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.39-77.9:13; 10:4, 11-14). If <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices had actually made a full and f<strong>in</strong>al objectivepayment for s<strong>in</strong>s so as to remove <strong>the</strong>m totally, <strong>the</strong>n it could not be said that Christ’s sacrifice paidfor such s<strong>in</strong>. Of course, that would contradict <strong>the</strong> fact that Scripture teaches that Christ’s sacrificedid pay for <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>s 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 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> itself, i.e., Isaiah 53:6. If all s<strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> economy are completely removed by animal sacrifice, <strong>the</strong>n it makes nosense for an <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> prophet to write that <strong>the</strong> Lord laid on Him (<strong>the</strong> Messiah) <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>iquityof us all. Even if one refused to <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> passage messianically and chose to see it fulfilled <strong>in</strong>Israel, for example (that is, one claims that “him” is Israel), <strong>the</strong> passage still would make no senseif s<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> were ultimately be<strong>in</strong>g removed by animal sacrifice. Because Christ’ssacrifice was not <strong>the</strong> first act <strong>in</strong> human history does not mean that its efficacy does not extend toevery s<strong>in</strong>ful act of history. <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices were, so to speak, <strong>the</strong> down payment for s<strong>in</strong>,whereas Christ’s sacrifice was <strong>the</strong> full and f<strong>in</strong>al payment. Why, once <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of Christ pays<strong>the</strong> debt <strong>in</strong> full owed for s<strong>in</strong>, cont<strong>in</strong>ue to make “down payments” on s<strong>in</strong>? The sacrificial systemmust be done away with.The <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices po<strong>in</strong>ted to (typological function) <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of Christ, whichwould fully handle s<strong>in</strong> (even if <strong>the</strong> Jew did not understand <strong>the</strong> typology of <strong>the</strong> sacrifices). On <strong>the</strong>ground of His sacrifice to which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices po<strong>in</strong>ted, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> believerwho <strong>in</strong> repentant faith brought a sacrifice could be assured that God would cover, cleanse, andforgive such s<strong>in</strong> (soteriological function). But <strong>the</strong> objective deed, from God’s standpo<strong>in</strong>t, thatwould completely pay for and remove s<strong>in</strong> was only offered on Calvary.Ano<strong>the</strong>r reason that <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices are not to be cont<strong>in</strong>ued is that we can see that <strong>the</strong>scope of <strong>the</strong> respective sacrifices greatly differs. Under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> system, <strong>the</strong> generalrule was that when a sacrifice for s<strong>in</strong> was made, s<strong>in</strong> was actually forgiven, but only <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong> forwhich <strong>the</strong> sacrifice was made was expiated. Of course, <strong>the</strong> sacrifice made on <strong>the</strong> Day ofAtonement covered more than just one s<strong>in</strong>, but even so, it did not cover all s<strong>in</strong> of all time. On <strong>the</strong>contrary, <strong>the</strong> word of Scripture <strong>in</strong> regard to Christ’s sacrifice is that it is all-<strong>in</strong>clusive, once for all,never to be repeated (Heb. 10:12, 14). Certa<strong>in</strong>ly, if Christ’s one sacrifice pays for all s<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re isno need to go back to <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices. What could <strong>the</strong>y possibly add, s<strong>in</strong>ce Christ’ssacrifice already provides atonement for all s<strong>in</strong>?There are many misunderstand<strong>in</strong>gs and seem<strong>in</strong>g contradictions about <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>Old</strong><strong>Testament</strong> sacrifices. Someone might state that everyth<strong>in</strong>g that has been said is contradicted byHebrews 10:4: “It is impossible[p.73]for <strong>the</strong> blood of bulls and goats to take away s<strong>in</strong>s.” Moreover, <strong>the</strong> problem seems to becomemore complicated by Hebrews 9:13, which <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong> blood of bulls and goats did cleansefrom s<strong>in</strong>. There seems to be a tremendous contradiction between <strong>the</strong> two passages as well as with<strong>the</strong> content of <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g discussion. The seriousness of <strong>the</strong> problem can be seen <strong>in</strong> that onecould <strong>in</strong>correctly assume that Hebrews 10:4 means that no one <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> period wasactually saved, that <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> believers had to await <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of Christ before <strong>the</strong>ir faith
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.was actually “validated,” when <strong>the</strong>y became saved (even though dead), or that <strong>the</strong>re really was noforgiveness of s<strong>in</strong> when it was repented of. These problems can be resolved by a properunderstand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> verses and concepts <strong>in</strong>volved.First, Hebrews 9:13 does not relate to <strong>in</strong>ternal cleans<strong>in</strong>g and forgiveness from s<strong>in</strong>. As Westcottnotes, <strong>the</strong> verse is actually referr<strong>in</strong>g to “<strong>the</strong> ceremonial purity which enabled <strong>the</strong> Jew to enjoy <strong>the</strong>full privileges of his covenant worship and fellowship with <strong>the</strong> external Church of God.” 48 With<strong>the</strong> exception of <strong>the</strong> comments about <strong>the</strong> “Church of God” I f<strong>in</strong>d myself <strong>in</strong> full agreement. In fact,verse 14 contrasts Christ’s sacrifice with that of bulls and goats and shows that His sacrifice gives<strong>in</strong>ternal cleans<strong>in</strong>g, whereas that of bulls and goats is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to verse 13, relevant to externalcleans<strong>in</strong>g (ceremonial cleans<strong>in</strong>g). Of course, Hebrews 10:1-4, refers primarily, if not exclusively,to <strong>in</strong>ternal cleans<strong>in</strong>g from s<strong>in</strong>. Therefore, Hebrews 9:13 and 10:1-4 cannot be <strong>in</strong> contradiction,because <strong>the</strong>y are not referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> same k<strong>in</strong>d of cleans<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> same purpose.Though Hebrews 9:13 does not refer to <strong>in</strong>ternal cleans<strong>in</strong>g from s<strong>in</strong>, it is <strong>in</strong>correct to assume thatsacrifices <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> were relevant to ceremonial cleans<strong>in</strong>g only, and thus did notreally br<strong>in</strong>g forgiveness of s<strong>in</strong>. We have already exam<strong>in</strong>ed many passages from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong><strong>Testament</strong> that <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>in</strong>ternal cleans<strong>in</strong>g and forgiveness from s<strong>in</strong>. Moreover,Hebrews 10:4 seems to be talk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> its context not about external, ceremonial matters, but<strong>in</strong>ternal matters. But, by resolv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> apparent contradiction between Hebrews 9:13 and 10:4, wehave not removed <strong>the</strong> problem altoge<strong>the</strong>r.A f<strong>in</strong>al resolution to this difficulty seems to be possible only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> light of two crucialdist<strong>in</strong>ctions. The first is <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> provision of atonement (<strong>the</strong> objective work ofGod) and <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> atonement (<strong>the</strong> subjective work of God). The second is <strong>the</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> forgiveness and <strong>the</strong> removal of s<strong>in</strong>. In regard to <strong>the</strong> first dist<strong>in</strong>ction, <strong>in</strong>order for a person to be saved, two conditions are necessary: (1) someone must provide and payfor <strong>the</strong> basis of that salvation, and (2) someone must take <strong>the</strong> salvation that has been purchasedand apply it to <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ner <strong>in</strong> need of salvation. The former aspect, provid<strong>in</strong>g and pay<strong>in</strong>g[p.74]for <strong>the</strong> salvation is called <strong>the</strong> objective aspect of God’s aton<strong>in</strong>g work. It is what He had to do as abasis for offer<strong>in</strong>g and apply<strong>in</strong>g salvation to any specific person. It is a work that is performedexternally to all subjects (persons), and <strong>in</strong> that respect it is called “objective.” When <strong>the</strong> objectivework has been performed, salvation is potentially available to <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ner. 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 <strong>in</strong> fact saved. The actualization of that salvation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>dividual can only come when God has applied that salvation to <strong>the</strong> person. S<strong>in</strong>ce this aspect ofsalvation is done with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> person (subject), it is called <strong>the</strong> subjective aspect ofsalvation.In regard to <strong>the</strong> difference between removal of s<strong>in</strong> and forgiveness of s<strong>in</strong>, we can say, us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>term<strong>in</strong>ology set forth above, that <strong>the</strong> removal of s<strong>in</strong> refers to <strong>the</strong> payment for s<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> objectiveaspect of salvation. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, forgiveness comes when God applies salvation to <strong>the</strong>subject or cleanses him from s<strong>in</strong>. Thus, it refers to <strong>the</strong> subjective side of salvation. That <strong>the</strong>re is a
- 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 and 20: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 21 and 22: 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: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 31 and 32: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t