Confusion Concerning the Atonement
I have often said in my preaching and teaching that bad doctrine always produces negative consequences, and sound doctrine always produces positive consequences. This is true both in the life of the Christian as well as in the effectiveness of the Gospel. This principle is evident concerning many doctrinal positions, yet certainly true concerning the doctrine of the atonement.
There are multiple theories within Christianity concerning the atonement of Christ. The “Penal Substitution” theory is probably the most common in Evangelicalism, especially among those who hold to Calvinism. In this theory the Son of God is punished for all of the sins of the “elect.” It is a judicial transference of the punishment against humans to Jesus Christ. The problem with this theory, which is often exploited by non-Christians, is that the Bible portrays God as “forgiving” our sins, and true forgiveness does not require punishment at all but rather forgoing punishment in favor of mercy. We are to forgive others in the same way that God forgave us, which does not require that a penalty be enacted at all, but that mercy is shown.
Another theory common among Christians is the payment of a debt that we owe God. Yet again, the payment of a debt to God by another cancels out the whole concept of forgiveness as a free gift. The debt is satisfied, paid by another, not forgiven.
Another theory concerns purchasing back slaves from Satan. But in what way does the death of Christ pay Satan?
True “forgiveness” by God cannot in any way require satisfaction of a legal judgment, payment of a debt, or purchasing of a slave. Forgiveness is completely based on God’s love, generosity, mercy, and grace, all of which He freely bestows as a free gift. This fact is often used very effectively against Christianity in both Judaism and Islam, and should cause Christians to seriously consider whether the above explanations are what Scripture teaches.
If the above theories are incorrect, what then is the point of the death of Christ and His atonement? On what basis does God freely give His mercy and grace to sinners? Consider Paul’s explanation in the following passage:
Romans 3:21-26 (NASB) 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
The above passage clearly states several times that the “redemption” was intended to publicly display God’s righteousness. It also states plainly that we are justified freely as a gift by God’s grace.
Yet there is much more on display in this “demonstration.”
2 Cor. 5:21 (NASB) 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
1 Peter 2:24 (NASB) and He Himself BORE our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
The Greek word translated “bore” literally means to “carry up.” Here Peter was referencing Isaiah 53 where this this terminology is used twice.
Isaiah 53:5, 11-12 (NASB) 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. … 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will BEAR their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself BORE the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
Jesus’ horrific death on the cross was a public demonstration of the ugliness of man’s sin from God’s perspective. If you want to know what our sin looks like to God, look at the ugliness of the Son of God hanging on a cross. The cross illustrates the extreme contrast between God’s righteousness and the utter repulsiveness of our sin. These are illustrations. They are meant to provoke a hatred of our own sin and a deep admiration for God’s righteousness as well as our helplessness to achieve God’s standard of righteousness. To God, sinful humanity looks like His Son, a bloody mess hanging on a cross.
Consider also Jesus’ own statement:
John 3:14 (NASB) 4 “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
This begs the question: In what way does Moses’ lifting up the serpent on a pole parallel Jesus’ crucifixion? The bronze serpent was intended to be the image of those serpents who had bitten the Israelites. And God had sent those serpents to punish the Israelites for their sin. To look upon the bronze serpent was to come to terms with the ugliness of their sin against God. It was meant to humble them, to accept responsibility and the gravity of their offense, and God’s justice in punishing them.
Just as with the bronze serpent, the sight of Jesus’ brutal torture and execution on that cross is intended to come face to face with the horror of our sins, to validate God’s justice in condemning us to death, and to drive us to repentance and calling for mercy. Then, to exercise faith in God’s promise of forgiveness. “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.” When we humble ourselves, realizing our repulsiveness to God in contrast to His own righteousness and justice, and we obey the Gospel, God then freely gives the gift of His forgiveness of sins. But He will not give it to those who refuse to humble themselves before Him and acknowledge their guilt and God’s justice.
The animal sacrifices under the Law of Moses had a similar function. They were intended to impress upon the individual the ugliness of his sin to God. The sacrifice of God’s own Son was meant to drive this point home to the extreme, to lead us to repentance and to fully rely on Him for our salvation, since there is no way that we can bridge the gap ourselves between God’s righteousness and our sinfulness. This explanation of the atonement not only answers the objections of Judaism and Islam, it also provides the catalyst for Christians to pursue holiness by learning to hate our sin.
Barton W Stone wrote his own objection to the penal substitution atonement theory (the judicial transfer of guilt and punishment) in a lengthy document. I concur with much of what he wrote. You can read it at the following link.
https://www.4windsfellowships.net/Resources/Barton_Stone.pdf
The section on the atonement begins on page 27.
25 thoughts on “Confusion Concerning the Atonement”
Thank you Tim,
What are your thoughts on Heb 9:22
“And by the law almost all things are purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.”
From what I understand you seem to argue that God does not need to punish in order to forgive. If i portray God as a judge, and a man is put forth (let´s say a rapist) and the judge lets this person go. We would say that is a bad judge – evil was left unpunished. Very intuitive.
In the same way is not God obligated to himself to punish every evil act in the universe? Isn’t God’s righteousness compromised if he “just forgives”?
When the bible tells us to forgive others “in the same way” This cannot mean that they are truly forgiven in the perspective of man – god? The sin someone commits towards another, is first and foremost commited against God?
//Jonathan
Jonathan,
Let me use your example. An unrepentant man convicted of rape is sentenced to 25 years. After 10 years, he has a radical conversion in prison, with genuine repentance which is followed by a few years of serving others in whatever way he can while incarcerated. Perhaps he earns some money and sends it to his victim on a regular basis to help support the child born from that rape. Is it wrong if his situation is brought to the attention of the governor, who then recognizes this radical change in him and shows mercy by commuting the remainder of his sentence, or giving him a pardon? Is it not within the prerogative of the governor or the president to pardon whomever he sees fit? How much more then is it not in the prerogative of God, the Just Judge who knows every thought and intent of the heart, to recognize true repentance and grant a pardon? That does not make Him unjust. It makes Him a merciful and wise Judge.
God’s commandments are for the betterment of humanity, not to avoid offending God. Sure, sin is the transgression of God’s commandments. But when we break a law, are we sinning against congress? Or are we sinning against someone that law was meant to protect? It is the latter. When someone sins against us, or we sin against them, complete forgiveness is required of us without imposing any kind of penalty. It is not forgiveness unless the penalty is cancelled. The law “eye for eye” was superseded by “turn the other cheek” to demonstrate that God is not exclusively about enforcing justice, but mercy triumphs over justice.
Tim, I find this very confronting. I had accepted Penal Substitution as an explanation that appeared to line up with the Scriptures. However, I so respect your teaching, that I’m grappling this anew. I’m sure I’m not the only one of your ‘followers’ to be struggling with your stance.
It seems to me that there was much more to Jesus’ crucifixion than a graphic demonstration of human sinfulness. If it were essentially just the mighty illustration it was, to convince us of our depravity, there would surely be numerous other ways that God could have rammed the message home. Did He and His Son really have to go through the unimaginable sacrifice it was? We already see the horror of sin in innumerable examples in our world. The Father arguably would have had other ways to convince us. If He convinced a number of Jews in the desert by merely putting a brass symbol on a stick, He could have erected a much more dramatic illustration for mankind than resorting to putting His own Son through agony and rejection. No?
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed “my Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me”. Since the Father did not rescue Jesus from the cross, I take it that there indeed was no way to otherwise redeem the world.
I don’t think you adequately responded to Jonathan about the Hebrews 9:22 statement that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. That verse seems to suggest there needs to be some kind of transaction, beyond a person’s humbling themselves and repenting, to secure God’s forgiveness.
I’ve understood, that God illustrated throughout the Scriptures, that although He is a merciful God who forgives, there has always been a requirement for atonement, beyond just forgiveness: starting from God’s slaying of an animal in Eden to cover their shame, through the elaborate sacrificial system, and the scapegoat, and “life for life” justice – it all demonstrated that there was a real cost to be paid for sin. I also understood that Paul in Romans spoke of God’s righteousness being revealed in the sacrifice of His Son to fulfil the requirement of justice.
In terms of analogy, if a man brutally and mercilessly tortures a child for selfish pleasure, and goes on to repent and ask God for forgiveness, God is indeed merciful to forgive, but the injustice still needs to be avenged. Where is God’s vengeance on behalf of the child?
If God could simply forgive our sins, without paying the penalty of sin for us, and all we needed to do was to repent and humble ourselves, then did He really not “need” to send His only begotten to the cross? If he didn’t “need” to have that cruel torture meted out on Jesus, then He theoretically could have shown mercy to Jesus in the garden, when Jesus begged for the cup to pass from Him.
With love,
Roman
Roman,
Let’s start with the definition of “atonement” because I believe there is much confusion about this term. If you study it throughout both the Old and New Testament it simply refers to the means of reconciling two parties which are in conflict. It does not necessarily require punishment, as in “an eye for an eye.” All of the statements in Isaiah 53 and in the NT about Jesus “bearing” our sin refers to His carry it away, not that it is legally transferred to Him.
The statement in Hebrews 9:22 was summing up the entire Old Testament sacrificial system, not specifically referring to Jesus’ atonement. “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness,” (Heb. 9:22 NASB). Since this refers specifically to animal sacrifices, we need to explain exactly HOW the shedding of animal blood produced “forgiveness.” Was there a transactional, legal, transfer of the guilt of Israel to the animal? How can an animal have guilt or carry guilt? Hebrews also states that the animal sacrifices were intended to REMIND Israel of their sinful state and need of permanent reconciliation to God, not merely annually (Heb. 10:1-14). The reason that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood is because that is what God decided, not that God has some law over Him that He must obey.
Regarding Jesus’ prayer in the garden, Jesus submitted fully to the Father’s pre-ordained plan. Are you suggesting that sin and guilt has some kind of independent power over God Himself which demands God to act in a certain way? I do not believe this is possible.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you are missing the critical point. God REQUIRES repentance. This means that we must adopt God’s own revealed views of our sinfulness and His righteousness. The animal sacrifices imperfectly displayed this, since the animal was obviously suffering and the whole process led to a brutal death of the animal. This illustrated for Israel and constantly reminded them that “wages of sin” is death.” But an animal if far less of value that a man. And this is epitomized to the fullest possible extend when God gives His only-begotten Son, first to become exactly what we are, subject to suffering, the curse, and death. Jesus then submits to a cruel execution. The VALUE of God’s own sacrifice in His eyes cannot be overstated. This is in part why Jesus’ death is once for all because it is the Lamb that the Father Himself provided, not from his “flock” of humanity, but out from His own being, His only-begotten Son!
There is another aspect to this “demonstration” that I did not directly address which also makes Jesus’ sacrifice necessary. In Phil. 2:6-10 Paul writes, “let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus.” He then went on to describe all that Jesus did to reconcile us to God. Paul’s point is that what Jesus did is THE pattern of humble submission and sacrifice that we are to strive to emulate. Where is the example and pattern if God just decides to forgive everyone without showing the cost for both God and His Son?
Also, here is a consideration. Several times in the Gospels Jesus said to someone, “Your sins are forgiven you.” The reaction of those listening was marveling that such “authority” had been given to men (Matt. 9:2-9). So on what basis could Jesus say to this man, “Your sins ARE forgiven”(present tense). Jesus had not died yet. Since the context shows that Jesus had been given AUTHORITY to forgive sins, it was His choice to forgive or retain this man’s sins. There is nothing here about a penalty being required. Forgiveness was freely granted. On what basis? Was it not because this man was in the lowest, humbling state, being caried in public? He had to humble himself to allow his friends to bring Him publicly to Jesus, desperate for healing. Jesus had mercy on Him and freely forgave him all of his sins.
Tim
Tim,
I do find the scenario you are describing as unjust. If a governor lowers the predetermined punishment for a particular crime (regardless of the behavior of the convicted one), justice has been undone at the expense of mercy.
But I do ponder the question: If Jesus’ death actually paid the price of sin, why is forgiveness necessary? Could God just write people’s record of sin off? It is paid for?
I would like to question and comment on your response to Roman.
Question 1: Why was the concept presented in heb 9:22 given as a way of understanding forgiveness if later, with Jesus came, that concept is made completely void of meaning and truth? Especially considering the following verse:
Heb 10:4
“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” a) the blood of animals never did (and was never intended to) take away any sins, They were merely as a reminder of Israel’s sins.
b) The concept of of Heb 9:22 still holds true.
If forgiveness was impossible to get from animal sacrifices, then the concept in heb 9:22 does not apply to animal sacrifices. If it does not – then it must point to some other sacrifice, which obviously must be the sacrifice of Jesus? This is imo proven by the following verses in the passage. After heb 10:4 follows the answer to what actually is able to take away sins. Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’” (…) 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
In my my mind, the concept of Heb 9:22 is because of it being inapplicable on animals, as well as the obvious pointing to Jesus body as sacrifice i.e he needed to die, in order for forgiveness to be made possible.
Then v. 18 puts it quite clear imo: ”And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”
Sacrifice is directly connected to forgiveness according to heb 10.
Question 2: ”Are you suggesting that sin and guilt has some kind of independent power over God Himself which demands God to act in a certain way?” Isn’t God by being God, demanded by his own being and nature, required to act in certain ways, in some aspects. Not that he is a robot without free well, but we know God cannot sin, be tempted to sin, act unjustly or ”create an object so heavy he cannot move it” In the same way, God by his righteousness must ”deal with it” somehow.
continuation
Question 3: I agree that the suffering and death of the animals displayed the vile reality of what sin truly is. And that this is made even more clear with Jesus´ suffering and death. But to think that this was actually not necessary to make able the salvation of mankind.. doesn’t it in some way turn the whole act into an inappropriate bloodbath of sorts? Let’s say God appeared to some people to give them flowers, and their reaction really turned their hearts to God, I figure this would be possible according to your view? Does this connect to what is called the objective/subjective theory of atonement? Why I prefer with the objective position, is that is does not necessarily exclude the subjective. E.g the objective says that is it primarily the death and resurrection that ”does the job” but God could have chosen other less painful ways for Jesus to die on. The fact that it was on a cross, with all the agony with it, shows the depth of his and God´s love for human kind.
Question 4:
We know Abraham was justified by faith long before Jesus came along, and we know that the authority to forgive was given to Jesus by God. God is acting outside of time, and knows the eternal state of things. From his perspective: when is salvation possible? When can he forgive sins? Is God bound by the time preceding the cross? I would say no. If no, Isn’t Jesus able to forgive sin via God, on the basis of the salvation soon to be accomplished. Rev 13:8 and 1 Pet 1:18-20 is relevant in the context. These are some of the passages I also think point to Jesus death as necessary for salvation: Matthew 20:28 / Mark 10:45 — The Son of Man came “to give his life as a ransom for many. Ephesians 1:7 — “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses.”
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. Romans 3:25–26
“whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
This is a refreshing conversation for me. Thank you Tim for your work.
Jonathan,
First, let’s consider Hebrews 9-10, which I believe provides the most comprehensive explanations concerning the atonement, both regarding the OT system and Jesus’ Melchizedek priesthood:
1. Paul begins by contrasting the one heavenly “Temple” with the earthly Tabernacle, which was a copy. He then contrasted the two priesthoods, the Levitical which served the earthly copy and the Melchizedek which serves the heavenly Temple. So, we are not merely dealing with animal sacrifices vs. Jesus’ sacrifice, but also with entirely different priestly systems of atonement and sanctuaries, the former prefiguring the latter.
2. In Heb. 9:23 Paul argued that the “heavenly” Temple had to be sanctified by “better sacrifices” than what was commanded concerning the earthly sanctuary, necessitating the blood of Christ rather than animals.
3. It is clear that there was indeed “forgiveness” or “pardon” (atonement – reconciliation) under the Levitical system, as Heb. 9:22 clearly states. There are many OT passages that show that “forgiveness” was granted to the sinner at the time of his offering a sacrifice for his sin. This forgiveness was based on his repentance, his humble acknowledgement of his sin by his obedience in bringing the required blood sacrifice. No one would bother to bring an animal sacrifice according to the ordinances of the Law if they did not first acknowledge their sin, repent, and trust that God would forgive if they brought the prescribed offering.
4. In chapter 10 Paul explains why the Levitical system was deficient. Regarding the national atonement, those animal sacrifices only brought forgiveness sufficient for one year, until the next Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). This is contrasted with Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, the blood of which was carried into the very presence of God in the Temple in heaven.
5. In Heb. 10:4, the statement that the blood of animals could never take away sin is likewise referring to a once for all pardon. Each of the OT sacrifices by the individual were offered for a particular sin that was committed. If the offender committed it again, he had to bring another offering in order to be forgiven. The national sacrifices on the Day of Atonement were offered annually and only produced forgiveness for one year. The context makes this quite clear. It shows that the statement in vs. 4 is not referring to whether or not animal sacrifices satisfied the conditions for God’s forgiveness. They clearly did as Heb. 9:22 states. Rather it describes the animal sacrifices’ inability to cover all sins for all time, even those not yet committed.
Second, regarding the philosophical question of whether punishment MUST be enacted for every crime, and if not, God’s “justice” is in question:
1. Paul makes it perfectly clear in Romans 3 that the Law of Moses is THE demonstration of God’s “justice” / “righteousness” (same word in Greek).
2. Is it “just” to punish another person for the crime of others, regardless of whether one submits to such a vicarious punishment? Is that “justice” or something else altogether?
3. Is human sacrifice “just” in the eyes of God, especially when He made it abundantly clear that human sacrifice practiced by the pagans and by Israel in Jeremiah’s day was an abomination in His sight? I mention these because they are precisely the objections raised by both Judaism and Islam to the “penal substitution” theory of the atonement. And they are very powerful arguments, IMO.
I submit that God’s own “justice” is to be the model for ours according to Scripture. We are to “forgive” without requiring retribution (eye for eye) because this is how God has forgiven us. Jesus’ parable in Matt. 18:21-35 was meant to show on what basis God forgives us, and that we must forgive on precisely the same basis. The “King” forgave his servant because He had compassion on him when he humbled himself and begged for mercy. No “penalty” was enacted on another in this parable. Afterward that servant refused to follow the King’s example and forgive another servant, so the penalty was reinstated. The point of this parable is that we MUST forgive exactly as God has forgiven us. “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, JUST AS God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:32 NKJV). This concept is an essential part of the Sermon on the Mount.
God is not bound by some higher philosophical “law” than Himself. Divine “Law” is defined by God’s character. And His character, especially justice/righteousness, is displayed and defined in the Law of Moses. God clearly “forgives” based on the sinner’s humble repentance and His own compassion, not because He is obligated and bound by some legal standard of an imagined “eye for an eye” justice higher than Himself which He must satisfy. God IS Love. This is His primary characteristic. Everything else, including His sovereignty and justice, is secondary to LOVE.
Now consider the EFFECT of the “penal substitution” interpretation vs. the interpretation I have offered. In the former, the penalty for every sin of believers, past, present, and future, has already been suffered by Jesus. Therefore, there is no guilt or fear regarding one’s current or future sins. The believer has a free pass to continue in sin with zero consequences, no conscience, and no fear of God. But in the model of the atonement I have outlined, Jesus continually illustrates for all God’s hatred of sin and His love in providing this sacrifice which is intended to cause us to hate our sin, to drive us to repentance, and to lean on His compassion and mercy. It becomes a very powerful deterrent for believers to pursue holiness.
Hi Tim,
Huge respect for your teaching – you’ve helped me harmonize Scripture in ways no other person has… ever. So no surprise that I find many aspects of your atonement explanation compelling, especially your emphasis on God’s mercy, forgiveness, repentance, and the cross as a demonstration of both God’s righteousness and sin’s ugliness.
However, I’m still struggling with something that feels unresolved (somewhat similar to the other posts above). You say that God forgives on the basis of repentance and mercy, and that Christ’s death was not a legal payment or a ‘penal substitution’, but rather a public demonstration intended to reconcile sinners to God. Yet many NT passages seem to describe Christ’s death as accomplishing something objectively, not merely demonstrating something.
e.g.:
“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…” (2 Cor. 5:21)
“The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23)
“By His stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53; 1 Pet. 2:24)
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7)
Christ appearing “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26)
As you already pointed out, Jesus forgave sins before He went to the cross. Was He able to do so because the cross was certain in God’s plan? Hypothetically speaking, if Jesus had refused the Father’s will in Gethsemane and had not gone through with the cross, would those people whose sins He previously forgave still have been forgiven?
If your answer is yes, then I struggle to understand why the cross was necessary at all.
If your answer is no, then it seems that Christ’s future sacrifice was in some way the basis upon which those sins could be forgiven, even before the event occurred historically.
In other words, I can see how the cross demonstrates all those things you’ve pointed out (righteousness, love, mercy, and the seriousness of sin). What I am trying to understand is whether it also accomplished something necessary for forgiveness itself.
So… final question: Was the cross merely the most powerful way God chose to bring sinners to repentance, or did it actually achieve something objectively that could not have been achieved any other way?
I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Thank you,
-Dave
Dave,
I think we are so accustomed to viewing the atonement of Christ in a penal substitution framework, that the passages that you listed are read as implying that concept. But such is not a necessary inference. All of them make perfect sense in the model I have described. “He made Him to be sin for us” can easily mean that Christ on the cross was an image of our sinfulness and its ugliness in God’s sight and the just penalty for our sin just as the serpent on the pole was an image of the wages of Israel’s guilt and its consequences. Likewise, “the wages of sin is death” is shown in the crucifixion as holding up this concept before the whole world, this is what we all deserve in God’s sight.
Not only did Jesus forgive sins before His crucifixion because the Father granted Him that prerogative and authority, but people were forgiven and reconciled to God under the Law when they acknowledged their sin and repented and then brought the prescribed offering which illustrated both their guilt and God’s compassion. Those whom Jesus forgave of their sins obtained forgiveness based on their humble repentance and on Jesus’ compassion for their plight. In the Jewish mindset, people considered physical disease and suffering as punishment for sin. Those who came to Jesus for physical healing implicitly condemned themselves as sinners and appealed to His compassion. So, in answer to your question, I would say no, they were not forgiven based on Jesus’ future death. They were forgiven because of their humble repentance, their plea for mercy, and Jesus compassion. Jesus first granted forgiveness to relieve their guilt and then granted healing of the body as proof of His authority to forgive sins. All of this was based on compassion, and the following principle: “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
In the OT, the atonement using animal sacrifices required a specific legal system, a priesthood, and a physical Temple. The sacrifice of Jesus was absolutely necessary first because it illustrates the value of God’s only-begotten Son to God against which animal sacrifices cannot be compared. This demonstrated the Father’s own sacrifice for us to drive us to repentance of our own free will. Second, it was and is a world-wide, once-for-all demonstration to all nations of the repulsiveness of all sin to God, not merely the repulsiveness of one particular sin for which an Israelite brought a particular sacrifice every time he sinned. Jesus’ sacrifice condemns the whole world! Yet at the same time it offers the love and compassion of God for sinners. Why did Jesus forgive the woman caught in the very act of adultery? There is no question that she had come face to face with her guilt. She was about to be stoned to death as the Law of Moses required. Was she humbled and repentant? Absolutely! Jesus did not forgive her because He knew that He would die on a cross to face the punishment for her sins. He forgave her because she had come to the place of utter despair because of her sin, and because she knew that she deserved death. Jesus was her only hope. And Jesus had compassion for her.
For believers, Jesus’ sacrifice should not give us a free pass as in the “penal substitution” model but should continually move us to hate our sin as God hates our sin. Every time we are tempted to sin, we should look at Jesus hanging on the cross and see God’s disgust for our sin.
Another aspect of this which I have not mentioned previously is that Jesus’ death and resurrection was necessary to defeat “death.” He had to die in order to also demonstrate resurrection to “immortality” based on God’s promise of resurrection. So, as Romans 6 states, we are to reckon ourselves “dead” to sin (by being joined to Jesus in baptism) and raised to walk in holiness with the promise of our own resurrection to immortality. All of this requires that we view Jesus’ death and resurrection as demonstrations, both of the “wages of sin” (His death) and the “gift of God” (resurrection to immortality). What I am suggesting is that exactly as Jesus’ resurrection was an illustration of ours, so also His death was an illustration of what we deserve. Jesus taught in parables and allegories, and in a certain way His death and resurrection continue that kind of teaching. These things should drive sinners to repentance and to the cross but also provide continual motivation for continuous repentance and striving for holiness, and for laying hold on the hope set before us. These demonstrations are radical and extreme. Why? To move us, to radically influence our “free will.” God does not coerce us, as in Calvinism. Rather, He appeals to our emotions to influence our free will, to drive us to repentance, faith, and hope. IMHO, misunderstanding the atonement, clinging to the ‘penal substitution’ view of the atonement, is a severe impediment to the Gospel and to our motivation for overcoming sin in our lives and striving for holiness and perfection.
So, looking forward, would you say this will also apply to the sacrifices offered in the Renewed Heavens and Renewed Earth (Ezekiel 40-48)? That they are meant to point us to Jesus’ death as a demonstration of the ugliness of our sins, while the “unblemished” nature of the sacrifices is meant to drive home the seriousness of sin by requiring people to offer their very best? And how does this comport with the notion that whether an animal suffers or not (as I presume they won’t, with the Curse removed) while being sacrificed has no bearing on whether the sacrifice is legitimate?
And if you’d allow me to go on a tangent here, how would the temple descriptions of Ezekiel 40-48 comport with Jesus’ implication in John 4:21-24 that the New Covenant wouldn’t require everyone to worship at a centralized location? The New Covenant IS to persist into eternity future, right?
Karl,
Ezekiel 40-48 clearly establishes that the festivals will continue in the Millennial Kingdom, as also does Zech. 14:16 and is implied in Isa. 66:23. But these will not be a reinstatement of the Mosaic Law. The Melchizedek priesthood is not the Levitical priesthood, but part of the New Covenant. The sacrifices of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), which required the blood of the goat carried into the Holy of Holies, will never again be done (Jer. 3:14-18). The animal sacrifices in Ezek. 45 are for the whole nation of Israel. I do not think there will be atonement sacrifices for individuals as under the Mosaic Law. In any case, all sacrifices would be for the same purpose, to illustrate the wages of sin.
The New Covenant and its Melchizedek priesthood during the Millennium will function as the means to mediate between God, national Israel, and the gentile nations. The priesthood will be populated by resurrected believers who will intercede for the mortals. However, beyond the Millennium in the eternal state, there will be no mortals, no sin, and consequently no need for a priesthood. The Father will dwell among His people without any intermediary.
So, I see that Ezekiel 45:17 specifies that the sacrifices there are “to make atonement for the house of Israel”. Are you suggesting the “sin offering” of verse 23 is for still-mortal Israelites during the Millennium? I’m trying to understand how not requiring that for still-mortal Gentiles doesn’t result in the “apartheid of the elect” you called out dispensationalism for creating in your debate against Mal Couch.
And since Zechariah 14:16-19 tells us at least one representative of every family on the Renewed Earth will be obligated to migrate to Jerusalem for Sukkot (and I already understand this ISN’T according to the Mosaic Law), how DOES this comport with John 4:21-24?
Is it that John 4 describes decentralized worship as occurring in an “hour”, implying a temporary state of affairs for the New Covenant?
John 4 was describing “worship” during this age, as believers are “the Temple of God,” partly because of what was about to occur, the total destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, and that it would remain “desolate” until it is restored, and the Gospel would be proclaimed among all nations.
Wait, I just remembered that the rest of the passage speaks of people worshipping God in spirit and in truth during “an hour [that] is coming, and now is”. Doesn’t this imply that people will no longer be doing that, either, once the Kingdom is in full swing?
Ezekiel 34:23-24 & 37:24-25 names David as the ‘prince’ who will offer the atonement sacrifices for Israel in Ezekiel 45:17. David’s jurisdiction was only over Israel, not gentiles. Just because this priestly function is mentioned for Israel does not exclude others (gentiles) to serve as priests for gentile nations and provide a similar function for them in the Millennial Temple. Revelation 20 indicates that some believers from the “first resurrection” will serve as “priests” without limiting it to the nation of Israel. Revelation was written to Gentile churches.
Hi again Tim,
I have been thinking about this further and I think your view has real merit.
I think about Abraham, who believed and it was credited to him as righteousness, what exactly did the cross do for him?
Also, when Christ was crucified, and the temple veil was torn – that seems to signify a new access to God that was not previously available.
And then your LGV Romans 3:24-26 “Being justified gratuitously by His grace through the release that is in Anointed Jesus (Whom God previously placed as the “atonement-seat,” through the faith in His blood as a token of His justice, through the excusing of sins previously committed by the tolerance of God, [with a view] toward displaying His justice in the present era, in order for Him to be [both] just; and the one justifying the [trusting one] on the basis of Jesus’ faithfulness.” And then your footnote: Here Paul indicates that the “atonement-seat” on which the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement was itself a type of the Anointed, and that the former remission of sins was granted only through the reality – the Anointed’s own blood (Heb. 9:15).
Hebrews 9:15 (LGV) “And through this He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, thereby from death, [Himself] having become [the means] for release from the transgressions covered by the former covenant, those having been called may receive the promise of the permanent inheritance.”
And then your footnote: “Christ’s atonement cleansed all of the Old Testament saints by means of the New Covenant being retroactively extended to them also.”
Also, in your footnote just before “…His achieving “completion” made Jesus Himself fit to function in the Melchizedek High Priestly role…”
It is interesting and compelling, but I think I’m still missing something. What, objectively, did Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplish, for righteous Abraham, for the forgiven paralytic man and the adulterous woman, and for us?
Thanks (again)
Dave,
Hebrews 7 reveals that Melchizedek who met Abraham was “priest of God Most High” long before there was a Levitical priesthood for Israel, and that Jesus was actually Melchizedek who met Abraham. “Before Abraham was, I exist.” He was the “Messenger of Yahweh” who interacted with humanity before the Law of Moses, and the One who carried Israel to the promised land, and who made all of the covenants (Judges 2:1-4; Mal. 3:1). He has ALWAYS acted in this priestly role from the time he walked with Adam and made clothes for him and Eve in the Garden of Eden, thus making “atonement” for them. After His human incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension, He resumed His Melchizedek priesthood while seated at the Father’s right hand. His incarnation, in order to become the “blood sacrifice” (as described in Phil. 2:6-10) and to demonstrate the promised resurrection to immortality, was a necessary intermission in His priestly function concerning the Temple in heaven. As such, I believe we should not consider the crucifixion of Jesus to be isolated from His assigned priesthood concerning the heavenly Temple. His Melchizedek priesthood will be expanded to include resurrected believers functioning as priests to the nations under Him in the Millennial Kingdom. Consequently, we should not look at the crucifixion as a singular event, but rather as a function of a Melchizedek priesthood that covers a full 7,000 years. During this priesthood, the Son of God has been the conduit through which God has forgiven sins ever since Adam was kicked out of Eden. He has continually been reconciling men to God (atonement).
It is not that the crucifixion alone atones for sin. It is that the priesthood of Melchizedek, Jesus, the Messenger of Yahweh, continually intercedes for sinners, communicates God’s love, His attributes, and His requirements for reconciliation. Jesus’ actions have made “atonement” from the beginning. So rather than viewing the crucifixion as an isolated event, we should view it as just one of the many things Jesus did in carrying out His priesthood. It is Jesus’ priesthood that reconciles us to God and continues to provide the means for ongoing cleansing.
Hebrews also tells us that the earthly sanctuary was cleansed and sanctified by the blood of animals, but that the heavenly Temple in which God actually dwells had to be sanctified with better sacrifices, the blood of God’s only-begotten Son. So there is the aspect of the sanctification of the sanctuary to consider apart from an alleged satisfaction of a legal penalty, which IMO is just a component of the Calvinist heresy.
Hi Tim,
That’s a really helpful answer. You’re saying that Christ’s Melchizedek Priesthood has been operating throughout all of human history, and His death and resurrection were part of that larger priestly ministry, not the entirety of it.
Regarding Abraham, You’re saying he was reconciled to God through Christ’s ongoing priestly ministry long before Calvary.
One thing I’m still trying to understand is your statement that the heavenly sanctuary had to be sanctified by the blood of God’s only-begotten Son. That sounds like Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished something objective, not merely demonstrative.
Could you expand on that a bit?
The veil was intact before Christ’s death and torn when He died, so something significant did actually change because of His death… and resurrection and ascension?
Or put another way: if Christ had hypothetically continued His Melchizedek priestly ministry without going to the cross, what would have been missing? What would not have been accomplished and would that have impacted the salvation of Abraham, the paralytic, the adulterous woman, and us?
Thanks again,
-Dave
I love your questions, Dave.
Dave,
Yes, something changed with the tearing of the Temple veil. But IMO this also was a demonstration of a deeper spiritual truth (the end of the Mosaic Law for believers), rather than having some kind of physical or supernatural effect itself.
I have not as yet fleshed out all of the ramifications of Hebrews 9-10, as I believe there are some things Paul wrote that have yet to be fully explored and understood. The need for the cleansing of the heavenly Temple is one of those. “Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” (Heb. 9:23 NKJ) Why do heavenly things need to be purified? I do not have the answer to that question. Also, in what way did Christ’s death make the way into the Holiest clear? Also, how did “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God”? (Heb. 9:14 NKJ). This seems to affect our motivations concerning holiness and service as believers. In the context, this refers to Jesus presenting His own blood to God in the heavenly Temple. How does this purify the “conscience”? I am not claiming to have all of the answers to these questions. The point of my article was to show that the “penal substitution” theory is wrong, and to show that Jesus’ public execution was primarily intended as a demonstration of both the “wages of sin” (and His resurrection a demonstration of the “gift of God”) rather than a judicial transfer of punishment, the satisfaction of some sort of judicial standard that absolutely must be enforced. It is clear that Paul’s reasoning is based primarily on contrasts and parallels with the Law of Moses. If anyone here has any more insight or criticism, I would certainly like to hear it.
Tim,
I would like to approach the subject from another angle.
As far as I can see, you are suggesting three things necessary to receive the mercy of God and to be forgiven:
• Humble repentance
• Plea for mercy
• Jesus’ compassion
How does faith in Jesus come into the picture? It seems to me that a Hindu or a Buddhist can fulfill all these criteria as well.
Anders,
My article was not intended to list all that is necessary to be saved, to receive the holy Spirit, to be added to the “body of Christ,” and to inherit eternal life. Rather, it was intended to explain WHY God chose to use the brutal crucifixion of His Son as a means to drive people to repentance and faith (without which no one is saved), and to show that the ‘penal substitution’ view of atonement is not correct. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 states clearly what one must do to be saved. It requires belief in who Jesus is, the “Christ” of the Davidic Covenant, the Son of God, to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. All of my comments about atonement were intended to be viewed within this biblical response to the Gospel. There is no atonement apart from obeying the Gospel in this age.
Tim, like Dave, I think I’m stepwise coming to understand your view. I appreciate in your last answer that you are admitting, as we all should, to not have all the answers.
Could you expound upon your statement that Calvary not only demonstrated the ugliness of man’s sin (which is easily evident) but also on the “righteousness of God”?
You wrote, “These … illustrations…. are meant to provoke a hatred of our own sin and a deep admiration for God’s righteousness to validate God’s justice in condemning us to death”.
Do you mean that in our viewing of how awfully wicked men were in crucifying the innocent and holy Son of God, we might be moved to side with God, in condemning all of mankind for it’s depravity?
Are we meant to see how “righteous” God is in wiping out a humanity which is deserving of the second death?
All of the above.
Rom. 1:16-18 (NASB) 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For IN IT THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS REVEALED from faith to faith; as it is written, “but the righteous man shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
The “Gospel” contains both God’s judgement of sin, the sentence of death for all humanity, and His love in sending His Son, as John 3:16 states. Thus, it demonstrates two major things about God. It explains why the flood was necessary, why the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was necessary, and why the coming judgment of the Day of the Lord is necessary. Yet God has also provided the mechanism of escape through repentance and faith. The Gospel portrays in vivid clarity the stark contrast between man’s sinfulness and God’s righteousness.
The wickedness and guilt of mankind in his fallen state is epitomized by the religious leaders rejecting Jesus and crucifying Him while at the same time pretending to be righteous, following the Law of Moses. The righteousness / justice of God is epitomized in the tearing of the Temple veil which also foreshadowed the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which quickly followed, just as Jesus warned. The love of God is epitomized by sending His Son to endure all this so that we could understand, repent, and grasp the life-preserver of God’s promise by faith. Jesus’ willingness to “empty Himself” to become what we are, to remain silent in the face of His accusers, and willingly submit to crucifixion, provides us with the model of self-sacrifice we must share in as being “in Christ” and part of the “body of Christ.”
Yet, Hebrews makes it clear that something else had to occur in the heavenly Temple that could only be accomplished by Jesus’ Melchizedek priestly function, and with His own shed blood. Hebrews goes beyond what we see in the Gospels and Acts, it draws back the heavenly curtain and lets us in on new revelation concerning more of what Jesus accomplished. While Psalm 110:1 is often referenced in the NT, the book of Hebrews is the only place that fleshes out what that one curious statement in Psalm 110:4 means, “The LORD has sworn and will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’.” Revelation also gives us a glimpse into the heavenly Temple, and why the wrath of God leading up to and including the Day of the Lord is justified.
The message of the Gospel calls us to be joined to Christ as God’s collective “Son,” to become one with Him in His teachings, in His rejection, His sufferings, His death, and ultimately in His resurrection and inheritance (Rom. 6). Rather than Jesus’ sacrifice being INSTEAD OF US (to allegedly satisfy God’s wrath as in ‘penal substitution atonement’ theory) so that we get off scot-free, we are called to be joined to Him as one, which means we willingly suffer with Him in His humiliation and ultimately in His glory (Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:8-11).