WAS THERE FORGIVENESS BEFORE JESUS: MY RESPONSE

 

 

“You have argued that Jesus is irrelevant because the Israelites had been saved by following the Law of Moses.

 

In contrast, Jesus claimed that the only way to God the Father is through Jesus (John 14:6). His dying even worked retroactively to free the OT saints from their sins:

 

·       For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:13-15)

 

However, in support for your position, you claimed that some OT Jews had been sinless. As evidence, you pointed out that several, like Zachariah, had been called “blameless” and assumed that it meant sinless and saved.

 

However, Paul also called himself “blameless” but also the worst sinner (1 Timothy 1:15-16):

 

·       circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:5-6)

 

Besides, even the OT doesn’t equate “blameless” with “sinless”:

 

·       Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression. (Psalm 19:12-13)

 

From this Psalm, we understand that blamelessness is a matter of being innocent of willful sins. Besides, many OT verses claim that we are all laden with sins:

 

·       Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. (Psalm 143:2)

 

Finally, the Mosaic Covenant offered “forgiveness.” However, it was superficial, the mere covering of sins, not their eradication. Likewise, its “atonement” was a matter of covering over sins:

 

·       Then he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:10, 13, 16)

 

 One indication of this is covering over of sins is derived from the root meaning of “atonement”:

 

·       Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices. The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is kaphar, which has the idea of “covering,” not total removal. This word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be covered with pitch:

 

o   Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (Genesis 6:14) https://answersingenesis.org/sin/did-animal-sacrifices-remove-sin/

 

 We also find several verses where forgiveness is synonymous with a covering over sin:

Psalm 32:1 “Blessed is the one

                   whose transgression is forgiven,

                   whose sin is covered.

                  

 Psalm 85:2 You forgave the iniquity of your people;

                   you covered all their sin.

 This wasn’t forgiveness in the NT sense, where sins would be eradicated and remembered no more: “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

Evidently, actual forgiveness and salvation had to await the Messiah and His New Covenant. Instead, the Jews had to continually make sacrifices whenever they sinned. This reminded them that they were never truly right with God. Their relationship with Him was always tentative.