Question...what happened to Adam's sin?

[heartstrings]

"The kingdom of heaven" is not speaking of the same place, but the others are speaking of "paradise". In the OT "hell" had two compartments, a place of torment, and a pleasant, temporary holding place till Christs work was complete. God's presence was there, but not the glory of God. God's presence is just about everywhere.

"Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."


A couple more verses showing that in the OT they had to wait for the redemption of Christ:

"Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah."

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.


Here David shows that he was expecting to go to the "depths of the earth" where "paradise" or "hell" was until Christs redemption.

"Psalm 71:20 Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth."

And again here is another OT prophecy about this deliverance from "paradise", the "prison house", or what ever term you want to use.

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

This was fulfilled here:

"Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Just as Jesus stayed around a while to testify to the believers of his resurrection so apparently did a number of deceased OT believers who arose with him.

:thumb:

[Guest]

"The kingdom of heaven" is not speaking of the same place, but the others are speaking of "paradise". In the OT "hell" had two compartments, a place of torment, and a pleasant, temporary holding place till Christs work was complete. God's presence was there, but not the glory of God. God's presence is just about everywhere.

"Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."


A couple more verses showing that in the OT they had to wait for the redemption of Christ:

"Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah."

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.


Here David shows that he was expecting to go to the "depths of the earth" where "paradise" or "hell" was until Christs redemption.

"Psalm 71:20 Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth."

And again here is another OT prophecy about this deliverance from "paradise", the "prison house", or what ever term you want to use.

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

This was fulfilled here:

"Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Just as Jesus stayed around a while to testify to the believers of his resurrection so apparently did a number of deceased OT believers who arose with him.

The questions from my post #36; are rhetorical.

[JerryNumbers]

I did not read every reply, I have not the time right now, but some seem to think that the blood of animal could save people during the Old Testament times.


Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Yet, according to this verse that is impossible.

If I took it wrong, forgive me.

[heartstrings]

I did not read every reply, I have not the time right now, but some seem to think that the blood of animal could save people during the Old Testament times.


Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Yet, according to this verse that is impossible.

If I took it wrong, forgive me.

The Bible says that Jesus was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". The blood of sacrificial animals could never save anyone. Anyone who got saved in the OT was saved by grace through faith. (Hebrews chapter 11). OT saints evidently did not go to Heaven when they died but....when they died, their destiny was sealed, same as ours is when we die. For instance, when David died, he may have went to "Abraham's Bosom" or "the heart of the earth" but because of that "grace through faith", he knew his ultimate destination was going to be in Heaven in the presence of God. And he undeniably trusted in the Messiah as his "Lord" because he says so. By contrast, when someone like Jezebel or "the rich man" died, they went straight to Hell. Edited March 15, 2011 by heartstrings

[Brother Rick]

I did not read every reply, I have not the time right now, but some seem to think that the blood of animal could save people during the Old Testament times.


Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Yet, according to this verse that is impossible.

If I took it wrong, forgive me.

I agree with this 100%. The only thing that can take away sins is the blood of Jesus Christ.

The only way I see to reconcile this with the Levitical passages is that while those in the Old Testament had their sins forgiven and atoned for (covered) by the blood of animals, their sins were not actually completely taken away until Christ's work at Calvary was complete. There is a significant difference.

Heb. 9:19-22, "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21) Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

The phrase "without shedding of blood is no remission" is a phrase that is used commonly when preaching about the blood atonement of Christ. I have no problem with that. If you look at the immediate context though, the verse is talking about Moses, the law, the blood of calves and goats, people and things being sprinkled with animal blood, and the law purging "almost all things." The verse is talking about Old Testament sacrifices remitting people's sins.

There is a difference between sins being remitted and redeemed. Remitted is basically covered up and forgiven - but the sin is still there. Being redeemed is what Christ did for everyone in every age; the sins are completely taken away as if it never happened. Until the blood was shed, remission was the only option.

Otherwise, why did God tell people in the Old Testament that to get their sins forgiven and atoned for they had to sacrifice an animal?

[John81]

Otherwise, why did God tell people in the Old Testament that to get their sins forgiven and atoned for they had to sacrifice an animal?

The OT laws were put forth as an example and teaching tool. Scripture explains this very well.

The blood of animals could never save and only served as a symbol of that which was to come.

Scripture tells us that obedience is better than sacrifice, and this was stated in the OT. The sacrifices served as a symbol and the people abiding by the OT laws, or not, served as proof (a sort of fruits, if you will) of their obedience to God, their faith, or lack of the same.

Just as you are asking how they could believe in the promise of Christ and receive salvation, so many also ask how we can receive salvation today from something that was done 2,000 years ago. Is it more difficult to believe that Christ could die for sins already committed and grant salvation to those who came before His death, burial and resurrection than it is to believe that He could do that for those not yet born?

[heartstrings]

:amen:

The OT laws were put forth as an example and teaching tool. Scripture explains this very well.

The blood of animals could never save and only served as a symbol of that which was to come.

Scripture tells us that obedience is better than sacrifice, and this was stated in the OT. The sacrifices served as a symbol and the people abiding by the OT laws, or not, served as proof (a sort of fruits, if you will) of their obedience to God, their faith, or lack of the same.

Just as you are asking how they could believe in the promise of Christ and receive salvation, so many also ask how we can receive salvation today from something that was done 2,000 years ago. Is it more difficult to believe that Christ could die for sins already committed and grant salvation to those who came before His death, burial and resurrection than it is to believe that He could do that for those not yet born?

[Brother Rick]

The OT laws were put forth as an example and teaching tool. Scripture explains this very well.

The blood of animals could never save and only served as a symbol of that which was to come.

Scripture tells us that obedience is better than sacrifice, and this was stated in the OT. The sacrifices served as a symbol and the people abiding by the OT laws, or not, served as proof (a sort of fruits, if you will) of their obedience to God, their faith, or lack of the same.

Just as you are asking how they could believe in the promise of Christ and receive salvation, so many also ask how we can receive salvation today from something that was done 2,000 years ago. Is it more difficult to believe that Christ could die for sins already committed and grant salvation to those who came before His death, burial and resurrection than it is to believe that He could do that for those not yet born?

Thanks John, I agree that the law was our school master to bring us to Christ - no doubt about it - and you make some good points. I think one of the best ways to lead someone to the Lord is by using the Ten Commandments to show them they're guilty before God.

Here's my hang-up: living in the Old Testament, after God lays down the Law and people find themselves guilty before God and they are searching for a solution to their sin problem.... the solution that is given is the blood of an animal. God explicitly said over and over again that by offering that sacrifice their sin would be forgiven and covered (see some of the verses in post #43). I see no where in the Old Testament where the solution to the sin problem is putting faith in a future Messiah.

When Jesus comes to Earth, and He begins dealing with people is the first time I see people putting faith in Jesus as an answer to their sin problem. The Samaritan woman's sin was solved by believing Jesus was the Messiah. This was before the cross, and yet I don't see anyone before Calvary putting faith in Christ because of a future blood atonement He would offer. They just believed He was who He said He was, as did the twelve who didn't understand the idea of a blood atonement even days before Calvary. Though it was prophesied way before, Christ's blood atonement was a mystery until after it had actually happened.

This is a good discussion and I really appreciate the comments. I hope no one here thinks I'm trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand better and work through this. I think all the sides have valid points worth exploring. Edited March 15, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Covenanter]

We agree that animal blood of itself could not take away sin. Nor can the water of baptism. It is what they signify that is important. Circumcision puts a man into a covenant - a covenant that requires perfect obedience to the Law. Eating bread & wine of itself is not eating the body & blood of the Lord.

Yet OT & OC saints had a true saving relationship with God that made them righteous in God's sight, & fit for his presence.

That Hebrews 9 quote comes from Ex. 24, & the result was that those sprinkled with the blood of the covenant entered the presence of God.

Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
9 ¶ Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and [there was] under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in [his] clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

To neglect circumcision was to break the covenant, but to practise it was of itself of no effect. Heart circumcision was required.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Stephen declared the Jews uncircumcised.

Act 7:51 ¶ Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye. The OC was finished.

A right spiritual understanding was evident in the OC rituals. The significance was Christ. The rituals we perform have the same significance. Perhaps the OC saints did not fully understand the Messianic significance - does that prevent the LORD saving? Do we fully understand?

Inventing wild doctrines like spiritual prison for saints, Abraham's bosom & an underground Paradise is not edifying.

[Brother Rick]

Darn! I was with you alllllll the way up until that last line, Ian! :)

[Salyan]

When Jesus comes to Earth, and He begins dealing with people is the first time I see people putting faith in Jesus as an answer to their sin problem. The Samaritan woman's sin was solved by believing Jesus was the Messiah. This was before the cross, and yet I don't see anyone before Calvary putting faith in Christ because of a future blood atonement He would offer. They just believed He was who He said He was, as did the twelve who didn't understand the idea of a blood atonement even days before Calvary. Though it was prophesied way before, Christ's blood atonement was a mystery until after it had actually happened.

But whether or not people's prior understanding of the blood sacrifice of the Messiah was recorded, isn't the information in the OT clear enough that they SHOULD have been able to? However imperfectly? I'm thinking along the lines of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, coupled with their knowledge of the necessity of bloodshed in atonement (Lev. 17:11), and a logical connection with the sprinkling of Isaiah 52:15 with the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices.

And btw, I agree with the underground Paradise/Abraham's bosom. :coolsmiley:

[Brother Rick]

But whether or not people's prior understanding of the blood sacrifice of the Messiah was recorded, isn't the information in the OT clear enough that they SHOULD have been able to? However imperfectly? I'm thinking along the lines of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, coupled with their knowledge of the necessity of bloodshed in atonement (Lev. 17:11), and a logical connection with the sprinkling of Isaiah 52:15 with the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices.

And btw, I agree with the underground Paradise/Abraham's bosom.

I don't know if they should have or shouldn't have. Can you fault them for not, when none of the twelve understood the blood atonement until after Calvary? Yes, it certainly was prophesied, but I've yet to see where faith in a future Messiah was presented to anyone in the Old Testament as a solution to their sin problem.

[Covenanter]

Rick:
Put yourself in the shoes of someone before Christ. There is no New Testament, so why do you keep using the New Testament to explain things that have nothing to do with the New Testament? Imagine tearing all the New Testament out of your Bible, and then show someone how to get their sin problem taken care of.

Try reading Psalm 32 & 51, & Romans 4.

[Brother Rick]

Try reading Psalm 32 & 51, & Romans 4.

Sure thing brother, I'll do it tonight. I remember Psalm 51 for the most part. It's about as powerful a chapter there is in the Bible.

[Seth Doty]

There is a difference between sins being remitted and redeemed. Remitted is basically covered up and forgiven - but the sin is still there. Being redeemed is what Christ did for everyone in every age; the sins are completely taken away as if it never happened. Until the blood was shed, remission was the only option.

I don't think you are properly defining "remission" as the bible uses it. Some examples:

"Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

."Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

"Romans 3:25 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;"

"Hebrews 10:14-20 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"

Otherwise, why did God tell people in the Old Testament that to get their sins forgiven and atoned for they had to sacrifice an animal?

Hebrews chapters 10-11 should make that clear. They did it by faith in what was to come. If it were merely a formula of do X, offer this or that sacrifice and your automatically forgiven in the OT for this or that sin then the adulterous woman in Proverbs 7:14 would perhaps have had a point. Of course she didn't though because the sacrifice wasn't what brought forgiveness, the hearts repentance was. True believers in the OT would understand that. That is why apparently, when you look at psalm 51:16, it seems that David did not even offer a sacrifice for his sin after his adultery with bathsheba. He knew quite well sacrifice wasn't anything in and of itself. You can also see in Christ parable of the pharisee and the publicans prayers that repentance not works was the key issue. Although that parable is recorded in the NT it is still speaking of the state of affairs under the old covenant.