(This is the fourth of four blogs about the atonement of Christ. First one)
Those who argue that Jesus’ death brought atonement for the sins of the entire world support their claim with a handful of passages. But the only specific ‘atonement’ verse used is 1 John 2:2. We just considered what that verse says about Jesus as atoning sacrifice. Here
Consider John 1:29 “. . .Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” It is true that Jesus has some effect on the sin of the world. Can it be said that he takes away everyone’s sin? If sin is the reason for wrath and punishment, has sin been taken away from those who are now suffering in hell? If so, then why are they there? Obviously, something more than Jesus taking away sins is required for salvation. One must believe in Him as Savior. Sins are taken away through the atonement but only those who believe will be forgiven. How do we understand the word “world” in this verse? Can it mean every living person? No! Because every single person has not had their sins taken away. One possible answer is this. Lamb of God is an obvious Jewish symbol. So the Baptizer is announcing that Jesus was the Jewish lamb that would affect forgiveness for the world. He is the only one who will. Similarly, in John 4:42 and 1 Timothy 4:10 Jesus is called the savior of the world. Not that he saves everybody in the world but that he is the only Savior of the world.
Another place where unlimited atonement is said to be taught is Matthew 23: 37. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!”
Notice the following points of interpretation.
1. Atonement appears nowhere in this verse or surrounding verses.
2. Jesus lament is for Jerusalem. What or who is Jerusalem? Jesus had previously used the name of cities to characterize the leadership. Matthew 11:23 is a denunciation of Capernaum. This is the city where Jesus Himself settled, Matthew 4:13. So unless the entire population there rejected Him the condemnation must be for the leaders who controlled the city.
3. It is Jerusalem who is killing the prophets. Who did that? Who killed the prophets? The entire population or the leaders. History proves that it was the leaders. Jesus specifically defines these leaders in verses 29-36 as scribes and Pharisees.
4. Jerusalem, the town leaders, was unwilling to allow her children to come to Christ. Who were the children of Jerusalem? The general population. So those in charge of the city would not allow the general population to come to Christ. This means simply that the scribes and Pharisees prevented Jews from seeing Christ.
Conclusion: The will and choice of Jerusalem’s residents is not the point of contention nor the cause of Jesus’ grief. It is the leadership of Jerusalem that is condemned here and then forewarned in verse 38. Neither individual free-will nor the atonement are remotely connected to this passage. It is wrong to snatch this verse from its proper context to find an atonement application.
Another verse used to support unlimited atonement is 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.” Again take note that ‘atonement’ is not here either.
Two questions must be answered to understand Peter’s meaning. What does it mean to be bought? Why does Peter use the word Master rather than Lord?
1. Notice that it is false teachers who are bought. The Master has not bought the right to own or the privilege to use, he has bought the men themselves. This purchase guarantees possession. There is no NT example of buying that is not followed by possessing. The Master who bought these false teachers owns them! These men are described as pernicious, sensual, greedy, exploitive. Their judgment was established long ago and their destruction is wide awake. (2-3) These false teachers are compared to fallen angels (verse 4) ,the reprobates of Noah’s day who perished in the flood (verse 5),and the ungodly citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah (verse 6). Further, in verses 10-22, there is nothing that would indicate they ever came to faith. Verse 14 says they never cease from sin. Verse 19 labels them as slaves of corruption. They knew the way of righteousness, verse 21, but turned from it. They certainly do not sound like men who imitate God. Yet verse 1 says they have been bought and are the possession of the Master. They are the Master’s people. How so?
2. The word bought is agorazo. This NT word is used 5 other times in a salvation context but never without the price listed. See 1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23, Rev 5:9, 14:3-4 Clearly, humanity is in view in 2 Peter 2:1. If the term is used here as in similar contexts, then Peter is teaching that certain false teachers who at some time were purchased and owned by God, that is, became believers, have now turned against His mastery and are destined for destruction. Or to put it more candidly, Peter is teaching that one can lose his salvation. There is only one way this term may be used in any context that relates to salvation. If atonement is in view, bought must mean the same thing it does in the other 5 verses listed. It cannot mean anything less than salvation. But that means that saved men have lost salvation. That condition contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture otherwise. The word must not be related to salvation. If not in regard to salvation, how then have these men been bought?
3. The Greek OT and NT uses of the word agorazo consistently demonstrate that when a purchase price is listed, the word may be translated ‘buy.’ But in contexts when that is not the case, as in 2 Peter 2:1, one may safely translate the term ‘acquire’ or ‘obtain.’ Context provides the most definitive answer to the meaning of any given word. Since no price is given in 2 Peter 2:1 it is acceptable to understand agorazw as “acquire or obtain”, especially in view of Peter’s use of ‘Master’ rather than Lord.
4. The meaning of despot ( despotes.) It is striking that Lord, (kurios) is not used in this verse, especially in view of that word’s strong implications of deity and Lordship. Peter does employ the title 14 times in this short letter, three times in the verses that follow. But not here. That bears consideration. Why? Because Peter is not thinking in terms of salvation or atonement. The word “despotes” is used 30 times in the Bible. The common idea is that of God as Master because he created. Deut 32:5-6 is extremely helpful. Notice the use of sons and father. “They have corrupted themselves: they are not His sons; it is their blemish; they are a crooked and perverse generation. Do you thus give back to Jehovah, Oh foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?” This foolish people are not sons but God is nevertheless their Father. In a similar way Peter stays clear of Jesus as Lord to be plain about the disposition of these false teachers. They are not saved but nevertheless servants of the Creator.
Conclusions. The verse and its context provide two possible interpretations.
1. 2 Peter 2:1 is a description of saved individuals who have lost their salvation. Anyone who takes the idea of ‘bought’ as a term related to atonement or salvation must come to this conclusion. That fits well with an Arminian theology but opposes the consistent teaching of Scripture.
2. This verse describes unsaved individuals who are slaves of God because He is their owner and thus owe Him recognition as Master. But they have disregarded His despotic Sovereignty and turned away. This conclusion does not contradict any Scripture and fits with the normal usage of simple words.
One final example will show how difficult it is to find passages that prove one extreme of the atonement issue. It may be suggested that Matthew 13: 44 teaches unlimited atonement. "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, hidden in a field, that a person found and hid. Then because of joy he went and sold all that he had and bought that field.” In the unlimited atonement view Jesus is the man who finds the treasure and buys the field. After all, according to verse 38 the field is the world. So Jesus sells all he has, i.e., gives His life for the world to save the treasure, i.e., those who will be saved.
The key to understanding this parable is right here in the context. And context is the ultimate key to understanding Scripture. Most difficult passages can be simplified by interpreting within the context. So what is the key? Verse 51. Jesus had shared this parable and three more only with the disciples. When He was finished he asked if they understood everything he had said. They answered that they did. In verse 52 he commends them. He does not correct them or challenge their thinking. Our job as faithful students who desire to accurately handle the truth is to discover what the disciples understood. Would the disciples have thought that Jesus was talking about His substitutionary atonement? No! Jesus Himself had not yet introduced that idea. Jesus death is not part of this parable. As far as they knew at some point in the future He was going to set up the Kingdom. So what did they think Jesus was saying? Very simply put, in this and the following parable, the pearl of great price, Jesus is describing how valuable is the kingdom of heaven. And challenging disciples to make sure they will be part of it. Six parables in this chapter are comparisons of common things to the kingdom. The simplest meaning of parables is always the best. The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure that you can’t afford to miss. It’s like the best pearl you will ever find. That is all we should say definitively about what the parable means. There is no atonement here but rather a wonderful encouragement to align one’s life with the greatness and beauty of God’s kingdom.
Did the atonement of Christ effect every single person in the same way? What do you think? Study the Scriptures. For as Jesus said, they teach about Him. Ultimately it is not what someone else teaches you but what God confirms in His Word that has eternal value. The Berean church will stand with you on that ground and you will praise God together for the wonderful things He has done.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
ATONEMENT DEFINED- NEW TESTAMENT
There is no description of atonement in the New Testament; the understanding of atonement therefore must be based on the Old Testament. Surveying the meaning and application of atonement in the New Testament is much less daunting. In fact, the Greek Old Testament, which is called the Septuagint, gives us a valuable start. The 70 men who translated that work used the word ilasterion (place of mercy) and words similar to it to define the act and place of atonement. These words are used only six times in the New Testament. Interestingly, the KJV translates another word atonement in Romans 5:11. That word is actually reconciliation. The NAS does not have the word atonement anywhere in the NT.
Any doctrine or understanding of the atonement ought to include the truth of these verses since they are the only verses in the New Testament that even talk about atonement. Let’s examine these 6 verses more closely to see how they connect with atonement and its definition.
Luke 18:13 has the tax collector praying to God, “Have mercy on me the sinner.” Two things are evident. He knew that sin was a problem. He knew that God could solve it. This man was a Jewish employee of Rome. His understanding of where mercy could be found was naturally based on his knowledge of the OT laws of atonement. He asks God to ‘atone’ for him. What did that mean? Whatever it meant in the Old Testament.
The verb form is used again in Hebrews 2:17. The KJV says that Jesus would make reconciliation for the sins of the people. The NAS says he would make propitiation. Reconciliation and propitiation are similar terms and bear further study but let’s use this word the same way it is used in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) . The NET Bible actually does use the word atonement here. “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” Jesus is now the high priest who makes atonement for sin. This is clearly an Old Testament illustration. And based on the OT, atonement means cleansing and forgiveness. Jesus is a merciful and faithful high priest who cleanses and forgives the sin of people.
John uses the term ilasmos twice in his first letter. It is translated propitiation in most versions of the NT. The NET Bible reads ‘atoning sacrifice.’ 1 Jn 2:2 - “and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.” 1 Jn 4:10- “In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Atoning sacrifice is a more accurate translation. It is consistent with the Greek OT. But what does it mean that Jesus is ‘the atoning sacrifice’ for sins? The OT meaning gives the New Testament application. Lacking any new information and maintaining consistency in word usage leads to this sense. Jesus, as the atoning sacrifice forgives sins, cleanses sins, purges sins. And John says that He does this for the sins of the whole world. (4:10 is briefer, ‘the atoning sacrifice for our sins.’)
Here we are met with an apparent contradiction. Does not Scripture teach that forgiveness comes through confession and that only those who have trusted Christ are forgiven? I John 1:9, Ephesians 1:7. Romans 10:9-10, et.al How then can Jesus be the forgiveness for the whole world’s sins. Aren’t forgiveness and whole world incompatible? This is the kind of question that offers an exciting challenge for Bible study. And here is the principle that helps us in the work. Focus on the words that have a fixed meaning. Of “world” and “propitiation” it is propitiation which has the fixed meaning. There are no variants in its definition. It always means exactly what it means here. Jesus is right now the atonement- the one who forgives, cleanses and purges sin. Is every man, woman and child right now forgiven and cleansed? Will every man and woman and child who ever lives be forgiven and cleansed? Has every man, woman, and child who has ever lived been forgiven and cleansed? Forgiveness and cleansing are the results of atonement. So how can it be said with certainty that Jesus is the one who forgives, cleanses, and purges the sins of the whole world?
Since atonement always has the same meaning could the expression ‘whole world’ have a different sense? Does it always mean every single person? John himself answers the question. Right here in the same letter. It is in fact the only other time that John uses these two words together. (olos and kosmos) Chapter 5, verse 19- “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Does the whole world, every man, woman and child, lie under the power of the evil one? No, because verse 18 says that those who are kept by Christ are not touched by the evil one. So clearly ‘whole world’ here does not mean every person. How about 2:2? Does whole world mean every person or could John be stating a general principle that Jesus is the only atoning sacrifice the world has? Could he be reminding his Jewish readers that the atonement was no longer just for Jews but included some from among the whole world? You may find other ways in which “world” is used. But it cannot mean every living person in this verse. The one thing that is fixed is the definition of atonement. If you want to understand this verse you dare not redefine atonement to mean that Jesus died for everybody. That will not fit the fixed meaning of atonement. But “world” may safely be defined in other ways.
There is another relevant point to be made. John himself uses a term in Revelation 3:10, 12:9, and 16:14 that means inhabited earth, those who dwell on the earth. It is a much more specific term meaning people. He could very well have used this term if “every person“ was intended.
The last two references to atonement in the NT are a form of the Greek word that means place of atonement, ilasterion. We call it the “mercy seat” but the cover of the Ark of the Covenant was not really a seat. No one would dare sit there. It is the place where the High Priest sprinkled blood on the Day of Atonement.
The first reference to this ‘place of atonement’ is Romans 3:25 where the word is translated propitiation in the KJV and propitiatory sacrifice in the NAS. Or as the NET Bible reads, “God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.” Romans 3:25 establishes the satisfaction of God as being based on faith in His blood. Is the propitiation universal or based on faith and applied to God’s chosen ones? Is the entire world now acceptable to God just like a Jew whose sacrifice had been accepted at the mercy seat? Have those without faith been appeased before God? Has His anger subsided in spite of the fact that they have not come to Him for mercy? Is Jesus the propitiation or is He not? There is no room for potential redemption at the Cross. It either saves or does not save.
The final reference to atonement in the New Testament is Hebrews 9:5. This is a reference to the actual mercy seat and consequently offers no new information to our pursuit.
So there are 5 verses in the New Testament that actually refer to atonement. This is where any discussion on the topic must be centered. Arguments regarding any aspect of atonement that do not use these verses should be made with extreme caution. But only one of those verses, 1 John 2:2, seems to appear in any atonement dialogue. Is this too much ado about one thing?
Taking the NT verses in summary we learn this.
1. Atonement, having mercy, was not considered a natural gift. The tax collector believed he must ask for it.
2. Jesus is the new High Priest who makes atonement for sin.
3. Jesus is also the atoning sacrifice for the world. He is the only one who forgives, cleanses and redeems.
4. His mercy, atonement, is available through faith.
5. Unlike OT atonement which had to be repeated over and over again Jesus shed His blood as a permanent and eternal sacrifice for sins. He was the final substitute whose blood cleanses even the conscience. Hebrews 9 and 10
Can His atonement be applied to everyone? Is it possible that souls in hell have been forgiven, cleansed, purged and redeemed?
Any doctrine or understanding of the atonement ought to include the truth of these verses since they are the only verses in the New Testament that even talk about atonement. Let’s examine these 6 verses more closely to see how they connect with atonement and its definition.
Luke 18:13 has the tax collector praying to God, “Have mercy on me the sinner.” Two things are evident. He knew that sin was a problem. He knew that God could solve it. This man was a Jewish employee of Rome. His understanding of where mercy could be found was naturally based on his knowledge of the OT laws of atonement. He asks God to ‘atone’ for him. What did that mean? Whatever it meant in the Old Testament.
The verb form is used again in Hebrews 2:17. The KJV says that Jesus would make reconciliation for the sins of the people. The NAS says he would make propitiation. Reconciliation and propitiation are similar terms and bear further study but let’s use this word the same way it is used in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) . The NET Bible actually does use the word atonement here. “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” Jesus is now the high priest who makes atonement for sin. This is clearly an Old Testament illustration. And based on the OT, atonement means cleansing and forgiveness. Jesus is a merciful and faithful high priest who cleanses and forgives the sin of people.
John uses the term ilasmos twice in his first letter. It is translated propitiation in most versions of the NT. The NET Bible reads ‘atoning sacrifice.’ 1 Jn 2:2 - “and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.” 1 Jn 4:10- “In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Atoning sacrifice is a more accurate translation. It is consistent with the Greek OT. But what does it mean that Jesus is ‘the atoning sacrifice’ for sins? The OT meaning gives the New Testament application. Lacking any new information and maintaining consistency in word usage leads to this sense. Jesus, as the atoning sacrifice forgives sins, cleanses sins, purges sins. And John says that He does this for the sins of the whole world. (4:10 is briefer, ‘the atoning sacrifice for our sins.’)
Here we are met with an apparent contradiction. Does not Scripture teach that forgiveness comes through confession and that only those who have trusted Christ are forgiven? I John 1:9, Ephesians 1:7. Romans 10:9-10, et.al How then can Jesus be the forgiveness for the whole world’s sins. Aren’t forgiveness and whole world incompatible? This is the kind of question that offers an exciting challenge for Bible study. And here is the principle that helps us in the work. Focus on the words that have a fixed meaning. Of “world” and “propitiation” it is propitiation which has the fixed meaning. There are no variants in its definition. It always means exactly what it means here. Jesus is right now the atonement- the one who forgives, cleanses and purges sin. Is every man, woman and child right now forgiven and cleansed? Will every man and woman and child who ever lives be forgiven and cleansed? Has every man, woman, and child who has ever lived been forgiven and cleansed? Forgiveness and cleansing are the results of atonement. So how can it be said with certainty that Jesus is the one who forgives, cleanses, and purges the sins of the whole world?
Since atonement always has the same meaning could the expression ‘whole world’ have a different sense? Does it always mean every single person? John himself answers the question. Right here in the same letter. It is in fact the only other time that John uses these two words together. (olos and kosmos) Chapter 5, verse 19- “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Does the whole world, every man, woman and child, lie under the power of the evil one? No, because verse 18 says that those who are kept by Christ are not touched by the evil one. So clearly ‘whole world’ here does not mean every person. How about 2:2? Does whole world mean every person or could John be stating a general principle that Jesus is the only atoning sacrifice the world has? Could he be reminding his Jewish readers that the atonement was no longer just for Jews but included some from among the whole world? You may find other ways in which “world” is used. But it cannot mean every living person in this verse. The one thing that is fixed is the definition of atonement. If you want to understand this verse you dare not redefine atonement to mean that Jesus died for everybody. That will not fit the fixed meaning of atonement. But “world” may safely be defined in other ways.
There is another relevant point to be made. John himself uses a term in Revelation 3:10, 12:9, and 16:14 that means inhabited earth, those who dwell on the earth. It is a much more specific term meaning people. He could very well have used this term if “every person“ was intended.
The last two references to atonement in the NT are a form of the Greek word that means place of atonement, ilasterion. We call it the “mercy seat” but the cover of the Ark of the Covenant was not really a seat. No one would dare sit there. It is the place where the High Priest sprinkled blood on the Day of Atonement.
The first reference to this ‘place of atonement’ is Romans 3:25 where the word is translated propitiation in the KJV and propitiatory sacrifice in the NAS. Or as the NET Bible reads, “God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.” Romans 3:25 establishes the satisfaction of God as being based on faith in His blood. Is the propitiation universal or based on faith and applied to God’s chosen ones? Is the entire world now acceptable to God just like a Jew whose sacrifice had been accepted at the mercy seat? Have those without faith been appeased before God? Has His anger subsided in spite of the fact that they have not come to Him for mercy? Is Jesus the propitiation or is He not? There is no room for potential redemption at the Cross. It either saves or does not save.
The final reference to atonement in the New Testament is Hebrews 9:5. This is a reference to the actual mercy seat and consequently offers no new information to our pursuit.
So there are 5 verses in the New Testament that actually refer to atonement. This is where any discussion on the topic must be centered. Arguments regarding any aspect of atonement that do not use these verses should be made with extreme caution. But only one of those verses, 1 John 2:2, seems to appear in any atonement dialogue. Is this too much ado about one thing?
Taking the NT verses in summary we learn this.
1. Atonement, having mercy, was not considered a natural gift. The tax collector believed he must ask for it.
2. Jesus is the new High Priest who makes atonement for sin.
3. Jesus is also the atoning sacrifice for the world. He is the only one who forgives, cleanses and redeems.
4. His mercy, atonement, is available through faith.
5. Unlike OT atonement which had to be repeated over and over again Jesus shed His blood as a permanent and eternal sacrifice for sins. He was the final substitute whose blood cleanses even the conscience. Hebrews 9 and 10
Can His atonement be applied to everyone? Is it possible that souls in hell have been forgiven, cleansed, purged and redeemed?
ATONEMENT DEFINED
It is my purpose to discuss in this and its related blogs what the Bible says about the atonement in as objective a fashion as I can. I may not list every verse used to defend one view or another. I may claim as indefensible some verses that have been used. My hope is that you, the reader, will have a better knowledge of the Bible and gain enthusiasm to become a more diligent student, carefully applying the Word of Truth. So please verify and confirm whatever is written here on your own to refine your own view.
What does atonement mean? This has to be the starting question. It is impossible to determine any scriptural truth about the atonement until the term is defined.
Yom Kippur is a Jewish holiday with which many are familiar. It is the Day, yom, of Atonement, kippur, the Hebrew word normally defined as atonement. So we have a place to start our defining process- the Hebrew Dictionary. I use Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Theological Dictionary of Old Testament Words. Here is what we find there.
The most common meaning of ‘kippur’ is to purge, reconcile. A variation of the word means ‘to ransom, redeem.’ Comparing the 150 references, most of which relate simply to the priests’ sprinkling of blood on the altar or mercy seat leads to this conclusion: atonement means to purge sin and satisfy God by offering a substitute.
Some suggest the idea of atonement is to cover. A similar word to kippur may mean pitch, the tar like coating which Noah used to cover the ark But this very term used in connection with people means redemption in Exodus 21:30.
There are some significant results of atonement that should also be considered. To atone is always connected with the removal of sin. There are three references where the action may be less serious but the overwhelming evidence shows that atonement removed sin for a specific group of individuals, i.e., those who actively participated in the sacrifice.
What did this removal of sin include? There are five types of OT offerings- burnt, meal, peace, sin, and trespass. Three of the five involve atonement. Leviticus 1:4 says the burnt offering was accepted to make atonement. Leviticus 4:20-35 includes the sin offering with atonement. Leviticus 5:6-18 brings in the guilt or trespass offering. There was also one fast day on the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement. On this special Day of Atonement, as Leviticus 16 describes, blood was sprinkled on the place of Atonement, the kippuret. But that was not the normal custom, just a one day a year event. Typically, atonement was a consistent result of the regular sacrificial offerings.
The sin offering was made because one may sin without bearing intentional guilt. The NT word sin amartanw, hamartano, is the equivalent here. It means to miss the mark. This is still sin that needs forgiveness, the consequences remain the same but guilt is not imputed, Proverbs 8:36 and 19:2. God will punish sin unless forgiven and through atonement He forgives sin. And consequently purges sin. This is the promise the sin offering fulfills- forgiveness and cleansing.
The trespass or guilt offering, based on the meaning of the word to bend or twist, includes sins that are particularly destructive. This trespass includes all types of misdeeds against God and man. Guilt is the consequence of trespass and according to OT teaching always brings punishment unless God intervenes. Further, the OT teaches that the atonement of the trespass offering is substitutionary. God intervenes by offering a substitute. The result of that atonement is the removal of guilt. Isaiah 53:6 “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity (guilt) of us all.” Think about this. If the guilt of everyone is laid on Christ then no one has any guilt. But death comes and many people end up in hell because they are guilty of sin. Who are the “all “of this verse?
The Old Testament teaching about atonement may be summed up this way.
1. Sin and guilt separate God and man.
2. Atonement for sin, which always includes reconciliation, purging, and redemption as its result, was necessary to renew a relationship with God.
3. The atonement, as described in the Old Testament, was always successful in this renewal. In other words, atonement always removed guilt, always purged, and always forgave transgressions.
4. Only those who personally participated in the process were effected. Leviticus usually refers to individuals bringing their own offering. Please read these verses from that book: 1:2,14; 2:1; 3:1-2; 4:2; 5:1 with verse 6; 5:8,13,16, 17-19, etc. Leviticus 4:13 discusses the congregation of Israel sinning and sacrificial atonement being applied. But most references are to individuals only. See Chapter 14 in regard to lepers. Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement. It is for all the people. But Leviticus 17:3-4 refer to a man who does not offer his sacrifice as being cut off from the people. So also 17:8-9.
What does atonement mean? This has to be the starting question. It is impossible to determine any scriptural truth about the atonement until the term is defined.
Yom Kippur is a Jewish holiday with which many are familiar. It is the Day, yom, of Atonement, kippur, the Hebrew word normally defined as atonement. So we have a place to start our defining process- the Hebrew Dictionary. I use Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Theological Dictionary of Old Testament Words. Here is what we find there.
The most common meaning of ‘kippur’ is to purge, reconcile. A variation of the word means ‘to ransom, redeem.’ Comparing the 150 references, most of which relate simply to the priests’ sprinkling of blood on the altar or mercy seat leads to this conclusion: atonement means to purge sin and satisfy God by offering a substitute.
Some suggest the idea of atonement is to cover. A similar word to kippur may mean pitch, the tar like coating which Noah used to cover the ark But this very term used in connection with people means redemption in Exodus 21:30.
There are some significant results of atonement that should also be considered. To atone is always connected with the removal of sin. There are three references where the action may be less serious but the overwhelming evidence shows that atonement removed sin for a specific group of individuals, i.e., those who actively participated in the sacrifice.
What did this removal of sin include? There are five types of OT offerings- burnt, meal, peace, sin, and trespass. Three of the five involve atonement. Leviticus 1:4 says the burnt offering was accepted to make atonement. Leviticus 4:20-35 includes the sin offering with atonement. Leviticus 5:6-18 brings in the guilt or trespass offering. There was also one fast day on the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement. On this special Day of Atonement, as Leviticus 16 describes, blood was sprinkled on the place of Atonement, the kippuret. But that was not the normal custom, just a one day a year event. Typically, atonement was a consistent result of the regular sacrificial offerings.
The sin offering was made because one may sin without bearing intentional guilt. The NT word sin amartanw, hamartano, is the equivalent here. It means to miss the mark. This is still sin that needs forgiveness, the consequences remain the same but guilt is not imputed, Proverbs 8:36 and 19:2. God will punish sin unless forgiven and through atonement He forgives sin. And consequently purges sin. This is the promise the sin offering fulfills- forgiveness and cleansing.
The trespass or guilt offering, based on the meaning of the word to bend or twist, includes sins that are particularly destructive. This trespass includes all types of misdeeds against God and man. Guilt is the consequence of trespass and according to OT teaching always brings punishment unless God intervenes. Further, the OT teaches that the atonement of the trespass offering is substitutionary. God intervenes by offering a substitute. The result of that atonement is the removal of guilt. Isaiah 53:6 “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity (guilt) of us all.” Think about this. If the guilt of everyone is laid on Christ then no one has any guilt. But death comes and many people end up in hell because they are guilty of sin. Who are the “all “of this verse?
The Old Testament teaching about atonement may be summed up this way.
1. Sin and guilt separate God and man.
2. Atonement for sin, which always includes reconciliation, purging, and redemption as its result, was necessary to renew a relationship with God.
3. The atonement, as described in the Old Testament, was always successful in this renewal. In other words, atonement always removed guilt, always purged, and always forgave transgressions.
4. Only those who personally participated in the process were effected. Leviticus usually refers to individuals bringing their own offering. Please read these verses from that book: 1:2,14; 2:1; 3:1-2; 4:2; 5:1 with verse 6; 5:8,13,16, 17-19, etc. Leviticus 4:13 discusses the congregation of Israel sinning and sacrificial atonement being applied. But most references are to individuals only. See Chapter 14 in regard to lepers. Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement. It is for all the people. But Leviticus 17:3-4 refer to a man who does not offer his sacrifice as being cut off from the people. So also 17:8-9.
ATONEMENT QUESTIONS
Anyone studying church history will find that a major debate has been raging in the church for 400 years on the scope of Christ’s atonement. Some say that Jesus atoned for every sin of every person that ever lived. Those who hold that view believe in Unlimited Atonement. The other side of the debate is framed by those who hold to Limited Atonement. This group believes that Christ atoned only for the sins of those who would be saved.
That is how the two sides of the problem should be expressed. Yet as simply as these positions may be put, most of the conflict I hear is about a different issue. Most reduce the atonement question to ‘who did Jesus die for.’ This is an unfortunate choice for which there is no biblical direction. Not one Scripture verse is available to prove that Jesus died for everyone or that He died for only some. Here is what the Bible does say about for whom or what Christ died.
Rom 5:6 - For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Rom 5:8- But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 1 Corinthians 8:11- And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died. 1 Corinthians 15:3- For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. . . Jesus died for the ungodly, for us, for the weak brother, for our sins. No where is there any reference to Him dying for everyone. Nor any reference that He died only for certain ones. To divide and separate Christians into two camps on this question is not only foolish. It is fatal for fellowship.
But the discussion regarding the atonement is older than that question. More ancient than the unlimited and limited labels which fell into the church’s lap in the 1600’s. Irenaus, in the early 2nd century, taught that Christ’s death provided a ransom payment to purchase Christians from slavery. A hundred years later Origen claimed that the Devil received the payment. Augustine who began teaching theology in the late 4th century was one of the first church fathers to articulate a sacrificial atonement theory. Others developed significant ideas after him. Particularly relevant today is the conflict that grew between Anselm and Abelard in the early 1100’s.
Anselm of Canterbury wrote of the need for atonement and suggested that since God’s honor was offended by sin, God received the payment Christ made. His contemporary Peter Abelard, who had his own share of moral lapses, removed any idea of propitiation from the atonement. He did not believe that Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious, nor that ransom was involved. Atonement was only significant, in his view, because of the way it changed man. As far as he was concerned no atonement was made until man was changed. And the change that occurred was simply a demonstration of the greatness of God’s love. Christ persuades men by the power of love to follow Him. Christ died primarily, not as an act of obedience to the father, nor to remove the penalty of sin, but to show how much he loves. Now you might say, isn’t that the message of John 3:16? That verse certainly is about God’s love for the world but the Cross is senseless without the reality of sin.
This is why Abelard’s atonement is relevant today. He makes man the heart of the Cross. It’s not about how dreadful is sin; it’s about how dear is love. And this is the message of too many churches today. Call them emerging or seeker sensitive- not fully emerged- the point is still the same. If Christ’s atonement was simply to prove His love than the church must not do anything to cloud the cross’ shadow. Man is the center of much ministry today. Abelard, unfortunately, would be pleased. In stead of trying to answer the unanswerable question 'for whom did Jesus die' we should be working hard to tell as many people as possible that sin keeps mankind from heaven but Jesus died to remove its penalty.
That is how the two sides of the problem should be expressed. Yet as simply as these positions may be put, most of the conflict I hear is about a different issue. Most reduce the atonement question to ‘who did Jesus die for.’ This is an unfortunate choice for which there is no biblical direction. Not one Scripture verse is available to prove that Jesus died for everyone or that He died for only some. Here is what the Bible does say about for whom or what Christ died.
Rom 5:6 - For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Rom 5:8- But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 1 Corinthians 8:11- And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died. 1 Corinthians 15:3- For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. . . Jesus died for the ungodly, for us, for the weak brother, for our sins. No where is there any reference to Him dying for everyone. Nor any reference that He died only for certain ones. To divide and separate Christians into two camps on this question is not only foolish. It is fatal for fellowship.
But the discussion regarding the atonement is older than that question. More ancient than the unlimited and limited labels which fell into the church’s lap in the 1600’s. Irenaus, in the early 2nd century, taught that Christ’s death provided a ransom payment to purchase Christians from slavery. A hundred years later Origen claimed that the Devil received the payment. Augustine who began teaching theology in the late 4th century was one of the first church fathers to articulate a sacrificial atonement theory. Others developed significant ideas after him. Particularly relevant today is the conflict that grew between Anselm and Abelard in the early 1100’s.
Anselm of Canterbury wrote of the need for atonement and suggested that since God’s honor was offended by sin, God received the payment Christ made. His contemporary Peter Abelard, who had his own share of moral lapses, removed any idea of propitiation from the atonement. He did not believe that Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious, nor that ransom was involved. Atonement was only significant, in his view, because of the way it changed man. As far as he was concerned no atonement was made until man was changed. And the change that occurred was simply a demonstration of the greatness of God’s love. Christ persuades men by the power of love to follow Him. Christ died primarily, not as an act of obedience to the father, nor to remove the penalty of sin, but to show how much he loves. Now you might say, isn’t that the message of John 3:16? That verse certainly is about God’s love for the world but the Cross is senseless without the reality of sin.
This is why Abelard’s atonement is relevant today. He makes man the heart of the Cross. It’s not about how dreadful is sin; it’s about how dear is love. And this is the message of too many churches today. Call them emerging or seeker sensitive- not fully emerged- the point is still the same. If Christ’s atonement was simply to prove His love than the church must not do anything to cloud the cross’ shadow. Man is the center of much ministry today. Abelard, unfortunately, would be pleased. In stead of trying to answer the unanswerable question 'for whom did Jesus die' we should be working hard to tell as many people as possible that sin keeps mankind from heaven but Jesus died to remove its penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)