Salvation in the Old Testament - Online Christian Library

More documents

Recommendations

Info

John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in the Old Testament” Tradition and Testament. Essays in Honor of Charles LeeFeinberg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.9:13; 10:4, 11-14). If Old Testament sacrifices had actually made a full and final objectivepayment for sins so as to remove them totally, then it could not be said that Christ’s sacrifice paidfor such sin. Of course, that would contradict the fact that Scripture teaches that Christ’s sacrificedid pay for the sins of all men (Heb. 2:9; 7:27; 10:10; Rom. 6:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). In fact, such aposition would even contradict a passage in the Old Testament itself, i.e., Isaiah 53:6. If all sinsin the Old Testament economy are completely removed by animal sacrifice, then it makes nosense for an Old Testament prophet to write that the Lord laid on Him (the Messiah) the iniquityof us all. Even if one refused to interpret the passage messianically and chose to see it fulfilled inIsrael, for example (that is, one claims that “him” is Israel), the passage still would make no senseif sin in the Old Testament were ultimately being removed by animal sacrifice. Because Christ’ssacrifice was not the first act in human history does not mean that its efficacy does not extend toevery sinful act of history. Old Testament sacrifices were, so to speak, the down payment for sin,whereas Christ’s sacrifice was the full and final payment. Why, once the sacrifice of Christ paysthe debt in full owed for sin, continue to make “down payments” on sin? The sacrificial systemmust be done away with.The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to (typological function) the sacrifice of Christ, whichwould fully handle sin (even if the Jew did not understand the typology of the sacrifices). On theground of His sacrifice to which the Old Testament sacrifices pointed, the Old Testament believerwho in repentant faith brought a sacrifice could be assured that God would cover, cleanse, andforgive such sin (soteriological function). But the objective deed, from God’s standpoint, thatwould completely pay for and remove sin was only offered on Calvary.Another reason that Old Testament sacrifices are not to be continued is that we can see that thescope of the respective sacrifices greatly differs. Under the Old Testament system, the generalrule was that when a sacrifice for sin was made, sin was actually forgiven, but only the sin forwhich the sacrifice was made was expiated. Of course, the sacrifice made on the Day ofAtonement covered more than just one sin, but even so, it did not cover all sin of all time. On thecontrary, the word of Scripture in regard to Christ’s sacrifice is that it is all-inclusive, once for all,never to be repeated (Heb. 10:12, 14). Certainly, if Christ’s one sacrifice pays for all sin, there isno need to go back to Old Testament sacrifices. What could they possibly add, since Christ’ssacrifice already provides atonement for all sin?There are many misunderstandings and seeming contradictions about the subject of OldTestament sacrifices. Someone might state that everything that has been said is contradicted byHebrews 10:4: “It is impossible[p.73]for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Moreover, the problem seems to becomemore complicated by Hebrews 9:13, which indicates that the blood of bulls and goats did cleansefrom sin. There seems to be a tremendous contradiction between the two passages as well as withthe content of the preceding discussion. The seriousness of the problem can be seen in that onecould incorrectly assume that Hebrews 10:4 means that no one in the Old Testament period wasactually saved, that Old Testament believers had to await the sacrifice of Christ before their faith
John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in the Old Testament” Tradition and Testament. Essays in Honor of Charles LeeFeinberg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.was actually “validated,” when they became saved (even though dead), or that there really was noforgiveness of sin when it was repented of. These problems can be resolved by a properunderstanding of the verses and concepts involved.First, Hebrews 9:13 does not relate to internal cleansing and forgiveness from sin. As Westcottnotes, the verse is actually referring to “the ceremonial purity which enabled the Jew to enjoy thefull privileges of his covenant worship and fellowship with the external Church of God.” 48 Withthe exception of the comments about the “Church of God” I find myself in full agreement. In fact,verse 14 contrasts Christ’s sacrifice with that of bulls and goats and shows that His sacrifice givesinternal cleansing, whereas that of bulls and goats is, according to verse 13, relevant to externalcleansing (ceremonial cleansing). Of course, Hebrews 10:1-4, refers primarily, if not exclusively,to internal cleansing from sin. Therefore, Hebrews 9:13 and 10:1-4 cannot be in contradiction,because they are not referring to the same kind of cleansing for the same purpose.Though Hebrews 9:13 does not refer to internal cleansing from sin, it is incorrect to assume thatsacrifices in the Old Testament were relevant to ceremonial cleansing only, and thus did notreally bring forgiveness of sin. We have already examined many passages from the OldTestament that indicate there was internal cleansing and forgiveness from sin. Moreover,Hebrews 10:4 seems to be talking in its context not about external, ceremonial matters, butinternal matters. But, by resolving the apparent contradiction between Hebrews 9:13 and 10:4, wehave not removed the problem altogether.A final resolution to this difficulty seems to be possible only in the light of two crucialdistinctions. The first is the distinction between the provision of atonement (the objective work ofGod) and the application of the atonement (the subjective work of God). The second is thedistinction between the forgiveness and the removal of sin. In regard to the first distinction, inorder for a person to be saved, two conditions are necessary: (1) someone must provide and payfor the basis of that salvation, and (2) someone must take the salvation that has been purchasedand apply it to the sinner in need of salvation. The former aspect, providing and paying[p.74]for the salvation is called the objective aspect of God’s atoning work. It is what He had to do as abasis for offering and applying salvation to any specific person. It is a work that is performedexternally to all subjects (persons), and in that respect it is called “objective.” When the objectivework has been performed, salvation is potentially available to the sinner. The basis for salvationhas been provided, so that it is possible to be saved. However, just because salvation is provideddoes not mean that anyone is in fact saved. The actualization of that salvation in the life of theindividual can only come when God has applied that salvation to the person. Since this aspect ofsalvation is done within the life of the person (subject), it is called the subjective aspect ofsalvation.In regard to the difference between removal of sin and forgiveness of sin, we can say, using theterminology set forth above, that the removal of sin refers to the payment for sin, the objectiveaspect of salvation. On the other hand, forgiveness comes when God applies salvation to thesubject or cleanses him from sin. Thus, it refers to the subjective side of salvation. That there is a
Page 3: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
Page 9 and 10: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t

Salvation in the Old Testament - Online Christian Library

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?