Atonement - Atonement involves transfer of sin by covering, the Hebrew radical involves the concept of bitumen masking something 2 , the question involves covering up with what? Another question when it is expiated if it is made atonement?
For example in Gen 6:14, we have that the ark was "kappar", ie coated. The question now between the lamb and the man who is made atonement for the man or the lamb? " Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram ... and shall eat the things with which an atonement shall be made, " 1 that is, " Aaron and his sons ... shall eat the things with which an atonement shall be made " 1, the question will eat a man who was made atonement or ate the ram? Now that which was made atonement shall be eaten, that is, if the ark is made atonement, then shall I eat the ark, logically we are using an analogy that the ark was made kapar atonement with bitumen, and in the case the ram was made atonement, now the atonement was in the ram, it was in the man and the order of God would be to eat the man, which it is not.
Now we have to cover is the lamb, if it were man Aaron and his children should eat it, in this case cover (kappar), is to forgive? Let's look at the problem in Deuteronomy 21: 8, in JFARA says " Be propitious to your people Israel ", 6 in the JFAA "Forgive, O Lord, your people Israel," in the NIV we have "accept this propitiation in favor of Israel, " 6 , the term in all of them is (kappar), what would be with reason? Now the NIV (New International Version), which uses the term in its proper sense, " Accept, Lord, this propitiation in favor " 6 , (kappar) is not forgiveness, but withdrawal from sin, what would be forgiveness?
We can find the term forgiveness correctly in Psalms 130: 4 " But with thee is forgiveness, that thou mayest be feared. " 7 Now the term forgiveness in this text is not (kappar) and yes (selikyh) 8 , which is the radical forget . Forgiveness is kappar or sel?ychâh? All versions determine that forgiveness is (selikyh) 8,9 .
If we now look at the final part of Deuteronomy 21: 8 we have in JFARA " And the guilt of that blood will be forgiven. " 6 , JFACRF " And that blood shall be atoned for them. " NIV " So the guilt of the bloodshed will be propitiated. " 6 . All again have the term kappar, again what is correct is NIV, which still uses the correct construction, defining that guilt will be propitiated. Now what do we have then? What forgiveness is (selikych) 8 , in the concept of forgetting, the term (kappar) involves covering another with sin. In other words, sin is atoned for in Christ (kappar), so Christ bears sins, so the term (kappar) is to cover something with something.
But we can not use the term imputed. The term impute can not be placed for Christ in relation to sin because the term impute is Rom 4: 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (that is, the term impute defines - ?????????
logizomai - logizomai is the concept of conclude determining as being. In other words, a person does something and determines the conclusion that that something was done by the person. In the case of Christ, if sin were imputed in Christ, then Christ would have acted in sin. What could never occur, in fact there is never a biblical verse using logizomai, for Christ as imputation of sin, to use the term imputing sin in Christ is to say that he committed sin and the bible says - Heb_9: 28 so also Christ, if it be one time to bear the sins of many, it will appear a second time, without sin, to those who wait for him for salvation. . In other words, when it is said that sin was imputed in Christ, it is said that he committed sin which completely violates the foundation of Christianity. The term "imputing sin in Christ" can not and is not even used in the Bible.
The term from LXX to (kappar) is ????? - hile?s, which comes from a very old Greek term aihreomai, which involves taking for itself. That is to say, kappar, in Hebrew was translated to the Greek in the LXX by the sense to take something, of that way atonement is that something takes something, in the case the sin is taken from an atonement to another. But in the Hebrew the concept is to cover with the sin of another. What we have "bearing our sins in his body" 11 , which determines that on Christ was covered by the sin of those who confessed their sins to Christ. But sin was not imputed to Christ, for it can not be concluded that he sinned. In other words, Jesus said, " Who among you convicts me of sin? " 12, if it were possible to convince Jesus of sin then sin would be imputed to Christ. In the same sense of the verse " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, " so sin is placed upon the body of Christ, but Christ is not guilty of sin, so sin can not be imputed in Christ . But if God does not impute sin to man, and he is in Christ, because he is the lamb of the atonement, and because he is not guilty of sin, sin can not be imputed in Christ; Justice, seen impute (????????? - logizomai), would be the reasoning or logic of something blaming, and Christ is not guilty.
For example, when we read the text, " For God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to men their transgressions, " 13 what is being said? That God was with Christ, reconciling, the term is katallass? 14 , what does that mean, is that Christ and God are negotiating, for what? For that, for " not counting men their transgressions " 13, imputation is the fact that such a person doing something is demonstrated by logical construction that he is blamed for such an action. Thus the man who sins, when being analyzed what man did then being defined as correct by logic, such an action is imputed, in fact man can be imputed sin since he has acted to receive such guilt in the case of the sin, but Jesus can not be imputed sin, for there is no logic "logizomai", which defines that such is guilty, so what does Christ do? Reconcilia katallass? 14, which makes the verse correct and nothing in the verse says that God imputed sin to Jesus, since imputing (logizomai) is the reason for just receiving. A person who defines that Jesus was imputed to sin is saying that Jesus acted in a way that logically such is guilty of sin, which is totally wrong, sin can not be imputed in Christ, we have only that Christ has covered himself with the sin of man , this is different from imputation, the big problem is that many people do not study the foundation of the word and mix the terms this mixture ultimately ends the foundation of Christianity.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!