Leviticus 1:4

1:4 He must lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to make atonement ¹  on his behalf.

Leviticus 4:20

4:20 He must do with the rest of the bull just as he did with the bull of the sin offering; this is what he must do with it. ²  So the priest will make atonement ³  on their behalf and they will be forgiven. ⁴ 

Leviticus 4:26

4:26 Then the priest ⁵  must offer all of its fat up in smoke on the altar like the fat of the peace offering sacrifice. So the priest will make atonement ⁶  on his behalf for ⁷  his sin and he will be forgiven. ⁸ 

Leviticus 4:31

4:31 Then he must remove all of its fat (just as fat was removed from the peace offering sacrifice) and the priest must offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to the Lord. So the priest will make atonement ⁹  on his behalf and he will be forgiven. ¹⁰ 

Leviticus 4:35

4:35 Then the one who brought the offering ¹¹  must remove all its fat (just as the fat of the sheep is removed from the peace offering sacrifice) and the priest must offer them up in smoke on the altar on top of the other gifts of the Lord. So the priest will make atonement ¹²  on his behalf for his sin which he has committed and he will be forgiven. ¹³ 

Job 1:5

1:5 When ¹⁴  the days of their feasting were finished, ¹⁵  Job would send ¹⁶  for them and sanctify ¹⁷  them; he would get up early ¹⁸  in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to ¹⁹  the number of them all. For Job thought, “Perhaps ²⁰  my children ²¹  have sinned and cursed ²²  God in their hearts.” This was Job’s customary practice. ²³ 

Job 14:4

14:4 Who can make ²⁴  a clean thing come from an unclean? ²⁵ 

No one!

Romans 3:23

3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:26

3:26 This was ²⁶  also to demonstrate ²⁷  his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just ²⁸  and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. ²⁹ 

Romans 3:1

3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?

Colossians 1:14

1:14 in whom we have redemption, ³⁰  the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:12-14

9:12 and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured ³¹  eternal redemption. 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, ³²  9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our ³³  consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

[1:4]  ¹ tn “To make atonement” is the standard translation of the Hebrew term כִּפֶּר, (kipper); cf. however TEV “as a sacrifice to take away his sins” (CEV similar). The English word derives from a combination of “at” plus Middle English “one[ment],” referring primarily to reconciliation or reparation that is made in order to accomplish reconciliation. The primary meaning of the Hebrew verb, however, is “to wipe [something off (or on)]” (see esp. the goal of the sin offering, Lev 4, “to purge” the tabernacle from impurities), but in some cases it refers metaphorically to “wiping away” anything that might stand in the way of good relations by bringing a gift (see, e.g., Gen 32:20 [21 HT], “to appease; to pacify” as an illustration of this). The translation “make atonement” has been retained here because, ultimately, the goal of either purging or appeasing was to maintain a proper relationship between the Lord (who dwelt in the tabernacle) and Israelites in whose midst the tabernacle was pitched (see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:689-710 for a full discussion of the Hebrew word meaning “to make atonement” and its theological significance).

[4:20]  ² sn Cf. Lev 4:11-12 above for the disposition of “the [rest of] the bull.”

[4:20]  ³ sn The focus of sin offering “atonement” was purging impurities from the tabernacle (see the note on Lev 1:4).

[4:20]  ⁴ tn Heb “there shall be forgiveness to them” or “it shall be forgiven to them.”

[4:26]  ⁵ tn Heb “Then he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. Based on the parallel statements in 4:10 and 4:31, it is the priest who performs this action rather than the person who brought the offering.

[4:26]  ⁶ sn The focus of sin offering “atonement” was purging impurities from the tabernacle (see the note on Lev 1:4).

[4:26]  ⁷ tn Heb “from.” In this phrase the preposition מִן (min) may be referring to the reason or cause (“on account of, because of”; GKC 383 §119.z). As J. E. Hartley (Leviticus [WBC], 47) points out, “from” may refer to the removal of the sin, but is an awkward expression. Hartley also suggests that the phrasing might be “an elliptical expression for יְכַפֵּר עַל־לְטַהֵר אֶת־מִן, ‘he will make expiation for…to cleanse…from…,’ as in 16:30.”

[4:26]  ⁸ tn Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).

[4:31]  ⁹ sn The focus of sin offering “atonement” was purging impurities from the tabernacle (see the note on Lev 1:4).

[4:31]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).

[4:35]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Then he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here “he” refers to the offerer rather than the priest (contrast the clauses before and after).

[4:35]  ¹² sn The focus of sin offering “atonement” was purging impurities from the tabernacle (see the note on Lev 1:4).

[4:35]  ¹³ tn Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).

[1:5]  ¹⁴ tn The verse begins with the temporal indicator “and it happened” or “and it came to pass,” which need not be translated. The particle כִּי (ki, “when”) with the initial verbal form indicates it is a temporal clause.

[1:5]  ¹⁵ tn The verb is the Hiphil perfect of נָקַף (naqaf, “go around”), here it means “to make the round” or “complete the circuit” (BDB 668-69 s.v. II נָקַף Hiph). It indicates that when the feasting had made its circuit of the seven sons, then Job would sanctify them.

[1:5]  ¹⁶ tn The form is a preterite with vav (ו) consecutive. The same emphasis on repeated or frequent action continues here in this verse. The idea here is that Job would send for them, because the sanctification of them would have consisted of washings and changes of garments as well as the sacrifices (see Gen 35:2; 1 Sam 16:5).

[1:5]  ¹⁷ tn Or “purify.”

[1:5]  ¹⁸ tn The first verb could also be joined with the next to form a verbal hendiadys: “he would rise early and he would sacrifice” would then simply be “he would sacrifice early in the morning” (see M. Delcor, “Quelques cas de survivances du vocabulaire nomade en hébreu biblique,” VT 25 [1975]: 307-22). This section serves to explain in more detail how Job sanctified his children.

[1:5]  ¹⁹ tn The text does not have “according to”; the noun “number” is an accusative that defines the extent of his actions (GKC 373-74 §118.e, h).

[1:5]  ²⁰ tn The clause stands as an accusative to the verb, here as the direct object introduced with “perhaps” (IBHS 645-46 §38.8d).

[1:5]  ²¹ tn Heb “sons,” but since the three daughters are specifically mentioned in v. 4, “children” has been used in the translation. In this patriarchal culture, however, it is possible that only the sons are in view.

[1:5]  ²² tn The Hebrew verb is בָּרַךְ (barakh), which means “to bless.” Here is a case where the writer or a scribe has substituted the word “curse” with the word “bless” to avoid having the expression “curse God.” For similar euphemisms in the ancient world, see K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 166. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what Job feared they might have done. The opposite of “bless” would be “curse,” which normally would convey disowning or removing from blessing. Some commentators try to offer a definition of “curse” from the root in the text, and noting that “curse” is too strong, come to something like “renounce.” The idea of blaspheming is probably not meant; rather, in their festivities they may have said things that renounced God or their interest in him. Job feared this momentary turning away from God in their festivities, perhaps as they thought their good life was more important than their religion.

[1:5]  ²³ tn The imperfect expresses continual action in past time, i.e., a customary imperfect (GKC 315 §107.e).

[14:4]  ²⁴ tn The expression is מִי־יִתֵּן (mi-yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b). Some commentators (H. H. Rowley and A. B. Davidson) wish to take this as the optative formula: “O that a clean might come out of an unclean!” But that does not fit the verse very well, and still requires the addition of a verb. The exclamation here simply implies something impossible – man is unable to attain purity.

[14:4]  ²⁵ sn The point being made is that the entire human race is contaminated by sin, and therefore cannot produce something pure. In this context, since man is born of woman, it is saying that the woman and the man who is brought forth from her are impure. See Ps 51:5; Isa 6:5; and Gen 6:5.

[3:26]  ²⁶ tn The words “This was” have been repeated from the previous verse to clarify that this is a continuation of that thought. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[3:26]  ²⁷ tn Grk “toward a demonstration,” repeating and expanding the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a.

[3:26]  ²⁸ tn Or “righteous.”

[3:26]  ²⁹ tn Or “of the one who has faith in Jesus.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 22 for the rationale behind the translation “Jesus’ faithfulness.”

[1:14]  ³⁰ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou {aimato" autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464 al) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: {א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 Ï latt co as well as several other versions and fathers}. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

[9:12]  ³¹ tn This verb occurs in the Greek middle voice, which here intensifies the role of the subject, Christ, in accomplishing the action: “he alone secured”; “he and no other secured.”

[9:13]  ³² tn Grk “for the purifying of the flesh.” The “flesh” here is symbolic of outward or ritual purity in contrast to inner purity, that of the conscience (cf. Heb 9:9).

[9:14]  ³³ tc The reading adopted by the translation is attested by many authorities (A D* K P 365 1739* al). But many others (א D² 0278 33 1739^c 1881 Ï lat sa) read “your” instead of “our.” The diversity of evidence makes this a difficult case to decide from external evidence alone. The first and second person pronouns differ by only one letter in Greek, as in English, also making this problem difficult to decide based on internal evidence and transcriptional probability. In the context, the author’s description of sacrificial activities seems to invite the reader to compare his own possible participation in OT liturgy as over against the completed work of Christ, so the second person pronoun “your” might make more sense. On the other hand, TCGNT 599 argues that “our” is preferable because the author of Hebrews uses direct address (i.e., the second person) only in the hortatory sections. What is more, the author seems to prefer the first person in explanatory remarks or when giving the logical grounds for an assertion (cf. Heb 4:15; 7:14). It is hard to reach a definitive conclusion in this case, but the data lean slightly in favor of the first person pronoun.