Hebrew Word Study - "Kaphar" (Strong's H3722)

[Ben1445]

Lets see.

1. You believe that God will never punish the Righteous. You believe that Jesus is Righteous.

Do you believe that Jesus suffered God's punishment?

2. You believe that sins cannot be transfered from a person. The person who sins shall die.

Jesus died and He did not sin.

Do you believe that our sins were transferred to us and put on Jesus?

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

3. You believe that God will never clear the guilty.

Do you believe God ever clears the guilty?


If you answered "yes" or have to explain away those passages then you reject God's words.

When you stop explaining away your sin laid on Jesus, then we can talk.

You cannot see the forest for the one tree that you keep stumbling into.

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445

Believe it or not I am not arguing just to argue. I was a PSA theorist most of my life, and also assumed that atonement theory when reading Scripture.

But I think we need to look at how each of us arrive at our views.

For me, I arrived at my position by reading several passages to include Genesis 2-3, the Levitical sacrifice system, Psalm 22. Isaiah 53, Ezekiel 18, John, Hebrews and Romans. Obviously there were more, but I think those formed the general idea of my position.

But I read them aware of my previous assumptions and careful not to read into the text what was not there. That is why I know that there are no passages that state the PSA understanding of Atonement (in the actual text).


We also have to acknowledge our differences in developing foundational doctrines (like the atonement).

I believe that any foundational doctrine (doctrines upon which others are built, or any essential doctrine) must be expressed within the biblical text. I believe the Bible is God's revelation to man of Himself and our redemption, so I believe any foundational doctrine will be in the actual text.

Others trust doctrine that are products of systematic theology. PSA is one such doctrine. I may believe such types of doctrines, but I would hold them at arms length and never lean on them. The reason I do not trust systematic theology is that it incorporates human reasoning and philosophy, historical theological developments, and extra-biblical sources. There is room for error based on the sources whereas with my position there may be error but it is not in the Source itself.

Another reason is I believe we are to test our faith with God's Word ("what is written") as this is objective. With PSA one can only test their faith (and pass) with others who hold/ held their understanding. PSA fails the test if the standard is only the biblical text, and this makes the theory subjective to the human experience.


I have seen people say "Jesus bore our sins, this means substitution". I think it is obvious that "Jesus bore our sins" does not actually mean "substitution" as none of the words carry that meaning. It could refer to substitution if this was confirmed elsewhere in God's words. But it could also mean Christ shared our humanity, was made like us but without sin, shared our infirmity.

We would have to go through other passages to know which (if either) is correct.


How do you arrive at the idea of substitution?

 

[Ben1445]

No, I believe they mean exactly what they state.

That is the difference between our views. You believe that chapter teaches something other than the words state. I believe the chapter teaches "what is written", the biblical text.

This is self acclamation and does nothing for the conversation.

Obviously they esteemed Him stricken by God but He was wounded for their transgressions.

What does it mean “for our transgressions”?
Isn’t that because of? So Jesus is wounded, and died on the cross as a result of someone else’s sin.


And you believe they were someone else’s transgressions? You don’t include yourself there?

Obviously they viewed Him as afflicted. Otherwise they would not have killed Him.

You are reading a weird conclusion into this.

People don’t go around killing afflicted people. I mean, are they putting Him out of His misery? Your statement makes no sense.

Obviously He was wounded for our sins. He is sinless and bore our sins bodily.

So He died for our sins even though He had not sinned. Very good. PSA. You figured it out.

Obviously crushing Him was God's will. He was obedient even unto death.

So the bruising of Christ is not the wages of sin-death, it’s just some random thing the Father decided the Son should do but has no connection to answering for our sin?

BUT what is missing?

I don’t understand the way you think. You nitpick the smallest things and don’t use common definitions.

So I can’t even say I follow your logic, if you are even using it.

Jesus bring our penal substitute. That is foreign to the Bible.

I agree that PSA theorists believe much of the Bible (maybe even most of the Bible). The problem is not the parts of the Bible PSA theorists believe but the parts they work around and the parts of their belief that is not in the Bible.

Every Christian heresy is 90% truth. It is that 10% that makes it a heresy. PSA is no exception.

Jonology is no exception either.

 

[JonC]

Jesus died and He did not sin.



Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.


When you stop explaining away your sin laid on Jesus, then we can talk.

You cannot see the forest for the one tree that you keep stumbling into.

Good. We agree in a lot.

We both agree that Jesus died and He had not sinned. I believe this is because He bore our sin.

We agree that Jesus died by "unjust power" (oppression) and "unjust judgment".

We agree that the Lord laid our iniquity on Him, and even that this was God's will ("pleased the Lord").

You believe that God will never punish the Righteous. You believe that Jesus is Righteous.


You are not willing to accept passages stating that God will not punish the Righteous. You are not willing to accept passages stating that sins cannot be transferred. You are not willing to accept passages stating that God will not clear the guilty.

When we go through the Bible picking out which verses we will believe and which ones we will reject we end up with something that is less than God's Word.

Jefferson did this as well. He would not acceot supernatural events. So, like you, his "bible" excluded those things (unlike him, I do not think you went through and ripped those chapters out of your bible, but you do it mentally).


I have never explained away my sin being laid on Jesus. I believe our sin was laid on Him, but on our behalf rather than instead of us.

I believe that sin is greater an issue than PSA theorists believe. This is why I have no problem with the high priest, in Leviticus 16, making atonement for the tent and alter in order to consecrate and cleans them from the defilement of Israel's sin and rebellion.

From my perspective you are explaining away your sins themselves and making light of Jesus bearing our sins.

 

[Ben1445]

@Ben1445

Believe it or not I am not arguing just to argue. I was a PSA theorist most of my life, and also assumed that atonement theory when reading Scripture.

Appeal to experience. This is of little value and if you read the threads, it has no effect.

But I think we need to look at how each of us arrive at our views.

Well, you weren’t around when I grew up and you are not still around so I don’t know how you figure on checking up on how I arrived where I am.

For me, I arrived at my position by reading several passages to include Genesis 2-3, the Levitical sacrifice system, Psalm 22. Isaiah 53, Ezekiel 18, John, Hebrews and Romans. Obviously there were more, but I think those formed the general idea of my position.

By eisegesis.

But I read them aware of my previous assumptions and careful not to read into the text what was not there. That is why I know that there are no passages that state the PSA understanding of Atonement (in the actual text).

Substitution is all through Scripture.

I think you are having trouble understanding this because you haven’t seen the judgment yet. But that is because now is the accepted time. There will not be anyone who will be exchanged out of judgment. But there is substitution before judgment.

We also have to acknowledge our differences in developing foundational doctrines (like the atonement).

Noted. We do have differences.

I believe that any foundational doctrine (doctrines upon which others are built, or any essential doctrine) must be expressed within the biblical text.

It is.
But Paul didn’t say “here’s the doctrine of PSA,” just like he didn’t say “here’s the doctrine of the Trinity.”

But we don’t use the same dictionary, apparently. And you are so afraid of Calvinism, of which I am not a part, that you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

I believe the Bible is God's revelation to man of Himself and our redemption, so I believe any foundational doctrine will be in the actual text.

It is. You overlook it.

Others trust doctrine that are products of systematic theology. PSA is one such doctrine.

In your opinion.

I may believe such types of doctrines,

Undoubtedly.

but I would hold them at arms length and never lean on them.

You flatter yourself.

The reason I do not trust systematic theology is that it incorporates human reasoning and philosophy, historical theological developments, and extra-biblical sources. There is room for error based on the sources whereas with my position there may be error but it is not in the Source itself.

So don’t teach theology.

Another reason is I believe we are to test our faith with God's Word ("what is written") as this is objective.

Name me one person who doesn’t , besides those who believe that the authority of the popes and traditions of churches are equal to Scripture.
Any serious examples?

With PSA one can only test their faith (and pass) with others who hold/ held their understanding. PSA fails the test if the standard is only the biblical text, and this makes the theory subjective to the human experience.

You have done nothing but subject me to your experience.

I have seen people say "Jesus bore our sins, this means substitution". I think it is obvious that "Jesus bore our sins" does not actually mean "substitution" as none of the words carry that meaning.

Bore is to carry. If Jesus carried our sins, we don’t. That is substitution. A scapegoat is a substitute. Isaac was substituted for by a ram.
The high priest prophesied that Jesus would die instead of the whole nation perishing.


It’s there. You refuse to see it.

It could refer to substitution if this was confirmed elsewhere in God's words. But it could also mean Christ shared our humanity, was made like us but without sin, shared our infirmity.

We would have to go through other passages to know which (if either) is correct.


How do you arrive at the idea of substitution?

The prophecy of the high priest.
The example of Isaac and the ram.
Plain English without nuanced logic and definitions.

 

[Ben1445]

Good. We agree in a lot.

We both agree that Jesus died and He had not sinned. I believe this is because He bore our sin.

We agree that Jesus died by "unjust power" (oppression) and "unjust judgment".

We agree that the Lord laid our iniquity on Him, and even that this was God's will ("pleased the Lord").

You believe that God will never punish the Righteous. You believe that Jesus is Righteous.


You are not willing to accept passages stating that God will not punish the Righteous. You are not willing to accept passages stating that sins cannot be transferred. You are not willing to accept passages stating that God will not clear the guilty.

When we go through the Bible picking out which verses we will believe and which ones we will reject we end up with something that is less than God's Word.

Jefferson did this as well. He would not acceot supernatural events. So, like you, his "bible" excluded those things (unlike him, I do not think you went through and ripped those chapters out of your bible, but you do it mentally).


I have never explained away my sin being laid on Jesus. I believe our sin was laid on Him, but on our behalf rather than instead of us.

I believe that sin is greater an issue than PSA theorists believe. This is why I have no problem with the high priest, in Leviticus 16, making atonement for the tent and alter in order to consecrate and cleans them from the defilement of Israel's sin and rebellion.

From my perspective you are explaining away your sins themselves and making light of Jesus bearing our sins.

I don’t have any patience left for you. You don’t listen. And you have some strange ideas.

 

[Van]

I view the OT atonement (Hebrew word for "cleansing, purifying, covering") as pointing to the greater NT atonement (Greek word for "reconciliation).

When the same word is used to indicate two very different results, confusion arises.

 

[JonC]

This is self acclamation and does nothing for the conversation.

Lol... then so was your statement.

What does it mean “for our transgressions”?

What does "Jesus died for our sin" mean?

It means that Jesus died because of our sins. The verse continues by saying "according to the Scriptures", which would be the Old Testament text.

Isn’t that because of?

Yes, He bore our sins bodily. Sin produces death as a wage. He received our wage, died "to destroy the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil".

So Jesus is wounded, and died on the cross as a result of someone else’s sin.

I am not sure "result" is the best word. It seems too happenstance (or unintentional). But yes, Jesus bore oyr sins bodily, died once for all, suffered the death sin produces as a wage in order to defeat the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil.

And you believe they were someone else’s transgressions? You don’t include yourself there?

I do not know what you mean by "someone else's sin". Jesus bore all human sin. I am a human, so it would include me.

You are reading a weird conclusion into this.

Lol... I do not know why you find it so weird that the Jews who rejected Him did not esteem Him and believed He was stricken by God. Scripture even states this (they viewed Jesus as blasphemous). The "yet" (but) shows that rather than being stricken by God He was dying for them.

People don’t go around killing afflicted people. I mean, are they putting Him out of His misery? Your statement makes no sense.

People don't go around stoning adulterous women either.

The word translated "afflicted" or stricken" carries the meaning of violence being done. The use of "afflicted" may be a bit archaic, but it is being violently afflicted. That is why "stricken" is used.

They viewed Jesus' suffering as God's punishment rather than oppression.

So He died for our sins even though He had not sinned. Very good. PSA. You figured it out.

Except PSA is not "He died for our sins even though He had not sinned". Roman Catholic atonement holds that He died for our sins even though they reject PSA. So does Orthodox Christians, traditional Lutherans. Every Christian believes He had not sinned, but they reject He died for our sins even though He had not sinned, yet PSA is not the main Christian view.

So the bruising of Christ is not the wages of sin-death, it’s just some random thing the Father decided the Son should do but has no connection to answering for our sin?

The "bruising" (or "crushing") is Christ's death. And yes, it is all connected to sin.

It was God's will for a purpose. Satan was to "crush"/"bruise" Christ and it is through this that Jesus destroys the one who holds the power of death ("crushes" Satan).

I don’t understand the way you think. You nitpick the smallest things and don’t use common definitions.

I cannot help you in understanding. You will have to carry that load. But as far as definitions go, I may be able to help.

"Crush" and "bruise" are different English words used, but it is translating the same Hebrew word.

We cannot use "common definitions" because the modern English language has been influenced by popular views. Take the word "atone". It never means "appease" in the Bible but it can in modern English.

The Bible is simply not a "common" book.

So I can’t even say I follow your logic, if you are even using it.

It is actually my wording that is causing you problems.

What I was saying is in all the passages we have touched on, none of them state that Jesus died as a penal substitute. None of then state that Jesus suffered God's wrath for our sins. None of them even state that Jesus died as a substitute for us.


IF Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures then PSA cannot be correct because if it were Jesus would not have died for our sins according to the Old Testament.

 

[Van]

I never said it was. I said it is in the Old Testament. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare Greek and Hebrew the way you did.


There is a penalty for sin. Jesus paid that penalty for us.
You don’t believe that?


The scope is not something that has to do with PSA. Unless you can cite the guy who came up with it and show me it does, what difference does that make to PSA.

I just said the definition is a strong support for PSA.


I never said that. I also agree with you.


I don’t believe that and have yet to see how Jesus paying the penalty for sin in the place of others need be limited.

The sin is covered. But God still imputes sin. Why may He if all sin is atoned for? Because of unbelief.

1) Yes, the New Covenant is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The Old Covenant does not provide reconciliation, only the New Covenant accomplishes that promised blessing.

2) PSA is false doctrine. When an individual is transferred into Christ, they undergo the washing of regeneration, and the penalty for their sin is removed, such at the born anew believer is sinless forever.

3) PSA states Christ died for the specific sins of those individuals chosen before the foundation of the world. Thus it is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. The definition of the Hebrew word "kaphar" (Strongs H3722) does NOT provide any support for false doctrine. Basically the idea is to cover over sins by performing religious rites. On the other hand, Christ removes the penalty for past, present and future sin.

4) Here is what you posted:
" I don’t believe that and have yet to see how Jesus paying the penalty for sin in the place of others need be limited.
The sin is covered. But God still imputes sin. Why may He if all sin is atoned for? Because of unbelief."

Jesus paid the penalty for the sin of humanity, the ransom for all. I believe we agree. However, for any individual to receive that "reconciliation" they must be transferred into Christ and undergo the washing of regeneration. I do not know whether you understand that or not. For those of humanity not "in Christ" they continue to sin and store up wrath against themselves, but the opportunity to repent, believe, and receive the reconciliation remains for all of them, unless their heart has been hardened.

 

[JonC]

I don’t have any patience left for you. You don’t listen. And you have some strange ideas.

Oh... I know they seem strange to you. I would not have been able to talk myself out of being a PSA theorist a decade ago. Nobody would have been able to change my mind on that.

The strange thing is most of what I have discussed with you is the Day of Atonement. And all those ideas that seemed so strange to you - like when you ridiculed the idea that the priest made atonement for the tent and altar to consecrate and cleans them from the dins and rebellion of the Isralites only to find that was EXACTLY what God said.

That is the problem. The biblical text minus your theories (minus what is not written) seems strange to you because your theory replaces God's words.

 

[Van]

Shouldn't it be 'a ransom for many'(Matthew 20:28 etc.)?

No of course not! Two verses say Christ paid the ransom for many, and one verse says Christ paid the ransom for all. Because He paid the ransom for all, that includes the many. On the other hand, if He paid the ransom for many but not all, then that interpretation nullifies scripture. A no-no.