Self Righteousness

[JLB]

Please demonstrate where I said exactly that.



This is a very "pregnant word", and is difficult to translate. Indeed the English Standard version uses the word "reconciliation" in verses 5:10 & 11, and the scholars who did that are fare more advanced than I am, but I am not sure that the description of it being a "better word" is appropriate here. For sure, the verbal (proper term) is an Aorist active participle, singular and masculine. With participles, the tense is kinda irrelevant because it is the nature of a participle to show an ongoing action, namely reconciliation. The choice of the past (Aorist) is significant only to the degree that it establishes a time in history whereby the believer who was an enemy of God suddenly became saved, and the reconciliation began, and continues.



The only "problem" that I have with the KJV is that it is a 400+ years-old translation. It is not to say that it is a "bad translation" but because some of the word meanings have changed in those 400 years, we in 2015 can understand it better if different and newer words are used.



No snarkiness meant, but there is no parallel between the blood of Jesus Christ and that of bulls and goats. The blood of bulls and other animals is used as a type of the Atonement where Jesus body hung on the Cross as a penalty for our sins, and was eviscerated when the Roman soldier thrust up his spear into the pericardium membrane and into the heart of Jesus to see if He was already dead.

No, I am not arguing with you except to say that you falsely attributed something I did not say to me-- hey we all err at times and to discuss the importance of that Greek word without attempting any "intimidation" about knowledge of Koine Greek.

You said atonement.

Your quote -

SALVATION
it is rooted in the Atonement of Jesus,

I disagree based on your usage of the word atonement.


JLB

 

[By Grace]

You said atonement.

Actually Jesus blood did not, does not atone for our sins, but rather removes the sin.

By Grace said: ↑
SALVATION
it is rooted in the Atonement of Jesus,

If I am seemingly snarky, it is because I am tired, and ready for bed. It is not deliberate, it is not you; rather it is me.

Honestly, I am confused as to what you are attempting to say above, and my intention is to clarify, not debate. My confusion comes from your first comment post 1082527. You said "Actually Jesus blood did not, does not atone for our sins, but rather removes the sin. " and I replied that I did not say that. Rightly, or wrongly you tell me which, I believed that you were attempting to correct a wrong statement I made and that is why I asked to demonstrate where I said the statement you said.

Then you posted, "You said Atonement," which is correct. If that is an accurate assessment of the discussion so far, please affirm it, if it is inaccurate, please correct it.

So before we go further, and so we do not talk at each other, I must ask you what is your definition of the word "Atonement" as it relates to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross? You may use any source that you desire, and I can discuss what I believe the word "Atonement" means as it relates to Jesus Christ on Calvary.

When we do that, we are seeking to communicate on common grounds, and I believe that is very important as it relates to conversing about the same things.

I am NOT attempting to play "Gotcha" with you because that is a childish game. OK? But it seems that first we have to go on with "baby steps" before communication breaks down.

 

[JLB]

If I am seemingly snarky, it is because I am tired, and ready for bed. It is not deliberate, it is not you; rather it is me.

Honestly, I am confused as to what you are attempting to say above, and my intention is to clarify, not debate. My confusion comes from your first comment post 1082527. You said "Actually Jesus blood did not, does not atone for our sins, but rather removes the sin. " and I replied that I did not say that. Rightly, or wrongly you tell me which, I believed that you were attempting to correct a wrong statement I made and that is why I asked to demonstrate where I said the statement you said.

Then you posted, "You said Atonement," which is correct. If that is an accurate assessment of the discussion so far, please affirm it, if it is inaccurate, please correct it.

So before we go further, and so we do not talk at each other, I must ask you what is your definition of the word "Atonement" as it relates to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross? You may use any source that you desire, and I can discuss what I believe the word "Atonement" means as it relates to Jesus Christ on Calvary.

When we do that, we are seeking to communicate on common grounds, and I believe that is very important as it relates to conversing about the same things.

I am NOT attempting to play "Gotcha" with you because that is a childish game. OK? But it seems that first we have to go on with "baby steps" before communication breaks down.

I was responding to your post, in the "vein" of this statement: I wish that some on this site would take it upon themselves to make an "Official CF Concise Dictionary"

You stated:

SALVATION
it is rooted in the Atonement of Jesus,

This is your "text book" definition for salvation?

I simply don't agree with the use of the word atonement, in relation to Salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Atonement can be mistakenly confused with the blood of bulls and goats, which atoned for, or "covered" their sin.

Atonement is not found in the New Testament, except in the King James, and does not accurately described what the blood of Jesus does for us who believe, which is take away our sin.

Not so, with the atonement of the blood of bulls and goats.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:4,11


It's not that you are wrong for using that word, with your definition of salvation, because it is used once in the King James, but is better rendered reconciliation.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Romans 5:11 KJV

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 5:11 NKJV


So to sum it up.

In light of our need to have a Official CF Concise Dictionary, could we start with this word "atonement", whose primary meaning in the OT is to cover, rather than take away, our sin.


Thanks, JLB

 

[Obadiah]

I think you are asking us to come up with specific and concise definitions of terms a lot of which even professional theologians can't agree on. I doubt any of us here on staff have that ability. Sorry.

 

[JLB]

I think you are asking us to come up with specific and concise definitions of terms a lot of which even professional theologians can't agree on. I doubt any of us here on staff have that ability. Sorry.

Agreed.

 

[By Grace]

So to sum it up.

In light of our need to have a Official CF Concise Dictionary, could we start with this word "atonement", whose primary meaning in the OT is to cover, rather than take away, our sin.

Thank you for your explanation, JLB I can see your point, and to one extent, I can agree that "atonement" and " reconciliation" are very similar terms, but I cannot agree to the distinction that you make. So what? The truth of the matter is that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we are indeed brought closer reconciled to God the Father.

I am going to "push the envelope" a little bit, and quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) to explain the reasons why I believe as I do, and I am not stating "You are wrong" or "I win the argument"

ATONEMENT:
a-ton'-ment: Translates kaphar; chaTa'; ratsah, the last employed only of human relations (1Sa 29:4); translates the following Greek stems hilas-, simple and compounded with various prepositions; allag- in composition only, but with numerous prepositions and even two at a time, e. g. Mt 5:24; lip- rarely (Da 9:24)...

1. Hebrew and Greek Words:

The root meanings of the Hebrew words, taking them in the order cited above, are, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i. e. by some conduct, or course of action. Of the Greek words the meanings, in order, are "to be," or "cause to be, friendly"; "to render other," hence to restore; "to leave" and with preposition to leave off, i. e. enmity, or evil, etc. ; "to render holy," "to set apart for"; hence, of the Deity, to appropriate or accept for Himself...

3. Not to Be Settled by Lexicon Merely:

It is at once clear that no mere word-study can determine the Bible teaching concerning atonement. Even when first employed for expressing Hebrew and Christian thought, these terms, like all other religious terms, already had a content that had grown up with their use, and it is by no means easy to tell how far heathen conceptions might be imported into our theology by a rigidly etymological study of terms employed. <SNIP>

4. Not Chiefly a Study in Theology:

There is even greater danger of making the study of the Atonement a study in dogmatic theology. The frequent employment of the expression "the Atonement" shows this tendency. The work of Christ in reconciling the world to God has occupied so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very term atonement has come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere, and it is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of the Atonement and learn of atonement.

5. Notes on Use of Terms
(2) Of the Greek words employed hilaskesthai means "to make propitious" (Heb 2:17; Le 6:30; 16:20; Eze 45:20); allattein, used however only in composition with prepositions, means "to render other," "to restore" to another (former?) condition of harmony (compare Mt 5:24 = "to be reconciled" to a fellow-man as a condition of making an acceptable sacrifice to God).s an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Le 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1Sa 29:4; Eze 45:15,20; Da 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

II. Bible Teaching concerning Atonement in General:

The Atonement of Christ must be interpreted in connection with the conception of atonement in general in the Scriptures. This idea of atonement is, moreover, part of the general circle of fundamental ideas of the religion of Yahweh and Jesus. Theories of the Atonement root themselves in conceptions of the nature and character of God, His holiness, love, grace, mercy, etc.; of man, his nature, disposition and capacities; of sin and guilt.

1. Primary Assumption of Unity of God and Man:

The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Luke 15).

III. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

1. Preparation for New Testament Doctrine:

2. The One Clear Fact:

However much theologians may disagree as to the rationale of the Atonement, there is, as there can be, no question that Jesus and all His interpreters in the New Testament represent the Atonement between God and men as somehow accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is also an agreed fact in exegesis that Jesus and His apostles understood His death to be radically connected with this Atonement.
authored by William Owen Carver ​

Obviously, there is much left out in this study above, and again it is not meant to be argumentative, but informational and didactic. BTW I enlarged the print to create more white space and to make it easier to read.

May God richly bless you today, JLB

 

[By Grace]

I think you are asking us to come up with specific and concise definitions of terms a lot of which even professional theologians can't agree on. I doubt any of us here on staff have that ability. Sorry.

There are ways to get around that, Obidiah. One way to do that is to "farm out" the work to others, then the board owners and administrators can agree or disagree on what is the best definition. They can set a limit on the number of words permitted to make a definition so that there are no tomes, such as I posted to JLB above. I believe that it is indeed needed, and will actually bring unity. That is because it will rule out any "wacko meanings" that some cult members attempt to foist on others here, and therefore generate more heat than light in the forums.

The process can begin with a few of the most confused terms, and end whenever the admins deem the project closed, nor does the project need to be exhaustive.That is because the idea is to merely fit the needs of the board.

If you think it is feasible, I ask that you forward this post to any administrator, or all of them. Thank you.

 

[JLB]

Thank you for your explanation, JLB I can see your point, and to one extent, I can agree that "atonement" and " reconciliation" are very similar terms, but I cannot agree to the distinction that you make. So what? The truth of the matter is that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we are indeed brought closer reconciled to God the Father.

I am going to "push the envelope" a little bit, and quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) to explain the reasons why I believe as I do, and I am not stating "You are wrong" or "I win the argument"

ATONEMENT:
a-ton'-ment: Translates kaphar; chaTa'; ratsah, the last employed only of human relations (1Sa 29:4); translates the following Greek stems hilas-, simple and compounded with various prepositions; allag- in composition only, but with numerous prepositions and even two at a time, e. g. Mt 5:24; lip- rarely (Da 9:24)...

1. Hebrew and Greek Words:

The root meanings of the Hebrew words, taking them in the order cited above, are, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i. e. by some conduct, or course of action. Of the Greek words the meanings, in order, are "to be," or "cause to be, friendly"; "to render other," hence to restore; "to leave" and with preposition to leave off, i. e. enmity, or evil, etc. ; "to render holy," "to set apart for"; hence, of the Deity, to appropriate or accept for Himself...

3. Not to Be Settled by Lexicon Merely:

It is at once clear that no mere word-study can determine the Bible teaching concerning atonement. Even when first employed for expressing Hebrew and Christian thought, these terms, like all other religious terms, already had a content that had grown up with their use, and it is by no means easy to tell how far heathen conceptions might be imported into our theology by a rigidly etymological study of terms employed. <SNIP>

4. Not Chiefly a Study in Theology:

There is even greater danger of making the study of the Atonement a study in dogmatic theology. The frequent employment of the expression "the Atonement" shows this tendency. The work of Christ in reconciling the world to God has occupied so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very term atonement has come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere, and it is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of the Atonement and learn of atonement.

5. Notes on Use of Terms
(2) Of the Greek words employed hilaskesthai means "to make propitious" (Heb 2:17; Le 6:30; 16:20; Eze 45:20); allattein, used however only in composition with prepositions, means "to render other," "to restore" to another (former?) condition of harmony (compare Mt 5:24 = "to be reconciled" to a fellow-man as a condition of making an acceptable sacrifice to God).s an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Le 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1Sa 29:4; Eze 45:15,20; Da 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

II. Bible Teaching concerning Atonement in General:

The Atonement of Christ must be interpreted in connection with the conception of atonement in general in the Scriptures. This idea of atonement is, moreover, part of the general circle of fundamental ideas of the religion of Yahweh and Jesus. Theories of the Atonement root themselves in conceptions of the nature and character of God, His holiness, love, grace, mercy, etc.; of man, his nature, disposition and capacities; of sin and guilt.

1. Primary Assumption of Unity of God and Man:

The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Luke 15).

III. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

1. Preparation for New Testament Doctrine:

2. The One Clear Fact:

However much theologians may disagree as to the rationale of the Atonement, there is, as there can be, no question that Jesus and all His interpreters in the New Testament represent the Atonement between God and men as somehow accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is also an agreed fact in exegesis that Jesus and His apostles understood His death to be radically connected with this Atonement.
authored by William Owen Carver ​

Obviously, there is much left out in this study above, and again it is not meant to be argumentative, but informational and didactic. BTW I enlarged the print to create more white space and to make it easier to read.

May God richly bless you today, JLB

Here is why I believe reconciliation is the proper translation here in Romans 5:11.

Simple Context.

Reconciliation is the subject of what Paul is teaching, as we read from the previous verse.

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Romans 5:10-11

Now the King James -


For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Romans 5:10-11


Sorry Brother.

The best word to use here is reconciliation, as it conveys the true meaning of what Paul is teaching.



4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:4


JLB

 

[childeye]

The logic being applied here is - The absence of that which causes your salvation, will result in you losing that very salvation.
I'll have to agree with the logic.

But is faith in Christ the very cause of our salvation - or is faith a necessary factor unto salvation where such faith itself is caused entirely and consistently by a third cause?

If as a lifeguard, I swam towards a sinking person and decided to haul him ashore by placing a float over him, I could say that he was saved by my effort through means of a float. The root causation is just me - with the necessary accompanying factor being a float that I chose to use. Note, the float over the person too is caused by me. I could very well have decided to save him any other way - through means of a boat or through means of air-lifting him etc..but since I chose the sole means of a float, I can consistently correlate it with him being saved. For instance when I say, Every person with my float over him is saved - it is true and yet not indicative of the float being the cause of his salvation.

Of course, if my job were to simply throw a float around the sinking person, and not care if it's still around him as I drag it ashore - then I'd say it's that person's responsibility to ensure he's clinging on for dear life - a conditional placed over the float. But if I set out to save him, and guaranteed/promised that I'd get him ashore based on my ability to ensure he's always holding on to the float no matter his weakness or slip-ups, then the float serves as an indicative assurance of that guarantee/promise alone and not as a conditional. Its absence would also serve as an indicative evidence of those not being causatively saved by me.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this is no new topic of discussion - it's simply the debate between synergism and monergism. I'm inclined to believe the latter since all causation of salvation is attributed to God alone and none to man - therein all glory to Him while the flesh is denied and decreases.


I do not cling on to the float meant for the person I'm saving, just as God doesn't do our trusting...and yet I'm the one who was the primary and sole cause for him having it as well as the continuing cause that ensures it's always over him. As to how God similarly enables a sinner to have faith is by causing him to be born again with a heart that is not rebellious against God and with a renewed spirit that now begins to understand the things of God so as to believe in the Good News of Christ. This again is the old debate of whether regeneration precedes faith or not.

To have faith in a person is to assuredly know that the outcome which that person has promised to establish will be fulfilled, based on his ability to achieve/perform so. Faith, therefore, is not something I do of myself - it's rather a response that can be grown in me just by that person reassuring me constantly(as we see God's promises) and by displaying more of his ability to achieve/perform so(as we see God's works) and by giving understanding of His purposes such that we even know why it has to be as He has declared and by removing my blindness and negating my rebellion in the flesh. So we see that God both enables us and preserves us in such a response by simply what He alone does.


I am in disagreement with the conclusion that nothing else happens apart from the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Of course, no new spirit is Created as such, but there is a new heart(core belief system) given and the existing spirit is renewed(made alive) such that we who were in the flesh before such regeneration, are now no longer in the flesh but in the spirit (Rom 8:8-9)- such that an entire new personhood of the inner man is made alive to us. I do read the phrases "in the flesh" and "in the spirit" quite literally as denoting our souls being encapsulated by 2 very distinct natures.

It's hypothetical to guess what the state of the regenerated believer would be if God were to remove His Holy Spirit - since that would refute His purposes given that the Holy Spirit is the very pledge or guarantee of God's salvific work in us. No point assuring a believer that he will be saved as long as the Holy Spirit dwells within him and in the same breath saying the Holy Spirit may be removed any time dependent on that person's choices - that's just the old covenant which says I'll keep my end of the bargain as long as you keep yours. But the new covenant is that of promises alone and no conditionals - just compare Lev 18:5 and Eze 36:27.

For what it's worth, I think this is a geat post. I love how it navigates through the semantic confusion in the subject matter. Ivdavid, I come away with the impression that you have seen how the Truth is not impotent.

 

[By Grace]

Here is why I believe reconciliation is the proper translation here in Romans 5:11.

Simple Contex

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:4
JLB

I am glad to see that you believe that context is important. but have you realized that you are indeed taking Hebrews 10:4 out of its context? You see, I have an apologetic axiom that has never proved itself wrong :"Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time."

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers there unto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
​

The first thing I wish you to notice are the words I made bold red. With the exception of verse 12, will you agree with me that these all speak about the first advent on Earth of Jesus? I hope so.

The second thing that you should notice that the rest of this section is making a compare and contrast with the Laws of the OT, and the new dispensation, ushered in by Jesus Christ, and explained in the NT. I made the references to the OT system in bold green.

All that is in verses 1-6
Now look specifically at verse 1, and notice the word "shadow" and here is a great translation of that verse:

ESV | ‎Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
​

It also uses the same English word "shadow". We know from playing out in the sun that while we each have a unique shadow, it is very easy to determine that this shadow belongs to him, and the other shadow belongs to her. But it is also understood that the shadow of a person, no matter how unique is not the same thing as the flesh a blood body that casts the shadow, The fancy theological terms for this phenomenon are "type" and "antitype". Everything in the OT is a type of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of that type. And that is what the writer of Hebrews says in 10:1 (of course it is more elegant than I can write)

Then you have a description of the shadows fulfilled in Jesus Christ from verses 1 to 6. The writer was writing about the inadequacy of the OT system, and he says

1) it is never permanent because it is repeated yearly (Yom Kippur, which is also called The Day of Atonement)
2) If it were perfect then people would never come back
3) If the worshipers REALLY had their sins purged, then they would have no more sins​

All these factors combine to make one startling conclusion:

4) the blood of bulls and of goats, which are a shadow of Jesus cannot take away our sins because THAT blood is inadequate.
​

It is my impression that you are essentially saying that since the blood of bulls and goats can not expiate our sins, then the blood of Jesus is likewise in effective. That does not follow the compare/contrast format of that section, and therein is where my axiom comes into the picture, and makes itself a challenge to study more diligently.

Finally comes the bold purple (hope that it does not hurt your eyes!) These are the things that are accomplished by Jesus shedding His blood for all believers. Notice the "once and for all" it is pointing to the superiority of Jesus and what He accomplished in the
Atonement.

Verse 12 should be both bold red and purple because it points to the "once and forever" things that Christians have in Jesus Christ.

I REALLY hope that this little study edifies you, and that you do not take it as a "trouncing". I believe that God is grieved when people take His Word, and trounces another Christian. But I did have fun in doing this, because in the middle, I really praised Jesus for all the things He has done for a sinner like me, and He did it so that the shadows never need to be repeated.

‎​

 

[JLB]

I am glad to see that you believe that context is important. but have you realized that you are indeed taking Hebrews 10:4 out of its context? You see, I have an apologetic axiom that has never proved itself wrong :"Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time."

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers there unto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
​

The first thing I wish you to notice are the words I made bold red. With the exception of verse 12, will you agree with me that these all speak about the first advent on Earth of Jesus? I hope so.

The second thing that you should notice that the rest of this section is making a compare and contrast with the Laws of the OT, and the new dispensation, ushered in by Jesus Christ, and explained in the NT. I made the references to the OT system in bold green.

All that is in verses 1-6
Now look specifically at verse 1, and notice the word "shadow" and here is a great translation of that verse:

ESV | ‎Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
​

It also uses the same English word "shadow". We know from playing out in the sun that while we each have a unique shadow, it is very easy to determine that this shadow belongs to him, and the other shadow belongs to her. But it is also understood that the shadow of a person, no matter how unique is not the same thing as the flesh a blood body that casts the shadow, The fancy theological terms for this phenomenon are "type" and "antitype". Everything in the OT is a type of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of that type. And that is what the writer of Hebrews says in 10:1 (of course it is more elegant than I can write)

Then you have a description of the shadows fulfilled in Jesus Christ from verses 1 to 6. The writer was writing about the inadequacy of the OT system, and he says

1) it is never permanent because it is repeated yearly (Yom Kippur, which is also called The Day of Atonement)
2) If it were perfect then people would never come back
3) If the worshipers REALLY had their sins purged, then they would have no more sins​

All these factors combine to make one startling conclusion:

4) the blood of bulls and of goats, which are a shadow of Jesus cannot take away our sins because THAT blood is inadequate.
​

It is my impression that you are essentially saying that since the blood of bulls and goats can not expiate our sins, then the blood of Jesus is likewise in effective. That does not follow the compare/contrast format of that section, and therein is where my axiom comes into the picture, and makes itself a challenge to study more diligently.

Finally comes the bold purple (hope that it does not hurt your eyes!) These are the things that are accomplished by Jesus shedding His blood for all believers. Notice the "once and for all" it is pointing to the superiority of Jesus and what He accomplished in the
Atonement.

Verse 12 should be both bold red and purple because it points to the "once and forever" things that Christians have in Jesus Christ.

I REALLY hope that this little study edifies you, and that you do not take it as a "trouncing". I believe that God is grieved when people take His Word, and trounces another Christian. But I did have fun in doing this, because in the middle, I really praised Jesus for all the things He has done for a sinner like me, and He did it so that the shadows never need to be repeated.

‎​

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation .
Romans 5:10-11

JLB

 

[MarkT]

Righteousness is imputed, and it comes by faith. Abraham believed.., and was DECLARED to be righteous by God

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Genesis 15: 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?​

Righteousness is not a gift. It is a forensic term whereby the believer has thew righteousness of Jesus Christ "charged over" to his/her account, and that when God the Father looks at the believer, He does not see our sinful nature; rather he sees the sinless nature of Jesus in and on us.

Abraham was righteous because he believed God. That is, he did what the LORD commanded him to do, and he never wavered in his belief that the LORD would keep his promises. Essentially that's what faith is. Was Abraham righteous according to the law? The Bible doesn't say he was perfect according to the law.

Every good thing comes from God, James 1:17, including 'the free gift of righteousness' Romans 5:17. And Paul says, 'according to the measure of faith which God assigned him.' Ro. 12:3 So it is a gift. It is not imputed. It is assigned. By 'it' I mean faith/righteousness.

Does faith make us perfect according to the law? Unfortunately not, not as long as we are in this earthly tent and the devil can tempt us. But that's Ok because we are dead to the law and no longer under it. Still Paul said, 'aim at righteousness' 1 Tim. 6:11 The scriptures are profitable for 'training in righteousness' 2 Tim. 3:16 We have become slaves of righteousness. Ro. 6:8

So it's not a done deal at any one time. It takes training and patience and discipline, 'for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. Pr.3:12 and growth in the wisdom and the knowledge of God. Faith increases. 2 Cor. 10:15

Faith will be tested as Abraham's faith was tested, and we will be refined, as the LORD said. Isa. 48:10

And as Peter said, 'Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you'. 1 Peter 4:12

 

[JLB]

Abraham was righteous because he believed God. That is, he did what the LORD commanded him to do, and he never wavered in his belief that the LORD would keep his promises. Essentially that's what faith is. Was Abraham righteous according to the law? The Bible doesn't say he was perfect according to the law.

Every good thing comes from God, James 1:17, including 'the free gift of righteousness' Romans 5:17. And Paul says, 'according to the measure of faith which God assigned him.' Ro. 12:3 So it is a gift. It is not imputed. It is assigned. By 'it' I mean faith/righteousness.

Does faith make us perfect according to the law? Unfortunately not, not as long as we are in this earthly tent and the devil can tempt us. But that's Ok because we are dead to the law and no longer under it. Still Paul said, 'aim at righteousness' 1 Tim. 6:11 The scriptures are profitable for 'training in righteousness' 2 Tim. 3:16 We have become slaves of righteousness. Ro. 6:8

So it's not a done deal at any one time. It takes training and patience and discipline, 'for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. Pr.3:12 and growth in the wisdom and the knowledge of God. Faith increases. 2 Cor. 10:15

Faith will be tested as Abraham's faith was tested, and we will be refined, as the LORD said. Isa. 48:10

And as Peter said, 'Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you'. 1 Peter 4:12

Great Post, Mark.


JLB

 

[By Grace]

Abraham was righteous because he believed God.

correct.

That is, he did what the LORD commanded him to do,

Which came AFTER he was declared righteous. Belief is not a "work" it is simply intellectual assent to what is presented.

and he never wavered in his belief that the LORD would keep his promises. Essentially that's what faith is.

Indeed

Was Abraham righteous according to the law? The Bible doesn't say he was perfect according to the law.

The Law came AFTER Abraham; it was given by Moses. Thus there is an error of chronology in the question.

Every good thing comes from God, James 1:17, including 'the free gift of righteousness'

Please quote accurately, and in context, otherwise there will be a pretextural error:

James 1: 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath​

You can see that Righteousness is not meant by James

And Paul says, 'according to the measure of faith which God assigned him.' Ro. 12:3

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:​

You can see that righteousness is not the topic of Paul in this section

So it is a gift. It is not imputed. It is assigned. By 'it' I mean faith/righteousness.

Faith is not the same thing as righteousness Of the 35 times that Paul mentions "gift", only Ephesians 2:8 has "gift and righteousness together. and in Hebrews 11: 4 where it speaks of Abel's righteousness

Does faith make us perfect according to the law? Unfortunately not, not as long as we are in this earthly tent and the devil can tempt us

.
Are you equating temptation with sin? I hope not, but that is a different discussion and a different subject. Let's stay on this subject,OK

But that's Ok because we are dead to the law and no longer under it. Still Paul said, 'aim at righteousness' 1 Tim. 6:11 The scriptures are profitable for 'training in righteousness' 2 Tim. 3:16 We have become slaves of righteousness. Ro. 6:8

We can GROW in righteousness as my tomato plants grow in soil, that is unmistakable, but you are not understanding but it is me who plants the seed in the soil, and later transplants the hardened plants into my garden. In the same way, it is God the Father, Who declared us righteous, based upon our belief in Jesus Christ, and it is Holy Spirit who guides unto sanctification. I believe you may be conflating two terms here. And that is because you are giving partial quotes from Scripture that have no bearing on the subject of righteousness

Genesis 15: 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. ​

So it's not a done deal at any one time. It takes training and patience and discipline, 'for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. Pr.3:12 and growth in the wisdom and the knowledge of God. Faith increases. 2 Cor. 10:15

Faith will be tested as Abraham's faith was tested, and we will be refined, as the LORD said. Isa. 48:10

And as Peter said, 'Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you'. 1 Peter 4:12

No one doubts the truth of these Scriptures, but in the same manner as I described above, there is no mentioning of "righteousness" in any of the quotes directly above. I appreciate your obvious love for Jesus and the Word of God, but it is also important to consider the context of a passage. My Scriptural axiom is 100% true, "any verse taken from its context becomes a pretext"

That is how some misinformed people can "justify suicide" and they begin their justification with the verse saying "Judas went out and hanged himself" and continue along in their errors. Can you understand what I am saying, brother?

 

[MarkT]

Great Post, Mark.


JLB

Hello JLB

 

[JLB]

Which came AFTER he was declared righteous. Belief is not a "work" it is simply intellectual assent to what is presented.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29 KJV

Believe is a work of righteousness because it is not only a mental assent, but a commitment exercised through obedience.

Believe = commit to by obedience.

Unbelief = Disobedience.


JLB

 

[JLB]

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

You have taken the word "works" out of its context.

In this context, Paul is contrasting the "works" of the law, with the law of faith, which as we know, faith without works is dead.

The work that justifies is the work of obedience.

The obedience of faith, without which faith is dead.

It is the meaning of faith and believe, that I believe we are differing over.

Here is the foundation of the law of faith.

Faith all by itself...is dead.


JLB

 

[By Grace]

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29 KJV
Believe is a work of righteousness because it is not only a mental assent, but a commitment exercised through obedience.
Believe = commit to by obedience.
Unbelief = Disobedience.
JLB

Who is doing the work here?
Can you understand about what I stated about taking things out of context? I ask because you just did it again. (sigh)

THAT is the main issue, brother.

 

[gr8grace3]

Who is doing the work here?
Can you understand about what I stated about taking things out of context? I ask because you just did it again. (sigh)

THAT is the main issue, brother.

I see the irony and the humor of God in it. That verse is teaching against the very thing that is trying to be promoted.....human works.

 

[By Grace]

By Grace said: ↑
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Please look at Scripture more carefully

You have taken the word "works" out of its context.

In this context, Paul is contrasting the "works" of the law, with the law of faith, which as we know, faith without works is dead.

James, not Paul said that about faith without works

Look at verse 2. Paul is stating a condition contrary to fact, namely Abraham did NOT earn his righteousness through any meritorious conduct.

FIRST Abraham believed, THEN righteousness came. Thar is the unequivocal teaching of Scripture within its context.

Gotta go. Have a great day in the Lord!