Actually, it's the holy, the righteous ,the filthy, and the wicked. One can go find the Hebrew names...if one wants.
Imputation is based on the Old Testament
- Thread starter Episkopos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Well yes, in English! Thought it might be those 4.Actually, it's the holy, the righteous ,the filthy, and the wicked. One can go find the Hebrew names...if one wants.
No, I can’t look up Hebrew. I’ve tried. It’s not my thing. There are two things nobody should ever encourage me to do - sing and go floundering about in Hebrew.
Some might be better with SOME AMPUTATIONS......
Jesus said if thy right hand offend thee cut it off and cast it from thee..... ect rather than being WHOLE ENTER INTO HELL....( PARAPHRASED)
Don't muzzle the ox! As I minister the truth I also partake of the earthly benefits of the fellowship.
Truth....?????????
I get the distinct impression that there’s some problem I’m not aware of or privy to here so…no response.
It’s unfortunate when people equate being loved with being agreed with. There are better kinds of love.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Baptism by the Holy Spirit is not with water. You are the one who lacks understanding. You keep avoiding talking about the Holy Spirit. Go ahead and hide, be in denial. Doesn't appear anyone can get through to you so I will move on.
How can this one not end up in an unorthodox forum or even yet banned.......such poppycock of heresies ,lies and leading of the blind...... well those that CHOOSE to be blind ! Worse than, is it's been going on since 2011 YIKES !
THE TRUTH SETS US FREE BUT GUESSING SOME LIKE FETTERS & CHAINS....DESPISING FREEDOM !
SUCH SACRILEGE !!!!
SO NEAR TO SATAN'S VERY OWN LIES !
But, but, but, let's look @ this MY WAY__________ sound familiar; surely God did not say ( mean ) ye shall surely die.
You should be taking your own advice here instead of lapping up the words of a false prophets who leads AWAY FROM GODS TRUTH !
Johann
Well-Known Member
He shall bring the live goat. Having already been presented before the Lord (Lev_16:10), it was now brought forward to the high priest, who, placing his hands upon its head, and having confessed over it "all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, transferred them by this act to the goat as their substitute.
The Septuagint version is even more literal and explicit than ours: Kai epitheesei Aaroon tas cheiras autou epi teen kefaleen tou chimarou tou zoontos, kai exagoreusei ep auton pasas tas anomias toon huioon Israeel kai pasas tas adikias autoon kai pasas tas hamartias autoon kai epitheesei autas epi teen kefaleen tou chimarou tou zoontos, kai exapostelei en cheiri anthroopou etoimou eis teen ereemou kai lepsetai ho chimaros ef’ heautoo tas hamartias autoon eis geen abaton.
Many of the expressions used in this translation are identical with those met with in the writings of the apostles, who employed the translation of the Septuagint (cf. Rom_3:25; 1Pe_1:18-19; 1Pe_2:24; Heb_2:17; Rev_5:9)].
It is observable that this is the only passage of the Bible in which the import of the solemn act-the imposition of hands on the head of the victim-is clearly and fully explained. It was a symbolical transference of the sins of the people to the beast. But ’sin signifies here, as it does in many passages of the books of Moses (cf. Lev_4:2), the doing of something which ought not to have been done.
So that the sacrifices on the any of atonement were intended only to expiate outward sins, which, being unknown, had not been expiated by the ordinary sacrifices’ (Erskine, ’On the Nature of the Sinai Covenant’). It was then delivered into the hands of a fit person [ `itiy (H6261); Septuagint, hetoimon (G2092), ready prepared], who was appointed to lead him away into a distant, solitary, and desert place, where in early times he was let go, to escape for his life.
The Jews have a tradition that the conductor of the live goat into the wilderness led it not by a common halter, but, a piece of scarlet cloth tied round its horns-that in after-times, instead of letting it loose in the wilderness, he took it to the summit of a lofty crag, at a short distance from Jerusalem, and hurled it down the precipice. This cloth having been torn into shreds, one part was allowed to remain on the animal’s horns, while the other was spread on the rock; and if at the time of precipitation, its red colour was changed into white, that was the recognized token of acceptance-a remarkable circumstance, which is supposed to be the origin of Isaiah’s metaphor (Isa_1:18), "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow."
The Rabbinical writers, who record this information, add, that for forty years before the destruction of their second temple - i:e., from the time of our Lord’s death, this piece of scarlet cloth never changed its hue (Dr. Patrick; also Prideaux, vol.
ii., p. 3, 8vo).
Commentators have differed widely in their opinions about the character and purpose of this part of the ceremonial the discrepancies arising principally out of the various interpretations put upon the word Azazel [derived by Bochart and Gesenius from ’aazal, he removed, or separated; by others, `eez (H5795), a goat, and ’ªzal, to go away] (see Winer, Realwort, sub voce).
The subject is involved in much obscurity. But the following may be given as the leading views entertained of it: Many writers, laying stress on the circumstance of its being placed (Lev_16:8) in opposition to Yahweh, consider that the term denotes a personal existence, and that as the preposition lamed, which denotes possession, is prefixed to both, the sense which it bears in reference to Azazel must be the same as that in which it is applied to the Lord-namely, that both goats are sacrificial victims. [Gesenius, who supports this view, considers Azazel to mean a demon, whom he designates averruncus, Alexikakos, an evil demon, dwelling in the desert, and requiring to be propitiated with victims. This is a purely pagan idea, inconsistent with the general spirit as well as with express statutes (Lev_17:7) of the Mosaic law, and therefore is almost universally rejected.]
Hengstenberg has shown that there is no sacrifice to Azazel, inasmuch as both goats were at the first presented to Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle, and constituted one sin offering. He is of opinion that Azazel refers to Satan, to whom, under the name of Typhon, the evil spirit of the desert, the Egyptians celebrated an annual solemnity, which, like many pagan observances, was a perverted form of an ancient patriarchal custom; and that the Israelite ceremonial was adopted from Egypt-in a greatly altered form, however-in order to break the association in the people’s minds with that Egyptian rite, to which they had been accustomed. This design was, according to him, effected by the provision of two goats; for while, by the blood of the first, an atonement was made for sin, the second, symbolically loaded with the forgiven sins of the Israelites; was sent away in derisive triumph over the baffled accuser of mankind; and thus the evil being was seen to be altogether inferior in power to the good one. The truth of this view is, in Hengstenberg’s opinion, established by Zec_3:1-10, which bears close resemblance to this passage, and forms an inspired commentary upon it.
Strong objections, however, have been urged against this elaborate theory, as totally unsupported by the Pentateuch, which nowhere assigns names to angels, nor even hints at the existence of evil angels; while it can be proved that the demon called Azazel did not become known to the Jews until the time of the Babylonian captivity, when they learned it from the Chaldean or Persian legends, whence the name Azalzel, or Azael, was introduced into the Apocryphal book of Enoch and other Jewish works (Hengstenberg, ’Egypt and Books of Moses,’ Taylor’s Edition, pp. 159-172).
The most eminent Biblical scholars hold that no personality is indicated by the word Azazel, and that, as it has the article prefixed, it was manifestly designed to be interpreted in another way.
The Jewish Rabbis render it ’the desert’-`one lot (Lev_16:8) for the Lord, and the other for the desert.’ ’This,’ however, as Taylor has justly remarked, ’does not mend the matter; because we are driven to derive the signification of Azazel from an Arabic plural of very remote antiquity.
A further objection to this rendering is, that it would lead to the conclusion that this sacrifice was only to be offered during the wanderings of the Israelites in the desert; but the general current of Rabbinical tradition shows that it continued during the whole Jewish polity.’ [Ewald considers la`ªzaa’zeel (H5799) equivalent to ’the apostate, the separated, the unclean sin.’ Tholuck, supported by Bahr, ’for complete removal.’ Bochart, ’for a lofty, precipitous rock.’ The Septuagint translates the word by apopompaios. (Lev_16:8), ho kleeros tou apopompaiou eis teen apopompeen, which may be understood either actively, the averter, or passively, the (demon to be) averted; or the (goat to be) dismissed. Accordingly the Vulgate renders it caper emissarius (Schleusner, hircus emissarius; and Ainsworth regards emissarius as a noun, signifying a piqueteer-one who is sent out before battle to defy and provoke the enemy-one of the vanguard); and our version, "scape-goat," quasi, escape goat.] A presumptive proof that this is the true import of the word is afforded by the analogous fact of the two birds in the process of the leper’s purification (Lev_14:5-7).
As to the spiritual import of the ceremony, it symbolically represented to the Israelites the punishment of sin in the slain, and the forgiveness of sin in the released, goat. The Christian fathers considered it with one consent as typically representing Christ in His expiatory death, as well as in His resurrection to life-the nature of the case requiring a twofold type, or one which should present two aspects of the same great mystery. It has been objected, indeed, to this explanation of the type, that the Scripture phrase, "bare our sins," "carried our sorrows" (Isa_53:4; Mat_8:17), though typified in the substitutional death of the one goat, did not receive any significance from the goat that was sent into the wilderness; because it cannot be said that Christ carried our sins away to heaven. And hence, it has been attempted to explain this typical ceremony by references to other incidents in the life of our Lord-as to His sojourn in the wilderness at His temptation, which took place immediately after His baptism, which was a symbolic death, or by a reference to Him and Barabbas as personating the unbelieving Jews, who have ever since been doomed to bear into the wilderness of the world the penalty of their great sin.
It seems preferable to consider the ceremonial of the two goats as constituting one typical sin offering, which exhibited in two salient points of view the atoning work of Christ exclusively as its antitype.
The Septuagint version is even more literal and explicit than ours: Kai epitheesei Aaroon tas cheiras autou epi teen kefaleen tou chimarou tou zoontos, kai exagoreusei ep auton pasas tas anomias toon huioon Israeel kai pasas tas adikias autoon kai pasas tas hamartias autoon kai epitheesei autas epi teen kefaleen tou chimarou tou zoontos, kai exapostelei en cheiri anthroopou etoimou eis teen ereemou kai lepsetai ho chimaros ef’ heautoo tas hamartias autoon eis geen abaton.
Many of the expressions used in this translation are identical with those met with in the writings of the apostles, who employed the translation of the Septuagint (cf. Rom_3:25; 1Pe_1:18-19; 1Pe_2:24; Heb_2:17; Rev_5:9)].
It is observable that this is the only passage of the Bible in which the import of the solemn act-the imposition of hands on the head of the victim-is clearly and fully explained. It was a symbolical transference of the sins of the people to the beast. But ’sin signifies here, as it does in many passages of the books of Moses (cf. Lev_4:2), the doing of something which ought not to have been done.
So that the sacrifices on the any of atonement were intended only to expiate outward sins, which, being unknown, had not been expiated by the ordinary sacrifices’ (Erskine, ’On the Nature of the Sinai Covenant’). It was then delivered into the hands of a fit person [ `itiy (H6261); Septuagint, hetoimon (G2092), ready prepared], who was appointed to lead him away into a distant, solitary, and desert place, where in early times he was let go, to escape for his life.
The Jews have a tradition that the conductor of the live goat into the wilderness led it not by a common halter, but, a piece of scarlet cloth tied round its horns-that in after-times, instead of letting it loose in the wilderness, he took it to the summit of a lofty crag, at a short distance from Jerusalem, and hurled it down the precipice. This cloth having been torn into shreds, one part was allowed to remain on the animal’s horns, while the other was spread on the rock; and if at the time of precipitation, its red colour was changed into white, that was the recognized token of acceptance-a remarkable circumstance, which is supposed to be the origin of Isaiah’s metaphor (Isa_1:18), "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow."
The Rabbinical writers, who record this information, add, that for forty years before the destruction of their second temple - i:e., from the time of our Lord’s death, this piece of scarlet cloth never changed its hue (Dr. Patrick; also Prideaux, vol.
ii., p. 3, 8vo).
Commentators have differed widely in their opinions about the character and purpose of this part of the ceremonial the discrepancies arising principally out of the various interpretations put upon the word Azazel [derived by Bochart and Gesenius from ’aazal, he removed, or separated; by others, `eez (H5795), a goat, and ’ªzal, to go away] (see Winer, Realwort, sub voce).
The subject is involved in much obscurity. But the following may be given as the leading views entertained of it: Many writers, laying stress on the circumstance of its being placed (Lev_16:8) in opposition to Yahweh, consider that the term denotes a personal existence, and that as the preposition lamed, which denotes possession, is prefixed to both, the sense which it bears in reference to Azazel must be the same as that in which it is applied to the Lord-namely, that both goats are sacrificial victims. [Gesenius, who supports this view, considers Azazel to mean a demon, whom he designates averruncus, Alexikakos, an evil demon, dwelling in the desert, and requiring to be propitiated with victims. This is a purely pagan idea, inconsistent with the general spirit as well as with express statutes (Lev_17:7) of the Mosaic law, and therefore is almost universally rejected.]
Hengstenberg has shown that there is no sacrifice to Azazel, inasmuch as both goats were at the first presented to Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle, and constituted one sin offering. He is of opinion that Azazel refers to Satan, to whom, under the name of Typhon, the evil spirit of the desert, the Egyptians celebrated an annual solemnity, which, like many pagan observances, was a perverted form of an ancient patriarchal custom; and that the Israelite ceremonial was adopted from Egypt-in a greatly altered form, however-in order to break the association in the people’s minds with that Egyptian rite, to which they had been accustomed. This design was, according to him, effected by the provision of two goats; for while, by the blood of the first, an atonement was made for sin, the second, symbolically loaded with the forgiven sins of the Israelites; was sent away in derisive triumph over the baffled accuser of mankind; and thus the evil being was seen to be altogether inferior in power to the good one. The truth of this view is, in Hengstenberg’s opinion, established by Zec_3:1-10, which bears close resemblance to this passage, and forms an inspired commentary upon it.
Strong objections, however, have been urged against this elaborate theory, as totally unsupported by the Pentateuch, which nowhere assigns names to angels, nor even hints at the existence of evil angels; while it can be proved that the demon called Azazel did not become known to the Jews until the time of the Babylonian captivity, when they learned it from the Chaldean or Persian legends, whence the name Azalzel, or Azael, was introduced into the Apocryphal book of Enoch and other Jewish works (Hengstenberg, ’Egypt and Books of Moses,’ Taylor’s Edition, pp. 159-172).
The most eminent Biblical scholars hold that no personality is indicated by the word Azazel, and that, as it has the article prefixed, it was manifestly designed to be interpreted in another way.
The Jewish Rabbis render it ’the desert’-`one lot (Lev_16:8) for the Lord, and the other for the desert.’ ’This,’ however, as Taylor has justly remarked, ’does not mend the matter; because we are driven to derive the signification of Azazel from an Arabic plural of very remote antiquity.
A further objection to this rendering is, that it would lead to the conclusion that this sacrifice was only to be offered during the wanderings of the Israelites in the desert; but the general current of Rabbinical tradition shows that it continued during the whole Jewish polity.’ [Ewald considers la`ªzaa’zeel (H5799) equivalent to ’the apostate, the separated, the unclean sin.’ Tholuck, supported by Bahr, ’for complete removal.’ Bochart, ’for a lofty, precipitous rock.’ The Septuagint translates the word by apopompaios. (Lev_16:8), ho kleeros tou apopompaiou eis teen apopompeen, which may be understood either actively, the averter, or passively, the (demon to be) averted; or the (goat to be) dismissed. Accordingly the Vulgate renders it caper emissarius (Schleusner, hircus emissarius; and Ainsworth regards emissarius as a noun, signifying a piqueteer-one who is sent out before battle to defy and provoke the enemy-one of the vanguard); and our version, "scape-goat," quasi, escape goat.] A presumptive proof that this is the true import of the word is afforded by the analogous fact of the two birds in the process of the leper’s purification (Lev_14:5-7).
As to the spiritual import of the ceremony, it symbolically represented to the Israelites the punishment of sin in the slain, and the forgiveness of sin in the released, goat. The Christian fathers considered it with one consent as typically representing Christ in His expiatory death, as well as in His resurrection to life-the nature of the case requiring a twofold type, or one which should present two aspects of the same great mystery. It has been objected, indeed, to this explanation of the type, that the Scripture phrase, "bare our sins," "carried our sorrows" (Isa_53:4; Mat_8:17), though typified in the substitutional death of the one goat, did not receive any significance from the goat that was sent into the wilderness; because it cannot be said that Christ carried our sins away to heaven. And hence, it has been attempted to explain this typical ceremony by references to other incidents in the life of our Lord-as to His sojourn in the wilderness at His temptation, which took place immediately after His baptism, which was a symbolic death, or by a reference to Him and Barabbas as personating the unbelieving Jews, who have ever since been doomed to bear into the wilderness of the world the penalty of their great sin.
It seems preferable to consider the ceremonial of the two goats as constituting one typical sin offering, which exhibited in two salient points of view the atoning work of Christ exclusively as its antitype.
Reading skills are needed to understand what you read. It's no wonder that so few are able to grasp what the bible is speaking of! And in that way...you are not understanding my analogy. You need to look up words like "baptism" and "imputation" to find their meaning even before trying to tackle reading the bible.
But I'll simplify my analogy for you! You could look up what "analogy" means....
a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
"argument from analogy"
Keeping the above definition in mind...let's try again, shall we?
This analogy might be difficult for people to understand given the reading skills being exhibited here. But if you think about for a while....
Baptism means immersion....not imputation. when a person is baptized in water they are immersed in water...covered with water. When people come out of the water they are...wet!
Baptism in the Spirit is immersion in the Spirit...covered by the Spirit. When people come away from such a baptism they are walking IN the Spirit. They remain in that state until a lack of spiritual maturity causes them to move away from God's presence so as to longer be in the Spirit...through some sin that is indulged in.
Notice, that I'm comparing two things that are related to each other based on what "baptism" means.
Is water imputed to people? No. Is the Spirit imputed to people? No.
Being baptized in the Spirit is what puts people into a walk that is UNDER grace...or INTO Christ. The righteousness of God is something that is walked in...that reflects the light of Gd's righteousness into the world. But this can only happen as we walk in the light as He is in the light.
People have trouble getting the bible right because the righteousness that most modern believers think is theirs by their mental assent is actually imaginary. So when the truth is explained...the ones who disagree are the ones that have not yet experienced what they claim to have experienced. Instead these appropriate for themselves...or impute to themselves, things that they don't know or understand.
So, naturally, that puts religious people in a snit.
Last edited:
Similar threads
