[o (‘ōlā) or burnt offer<strong>in</strong>g (Lev. 1; 6:8-13). Payne suggests that this offer<strong>in</strong>g was <strong>the</strong>“cont<strong>in</strong>ual burnt offer<strong>in</strong>g” (mentioned <strong>in</strong> Exod. 29:38-42) and that it symbolized <strong>the</strong> idea ofcomplete and cont<strong>in</strong>uous atonement and consecration. 25 Second, <strong>the</strong> hj;n]omi (m<strong>in</strong>h»â) or mealoffer<strong>in</strong>g (Lev. 2; 6:14-23) symbolized especially <strong>the</strong> devotion of one’s person and property[p.64]to <strong>the</strong> Lord. 26 Third, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> category of offer<strong>in</strong>gs designated as peace offer<strong>in</strong>gs (Lev. 3; 7).Three offer<strong>in</strong>gs fall under this category, i.e., <strong>the</strong> thank offer<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> vow, and <strong>the</strong> freewilloffer<strong>in</strong>g. Oehler dist<strong>in</strong>guishes <strong>the</strong> three as follows:The hd;zOT jb"w< [zebah»tôdâ] be<strong>in</strong>g offered without hav<strong>in</strong>g been previously promised for somebenefit received, and thus referr<strong>in</strong>g to a favor not already supplicated..., was <strong>the</strong> highestamong <strong>the</strong> syl;v] [sh e lāmîm]. The vow, rd,n, [neder], on <strong>the</strong> contrary, is a promised offer<strong>in</strong>gusually presented after <strong>the</strong> reception of some benefit previously entreated; yet <strong>the</strong> one mak<strong>in</strong>ga promise might connect an offer<strong>in</strong>g immediately with his prayer, and it would fall under thisspecies; but <strong>the</strong> rd,n, [neder] always refers to someth<strong>in</strong>g dist<strong>in</strong>ctly prayed for. And lastly, <strong>the</strong>hb;d;n] [n e dābâ] is every free gift for which <strong>the</strong>re was no o<strong>the</strong>r occasion than <strong>the</strong> will of <strong>the</strong>offerer, whom his heart impelled to show his thankful sense of all <strong>the</strong> bless<strong>in</strong>gs which <strong>the</strong>goodness of God had bestowed on him. 27The f<strong>in</strong>al three offer<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>, guilt, and trespass offer<strong>in</strong>gs. The precise dist<strong>in</strong>ction between<strong>the</strong> three is a matter of debate, a debate that lies beyond <strong>the</strong> scope and purpose of this study.Suffice it to say, <strong>the</strong>se are <strong>the</strong> offer<strong>in</strong>gs that deal specifically with aton<strong>in</strong>g for s<strong>in</strong>. 28What does <strong>the</strong> Mosaic system teach about <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>se sacrifices? In o<strong>the</strong>r words, howare <strong>the</strong>y to be understood? What is <strong>the</strong>ir purpose? Unfortunately, <strong>the</strong>re is no unanimity <strong>in</strong> regardto <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of sacrifices. In exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g this topic, we shall consider it from two dist<strong>in</strong>ctperspectives, (1) that of <strong>the</strong> idea beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> sacrifice, and (2) that of <strong>the</strong> relation between <strong>the</strong>sacrifice and <strong>the</strong> sacrificer.
- Page 3: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 6: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 9 and 10: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 11 and 12: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 13 and 14: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 15 and 16: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 17 and 18: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 19: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 23 and 24: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 25 and 26: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 27 and 28: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 29 and 30: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 31 and 32: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t