Forgiveness In The Old Testament

The Old Testament saints were actually forgiven of their sins when they met the required conditions. It is not just that their sins were “rolled forward” as some Christians teach. Let’s notice some passages that actually say this outright …

Psalms 32:1,5 “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered … I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Notice the text says the writer was forgiven – past tense, not just that he would be forgiven when Jesus died on the cross.

When Nathan confronted David with his sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah, David replied “I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” Again, David’s sin was “put away” past tense. God put away his sin at that time, not centuries later at the moment Jesus died on the cross.

Read Lev 4:20,26,31,35,5:10,13,16,18 in the two Old Testament chapters about sins of ignorance. Notice eight times the sense is that when the sacrifice is offered, the sin is forgiven. We see the same in Lev 6:7, 19:22, Num 15:25, 26, 28, 30:5, 8, and 12.

And notice how Num 14:19 reads – “Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” Past tense forgiveness again, right?

All of the following verses have forgiveness in the past tense, not future (i.e., just rolled forward):

· Psalms 78:38 “But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.”

· Psalms 85:2 “Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin.”

· Psalms 99:8 “Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions”

Mark 1:4 says John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” just like Acts 2:38. You mean John’s baptism didn’t really (actually) lead to the remission of sins? Then how do we know Acts 2:38 really does?

There are in fact dozens of passages that teach people actually received forgiveness in Old Testament times. So why doesn’t everybody agree? Let’s examine some of the objections …

Some point out “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4), and that is true. But I am not saying the animal sacrifices took away the sin back then, but that the blood of Christ did it. Heb 9:15 points this fact out – “And for this cause he (Jesus) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Likewise the very point of the similar Rom 3:24-26 is that sins were forgiven in the Old Testament, and that the death of Christ justified God in doing that – back then. Here is that passage from the KJV – “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” So God forgave sin in the past and the death of Jesus declared God righteous in doing so.

Some object that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb 9:22) and Jesus had not shed his blood yet. But the verse uses the word “without” not “until.” It does not say “until the shedding of blood is no remission.” See the difference? If we buy our groceries on credit, we pay later, but we eat the groceries now. When Rev 13:8 says Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world,” it doesn’t mean Jesus actually died before man was created, but it means it was “as good as done.” If Jesus’ death was as good as done, then God could certainly have forgiven sins in Old Testament times based upon that death. As we pointed out earlier, that’s what Rom 3:24-26 is saying.

It is true remembrance for sins were made every year (Heb 10:3), but there is a difference in forgiveness and “forgetness.” My wife has forgiven me many times, but she didn’t always forget immediately. Under the old covenant God forgave but didn’t always forget. That is one of the things that makes the new covenant better than the old; now God not only forgives, but forgets (Heb 8:12).

One last question – if God didn’t actually forgive Old Testament saints of their sins, that would mean they went to the grave unjustified, and what then would Rev 14:13 (“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord”) say about their eternal destiny?

Jesus Was Punished Instead Of Us

Isaiah 53:5 prophesies about Jesus – “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” That says Jesus was chastised so we could have peace with God; Jesus was chastised for our sins so we wouldn’t have to be. Since Jesus had zero sin, He certainly wasn’t being chastised for anything He had done. So it had to be for what we have done (substitution). I don’t see any way around that conclusion, do you? The real question is – why would anybody want to try to get around Isaiah 53:5? What do they have to gain?

Some ask how it could be fair that Jesus was chastised for our sins instead of us. But whether we think it was fair or not is irrelevant. The only thing really relevant is that God said it is true. In one sense it is not “fair” for one man to be put to death for another man’s crimes, but that would be true even if you’re talking about a sacrificial death only. Hiram Hutto once explained to me that Jesus’ death was fair because God volunteered himself (not another) to die for us.

Some wonder why Jesus didn’t have to suffer an eternity in Gehenna if He took our place. Well if you’ve ever seen a Hogan’s Heroes rerun on TV, you may have noticed the many times Colonel Hogan (as an officer) was threatened with a lesser punishment than his enlisted men for the same transgression. Perhaps similarly since Jesus is of such a higher rank than us, God considers the punishment Jesus endured a fair trade off. But regardless if that is the reason, we should be thankful God considered it a fair trade off even if we don’t understand how. God doesn’t have to ask our permission you know.

Conclusion: Verse 5 also says Jesus was “wounded for our transgressions,” “bruised for our iniquities”; “with his stripes we are healed” (spiritually, I Peter 2:24). That confirms Jesus was punished for us, right? That’s what we mean by substitution. Either Jesus was chastised for his own sins, or He was chastised for our sins (in our place). Which was it?

Forget The Consequences

Since the Bible is our standard, the truth is what the Bible actually says (John 17:17). Unfortunately, in determining the truth on different issues, many let the consequences of their possible decisions dictate what their decision is going to be.

A classic example of this occurring is found in Matt 21:23-27, which reads “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” Notice when Jesus asked the chief priests and elders of the people from whence did the baptism of John come, they couldn’t answer, not because they couldn’t make a correct judgment based upon the evidence, but because the consequences of deciding for either choice would be unpleasant. They were letting the answer to the issue before them be determined, not by the facts, but by the consequences of the possible answers to the question.

Many do the same today. Most of “Christendom” cannot see the plain fact from Mark 16:16 and other passages that baptism is necessary to salvation. A good number of these cannot see the obvious because of how many people would be wrong, past and present, if the Bible did teach that baptism is essential.

How many times has the reader pointed out to a non-Christian that sin condemns even a Christian (that “once saved, always saved” is not true), only to have them respond with, “but that would leave a Christian with no assurance,” or “then nobody will be saved because we can’t help sinning”? These are supposed consequences of the doctrine that a Christian can lose his salvation, that cause many to reject what Gal 5:4 and many other passages plainly say. We should believe what these passages teach paying no mind to the consequences.

I Cor 6 teaches we must not sue another Christian, even an unfaithful Christian, otherwise there would be no possibility of having to take wrong (verse 7). Many can’t accept this, and sometimes it seems the reason they can’t accept it is not because of what the text does or doesn’t say, but because of the possibility of being out a good bit of money. Notice Acts 19:19 describes some Christians burning some books which ran contrary to the Lord’s cause, which according to the passage cost a good bit of money.

Some Christians will not practice the teaching of I Cor 5 and other passages on withdrawal because that would mean they would have to cease having social contact and eating with (verse 9) their relatives and close friends. Yes indeed we might have to withdraw from someone close to us, but after all, who is going to have the most effect on a fallen Christian by withdrawing from them, one who is close to that Christian, or one who just barely knew them?

The Bible teaches divorce is wrong in Matt 5:32, that is, marriage is for life. Some won’t accept what this verse actually says, because that would mean a person might have to live with someone who has a “mean and viscious spirit” as one writer put it. None of the marriage and divorce issues should be decided base upon consequences. We must accept what God’s word says on the matter regardless of how unpleasant we deem the consequences of that position. The answers to the marriage and divorce questions are contained in the text of the passages that bear on the issue, and not in any of our own human reasoning on how hard that answer might make it for someone.

Remember John 12:42-43 where many of the chief rulers believed on Christ, but would not confess him because of the Pharisees (the consequences)? We must not let the consequences of a position play a part in our decision on a Biblical issue. If the text of the Bible teaches it, we must accept it no matter what we think the consequences are. The Bible is our standard, and living by that standard could possibly leave us facing some unpleasant consequences. But isn’t that the real test of whether or not we are actually serving God, or just doing what we would want to do anyway? We need to accept what the texts actually say, and let the chips fall where they may.

Matthew 19:9 States The Facts Of The Case; Romans 7:2-3 States The Reason

Jesus states a moral and theological fact in Matthew 19:9a – “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” But how could marrying a second wife in this case result in adultery? Doesn’t Vine’s define an “adulterer” as “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another”? If a man divorces his wife for say incompatibility and marries another, how could it be adultery for him to be married to the second wife? Isn’t the second his current spouse?

The answer lies in Romans 7:2-3 – “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” The reason it is adultery for a man to divorce his wife for any reason other than fornication and marry another, is because that man is still bound (obligated) to his original wife as long as she lives, and the unscriptural divorce and remarriage doesn’t change that fact.

So if she is still alive, he is still obligated to her even though the state of Alabama may say he is free to marry another. The original wife is supposed to be his spouse according to God. Since he is still obligated to her, if he has relations with another (even within human legal marriage), that makes him an adulterer because he is cheating “against” his original wife (Mark 10:11).

Conclusion: Matthew 19:9 states the fact that if a man divorces he wife (other than for fornication) and remarries, he commits adultery. Romans 7:2-3 states the reason for that fact: He is still bound (obligated) to his original wife even though he is married to a second. Romans 7:2-3 states the reason “divorce followed by remarriage” results in adultery.