Tag-Archive for » kipper «

Spring Cleaning

Sunday, April 28th, 2013 | Author:

He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.  Leviticus 16:16 NASB

Atonement Are we so familiar with some religious words that we no longer understand what they mean?  We can use them in sentences.  We can speak of their theological significance.  But are we only repeating religious acronyms?  Let’s take this word, atonement, as an example.  What does atonement mean?  Leon Morris writes, “The atonement is the crucial doctrine of the faith.  Unless we are right here it matters little, or so it seems to me, what we are like elsewhere.”[1]  Erickson and others agree.  The atonement is the critical point of the Christian faith.  But if you ask most believers what “atonement” means, they are hard-pressed to provide a clear answer.  And if they suggest something about forgiving sins or about the mercy seat or about covering our guilt with the blood, they will have enormous difficulties when it comes to a verse like this one in Leviticus.

Read the verse again.  Here “atonement” isn’t about forgiveness.  It is about cleaning up pollution in the Tabernacle.  The verb is kipper.  Here it is in the Piel tense.  In fact, in all the verses related to sacrifice, this verb is never in the Qal tense.  It is always Piel.  Why does this matter?  Because in the Qal, the verb means “to wipe something on to a surface” but in the Piel it means “to wipe something off of a surface.”  In other words, we often think of atonement as though God is wiping the blood of the Lamb over our sins so that He no longer sees them.  This idea is common in the expression that the blood of Yeshua covers our transgressions.  But when this verb is used in the context of sacrifice, it never means “covering over.”  It means “cleaning away.”  Atonement removes pollution.

We wish to be in God’s presence and God wishes us to be there too, but we come defiled, both ritually and morally.  The Levitical sacrifices are intended to remove this defilement so we can enjoy His company.  The blood washes away the defilement we bring into the Temple.  But notice that it is the Temple that is cleaned, not you and me.  Our impurities and sins create the need for wiping away, but the wiping away action doesn’t clean the sinner.  It cleans the house of God.  According to the Levitical sacrifices, blood is the cleaning solvent.  Blood wipes away the pollution so that we may enter into God’s presence.  Blood cleans the Temple.  It removes the impurity so that we can be with God.  Blood does not “save” us.  It does not provide us with forgiveness.  It simply cleans the place where God abides.

Consider the implications for our use of the word “atonement” in contemporary Christian thought.  Is atonement about forgiveness or is it about drawing near?

Topical Index:  atonement, kipper, defilement, Leviticus 16:16



[1] Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, p. 5.

Applied Hesed

Monday, April 02nd, 2012 | Author:

or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.  Romans 12:8  NASB

Mercy/ cheerfulness – Paul completes his inventory of charismata with the phrase ho eleon en hilaroteti (“he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness”).  But the typical English translation presents us with some significant problems.  How do we explain the behavior patterns of a Zone 7 person under the banner of one who shows “mercy”?  The Zone 7 individual is someone who comes alive when faced with an immediate need.  This person loves to assist, to provide solutions to problems, to step in at a moment of crisis.  This is an individual who shows up when things are going wrong but at other times lacks the natural ability of encouraging and supporting.  This person is the consummate trouble-shooter, the first-responder, the breakdown genius.  How can we recognize such a person in Paul’s use of the Greek word eleos (mercy)?  The answer comes from understanding the difference between the use of eleos in Greek literature and its use in the LXX.

In classical Greek, eleos is one of the passions, that is, it is an emotion aroused by the awareness of the undeserved suffering of another.  For the Greeks, this was a terrifying occurrence because it implied that anyone might be subject to unjustified suffering.  The emotions, all of them, disturb the tranquility of a life in balance.  Since emotions typically come unbidden, subjecting the person to their power, Stoic philosophy sought to eliminate these roller-coaster swings of life.  Better to remain placidly detached than to have a life that could at any moment fall prey to an emotional attack.  Consequently, the Stoics thought of emotions as signs of weakness, even sickness, and they supposed that truly wise men would be free of such disturbances.  Even today our cultural consciousness of emotions reflects this Greek view.  “Men don’t cry.”  “Women are emotionally out of control.”  “Don’t let your feelings get involved in business.”  All of these cultural maxims stem from a Greek fear of emotional disturbance.

This Greek philosophical view is not found in the New Testament, principally because the background of the New Testament is the Greek of the LXX with its Hebraic point of view.  So the God of the New Testament, just like the God of the Old Testament, is described as a fully emotional being – full of mercy, compassion, grace, anger and wrath.  The God of Israel suffers with His people.  He is not the transcendent wholly other divine entity of the Greek philosophers.  He is the God of intimate involvement who experiences divine pathos over the rebellion of His creation.

Unfortunately, this shift doesn’t always come through in the translation of Greek and Hebrew into our English Bibles.  Even more unfortunately, the rabbis of the LXX choose the Greek word eleos to translate the key Hebrew word hesed.  As a result, much of the critical background of the Hebrew term hesed was lost because the Greek word eleos pushed the meaning in the direction of an emotion rather than an action.  The domination of Greek philosophy in the West has resulted in reading eleos in Scripture as if it retains its Greek emotional base rather than recognizing that eleos is really the Hebrew concept of hesed.

When Paul writes ho eleon en hilaroteti, he is not thinking like a Greek philosopher.  He is thinking like a Jewish rabbi.  Therefore, we must substitute the Hebrew idea of hesed for the Greek meaning of eleos.

We have had plenty of opportunity to examine this crucial Hebrew word.  It is sufficient to merely summarize here.  Hesed has no exact English translation equivalent, and for good reason.  Hesed entails four related concepts.  First, hesed is unmerited benevolence toward another.  That means there is no prior obligation for demonstrating this act of kindness.  Hesed begins with pure compassion. Secondly, once I experience hesed, it creates reciprocity.  When someone shows hesed toward me, I am then obligated to show it to him. Third, hesed requires extension.  If I experience hesed, I am expected to pass it on to someone else.  I am expected to extend this experience toward another, not just respond to the person who started the chain. Finally, it is obvious that hesed cannot be isolated to the individual.  Everything about hesed is relational.  Hesed does not exist without community.

This is the background to Paul’s use of eleos in Romans 12:8.  What this means is that Paul is not describing feelings of sympathy, an experience of compassion or pity, soft-heartedness or magnanimity.  He is describing someone who takes on obligation to provide needed benefit, not because of duty but because of hilaroteti (cheerfulness).  In other words, the Zone 7 person is a person whose spiritual DNA compels action on behalf of another.  But there is an additional qualification.  “With cheerfulness” obscures the Hebrew background for precisely the same reasons that eleos is insufficient.  As a term of emotion, eleos hides hesed.  So hilaroteti hides the connection to the Hebrew kipper.

Hilaros means “cheerfulness” in classical Greek, but later usage was influenced by the similar Greek word hileos, especially in religious practice.  Thus the Greek idea of cheerfulness became associated with divine benevolence.  The LXX reflects this meaning when it uses hilaros as a description of favor with the king, and especially in the idiomatic expression of benevolence (cf. Sir. 35:8).  The rabbis draw close connections between hilaros and generosity.  Apparently hilaros is not so much an ebullient state of mind as it is favorable actions.  Once again we see that translating the word within the Greek paradigm of emotion obscures the Hebraic practicality.

How does this affect our understanding of the Zone 7 individual?  It is not so much that this individual approaches problem-solving with lighthearted exuberance.  The Hebraic background implies that the Zone 7 individual assumes ­obligations as a display of generosity.  And this leads us to make another connection.  Hilaros and its association with hileos push us to consider the more theologically oriented word hilaskomai.  Both hileos and hilaskomai are connected the Greek ideas of favor from royalty and the gods.  While hilaros is never used to describe God in the LXX, hileos is only used as a predicate of God.  Why is this the case?  Because hileos is associated with the Hebrew word kipper.

In the 100 occurrences of the Greek root hilaskomai in the LXX, 85 are translations of the Hebrew kipperKipper has both cultic and non-cultic meanings.  It is clearly recognized as a term for expiation and sacrificial substitution in its cultic usage.  In non-cultic usage, kipper generally means repairing what is injured or reconciling what needs to be made good or whole.

Applied to our insights about Zone 7 people, we see that the emotional  expression of “cheerfulness” does not adequately capture the Hebraic orientation toward action, and in particular, actions that bring about restoration.  Zone 7 people fix things, whether those things happen to be dysfunctional parts or people.  Zone 7 people restore the world to its proper order.  They are motivated by voluntary obligation to repair, an obligation that carries reconciliation it its wings.

Topical Index:  Zone 7, eleos, mercy, hilaros, cheerfulness, hesed, kipper, Romans 12:8

Atonement, Expiation and Appeasement

Thursday, December 08th, 2011 | Author:

For if while 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.  Romans 5:10 NASB

Reconciled – “When Yeshua died on the cross, God’s wrath was appeased.”  Is that true?  “When Yeshua died on the cross, He expiated our sins.”  Is that true?  “When Yeshua died on the cross, He atoned for us.”  Is that true?  Step back into the world of Paul’s letter to the qehelah in Rome and ask if your answers make sense to the people who first read his proclamation.

Appeasement?  Yes, the pagan culture of Rome was well aware of the need to appease the gods.  Men felt it necessary to turn away the anger and subsequent wrath of the gods if only because their continued prosperity depended on it.  In the pagan world, the gods were fickle but powerful.  If they were upset with something a man did, they could inflict considerable damage.  But this isn’t the character of YHWH.  He does not demand appeasement because He is not angry with men.  He is heartbroken.  He seeks reconciliation in order that men may enjoy His full concern.  Appeasement of a vengeful God is not part of the good news.  Yeshua did not die to appease the Father.

Expiation?  As Christian theology defines the term, expiation deals with removal of guilt through payment due under the law.  Did Yeshua die to expiate our sins?  In one sense, the answer is, “Of course.”  The sacrifice on the cross did remove guilt from God’s perspective, allowing a believer to appropriate that removal for his or her own condition.  The Greek term is hilasmos.  The Hebrew equivalent is kipper.  This connection emphasizes the fact that expiation is about offering and the results that occur when an offering is made.  Forgiveness is the goal of the sin offering.  In biblical thought, God Himself provides the sin offering through the action of His Son.  Life is offered for life.  Our lives are preserved because His life is not spared.  But, of course, this must mean that the death (sacrifice) of Yeshua cannot be understood as the death of a single man since no single man can offer himself as expiation for all other men.  So while it is commonly understood that Yeshua died to expiate our sins, technically this is not true.  God provided expiation by attributing the guilt of all men to the sacrifice of Yeshua because Yeshua as God manifest in the flesh paid the price for all men.

Atonement?  As above, kipper is also a word for atonement.  Not surprisingly, the Day of Atonement plays a significant role in Judaism and in the background of the New Testament.  Pagans also understood the process of atonement, but atonement for them was specific, that is, it was about my transgressions interfering with my hopes.  There is no universal concept of atonement in pagan thought.  Furthermore, Yeshua’s atoning action was not the action of a hero.  It was the action of God Himself manifest in Yeshua; an action on behalf of enemies, not friends.  Atonement is actually backwards from what we as pagans would expect.  Atonement reconciles God to us, not us to God.  It is God’s action on His behalf breaching the chasm between Himself and His creation.  We are the beneficiaries of His action, but we are not players in the drama.  In this sense, Yeshua’s death is not an atonement for us.  It is an atonement for God.  He is the injured party and Yeshua’s sacrifice restores His relationship to us.

Appeasement?  No, I don’t think God was angry with creation nor do I believe He sought revenge against it.  Expiation?  Yes, there was a price to pay, but it wasn’t for my sins.  It was for the effects of Sin against all the creation.  Atonement?  Certainly, but not because I had anything to do with it.  God’s action through His Son restored His relationship to us.  That was its principal goal.  We benefit when we appropriate the results, but we were bystanders in this drama.

Maybe this quick examination helps us realize the cosmic proportions of Yeshua’s death.

Topical Index:  reconcile, atonement, appeasement, expiation, kipper, hilasmos, Romans 5:10

 

 

 

Measure For Measure

Saturday, September 10th, 2011 | Author:

“so you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.”  Numbers 35:33  NASB

Expiation – We do not need forgiveness because God is angry.  God’s emotional state has nothing to do with this.  If we conceive of our transgressions as the cause of God’s tempestuous feelings, we are thinking like pagans.  Expiation is not about assuaging God’s bad feelings toward us.  Expiation is about setting the ledger straight.  Whenever there is a breach between men or between God and men, this tension is expressed in legal terminology.  Essentially sin is a crime.  The injured party has a grievance that must be removed and the process of removal requires deliberate and specific actions that atone for the crime of the breach.  We are not separated from God because He harbors ill-feelings toward us.  We are separated from God because we are criminals, violators of His commandments, and we must “pay” the penalty associated with our crimes before the gap can be bridged.

Therefore, you can set aside any concern that God doesn’t like you.  You can table the idea that God is mad at you.  You can stop worrying that somehow you have personally offended Him.  The problem is not personal.  It is strictly business.  We have committed offenses and they need to be made right.

The Torah provides us with specific instructions about making offenses right.  None of those instructions depend on how we feel about our situation.  It doesn’t matter how we feel.  We must pay the price in order to restore the relationship.  So if I steal from you, I must repay all that I took plus a penalty in order to atone from my crime.  Even if I injure you accidentally, there are direct and specific consequences designed to restore the relationship.  What is true between men is also true with God.  There are specific actions I must take in order to restore the relationship.  Purification rituals, sacrifices and days like Yom Kippur are part of these actions.  But some things cannot be restored through my actions.  Murder is one of those things.

Moses tells us that the spilled blood of the innocent has no expiation provision within the life of the perpetrator.  The only expiation is the loss of his own life.  This crime requires repayment in kind, measure for measure, a life for a life.  The land itself remains polluted unless the balance of life is restored.   I wonder how Planned Parenthood deals with this.  Do they pretend that there is no crime in abortion on demand?  Is our blood-soaked country exempt from divine criminal punishment?  Do we believe that the repeal of capital punishment makes us a more civilized society?  On lesser crimes, do we really think that paying a debt to society (doing time in jail) restores the balance to the victim?  Our justice system looks nothing like the Torah.  To claim that we are society base on Judeo-Christian principles is about the same as claiming that the debt ceiling bill will actually cut the appetite of the government for spending.

Expiation is both personal and national.  You and I may believe that we have established a restored relationship with the Father because we have responded to His love and atoned for our crimes, but what about the land?  How do we atone for that?  The ledger stands open.  The debt remains.  It will be serviced, one way or another.  It’s nothing personal.  It’s strictly business – the business of righteousness to which all are held accountable.

Topical Index:  expiation, kipper, atonement, crime, Numbers 35:33

 

Retroactive Legislation

Friday, September 09th, 2011 | Author:

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.  Hebrews 2:17  NASB

To make propitiation – What do you need to do in order for God to forgive you?  Before you shout, “Nothing!  God forgives because He loves.  It doesn’t depend on me,” consider the parable of the forgiving master and the unworthy servant (Matthew 18:23-35).  In that parable, forgiveness of the impossibly enormous debt is based on the Master’s compassion.  But when the servant shows no transformation as a result of this compassion, the forgiveness is rescinded.  In fact, Yeshua boldly states that unless we forgive with compassionate hearts, we will not receive forgiveness.  This isn’t the only place where forgiveness seems to be contingent upon worthy response.  The Lord’s prayer contains the same thought.  The Tanakh’s view of atonement carries the same idea of human accountability.

This biblical theme makes the translation of Hebrew 2:17 particularly difficult.  Why?  Because the important verb, hilaskomai (to propitiate), is only used twice in the New Testament (here and in Luke 18:13) and it isn’t used in the way that ordinary Greek usage would demand.  In ordinary Greek thinking about religion, propitiation is something human beings do to appease the gods.  Typical actions include rituals, sacrifices, dances and prayers.  The Greeks attempted to obtain favor from the gods by assuaging the gods’ anger.  In contemporary society, good luck charms or athletic rituals are left-over signs of this same kind of thinking.  But none of this finds its way into biblical thinking.  The startling difference in the New Testament use of the idea of propitiation is that it is applied to God, not to men.  In other words, it is God Who takes the steps needed to bring about reconciliation, not men.  God seeks our favor.  He acts to resolve the conflict.

Does that mean we have nothing to do?  No, it doesn’t.  Did you notice that the master in the parable rescinds forgiveness after the servant demonstrates that compassion has had no effect on his subsequent behavior?  The servant does not do anything initially to deserve forgiveness.  He is forgiven because the king’s heart is moved.  The only reason for forgiveness is the king’s response to the servant’s desperate need.  The king takes the first steps.  But as a result, something is expected.  The servant is expected to emulate the same compassionate response toward others.  When the servant does not show this kind of compassion, the king determines that the servant was unworthy of the initial forgiveness.  Propitiation may begin with God but it ends with us.  This is exactly the opposite of pagan thinking.

Now we can draw a connection between hilaskomai and kipper.  In 83 of the 100 occurrences of kipper in the LXX, the Hebrew word for atonement is translated by the Greek word exilaskomai.  This Greek word is never used in the New Testament, but its frequent occurrence in the LXX shows us that the Hebrew idea of atonement is closely connected with the concept of propitiation.  Why is this important?  It is important because Hebrew atonement has the same dual conditions.  God acts toward His people in ways that establish the covenant relationship and vouch for His faithfulness.  But the people are expected to reciprocate with lives that display the same actions toward others.  Yeshua’s parable is entirely Hebraic.  God loves in order that we might love.

Forgiveness without the subsequent acts of transformation results in the reverse of atonement.  Until I respond to God’s grace with my own display of grace, I am not forgiven.  Now you know why there are specific actions of atonement in the Torah associated with offenses against others.  Forgiveness is not complete until restitution is complete.  God expects us to repair and restore all that we can as a sign that we have experienced His grace.  We atone because He had compassion.

Topical Index:  atonement, propitiation, hilaskomai, kipper, Hebrews 2:17

Who Will Pay?

Friday, March 25th, 2011 | Author:

On the next day Moses said to the people, “You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going up to the LORD, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” Exodus 32:30  NASB

Make atonement – God is never appeased!  Appeasement is demanded by pagan deities, not by YHWH.  Why?  Because appeasement implies that the deity is in a state of wrath or anger and that some human action is needed to defer that anger.  Appeasement suggests that human beings are able, through their own efforts, to assuage the anger of the gods.  But the Hebrew view begins from an entirely different perspective.  God isn’t angry at us.  He is brokenhearted. God loves His creation.  Our rebellion produces a broken relationship that He is anxious to restore.  Of course, if all His efforts fail, the moral integrity of the creation calls for punishment, but this is not His beginning state of mind.  That’s why the Hebrew verb kipper “never refers to propitiation of God.  Even when a human person is the subject of the action, kipper denotes the action of a substitutionary mediator, effecting forgiveness of sin.”[1]

How is atonement made?  Someone stands between the offender and the offended.  Someone acts as the mediator.  Someone offers payment on behalf of the offender in order to restore the relationship with the offended.

In most of the sacrificial settings, a priest acts as the mediator.  The offering becomes the payment required by the offended party in order to heal the broken relationship.  The Torah spells out in great detail exactly what is required to restore such broken relationships.  The requirement implies a legal setting much like a court of law where certain restitution must be made to satisfy the judgment.  This works perfectly when the offenses concern interactions between human beings (for example, when a man steals someone’s property).  Atonement is the payment of the penalty.   But what happens when the offended party is God Himself?  What happens when my sin breaks relationship with Him?  How will I atone for that?  I am the offender.  I can’t come to the offended one, YHWH, on my own because I am the one who broke the relationship.  I need a mediator.

We see this principle in action when Israel offends YHWH in the incident of the golden calf.  Moses must act as the mediator.  Even with Moses in the middle, the outcome is uncertain.  “Perhaps I can make atonement.”  Why isn’t the atonement guaranteed? Moses isn’t certain what God will require as payment.  And Moses might not be sure if God will accept his role as mediator.  There is a lot at risk here since the required payment has not been specified.  Moses is doing all that he knows to do and all that he can do, but it might not be enough.  The price might just be too high for anyone to pay.  This sin is a “great sin,” a sin of blasphemy and idolatry, a sin that offends the very nature of God since it implies God is not who He claims to be.  The punishment for this sin is death.  But who can pay such a price?  Must every one of the children of Israel die in order to balance the books?  Must you and I be put to death because we too have committed a great sin?

God says, “NO!”  “I will take your place.”  No man can ransom the life of another from God.  In fact, no man is able to ransom even his own life from God (Psalm 49:8).  The price exceeds our ability to pay.  Who then will pay?

Only God.

And He does.

Topical Index:  kipper, atonement, ransom, substitution, Exodus 32:30


[1] Lang, kipper, TDOT, Vol. 7, p. 294

Clearing Up The Confusion

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010 | Author:

Thus the priest shall make expiation for them, and they shall be forgiven. Leviticus 4:20

Expiation – For centuries we have heard Christian theologians proclaim that forgiveness comes by grace alone.  Pastors and professors have driven a wedge between the teaching of Leviticus and the words of Paul.  The Jews were under the “law.”  Christians are under “grace.”  This is a false dichotomy.  Every Jew knew that sacrifice would not remove the guilt of intentional sin.  But every Jew also knew that sacrifice was absolutely essential for life before God.  Why?  Because every Jew knew there was a difference between moral purity and ritual purity.  In order to have fellowship with the Lord, a person must be cleansed on both counts.

Baruch Levine makes the point that the Hebrew verb, k-p-r, is often translated by a phrase such as “to cover or conceal.”  But this isn’t correct.  The idea behind kipper is to wipe clean, to remove defilement, to wipe off.  We can think of ritual impurity as if it were contamination.  The worshipper realizes that something done has contaminated his presence before God.  The contamination must be removed if he is to enjoy fellowship and proper worship.  God Himself has given the appropriate steps necessary to expiate (remove) this contamination.  That’s what Leviticus is all about.  God tells us how to worship Him.  We don’t make up the process of worship as we go along.  We don’t decide what we will do to worship Him.  He decides.  If we want to worship Him properly, we will take the steps He commands.  Some of those steps insure that we are ritually clean when we come before Him.

Too often we fail to distinguish between ritual purity and moral purity.  So, when we read the word “forgiven,” we think in terms of moral acts.  We think the sacrificial system was about forgiving our immoral choices.  Then we conclude that the Jews believed sacrifices brought redemption, and we reject that suggestion because it looks like “earning” salvation.  Once we see that sacrifices bring ritual purity, our views are corrected.  Every Jew knew that a sacrifice didn’t bring moral redemption.  Atonement brought moral redemption.  But the sacrifices were needed to wipe away the accumulation of ritual impurity – the contamination of daily life – that made communion with a holy God impossible.  Frankly, it’s hard to imagine that these requirements have changed.  Are we so ritually pure that we no longer need to be cleansed before we come into His presence?  Does moral atonement cover ritual defilement too?  Or are we really missing something here?  Does our behavior really say, “Thanks for forgiving me, Lord.  Now I will worship you in the way I choose to worship”?

Topical Index: worship, expiation, kipper, wipe away, conceal, Leviticus 4:20