Why the atonement?

[Homer]

Paidion,

I found much to agree with in your lengthy post on Sunday, March 29 @ 3:12pm. However, you wrote:

And finally He died as a human being. The identification was complete. After He was raised, He and His Father came to dwell within His people. Christ in us — infiltrated through our entire being, and we in Christ — infiltrated through His entire being. Christ has put on humanity, and we have put on Christ.

I have never understood, nor have you explained how, in your iterations on this subject Jesus' death on the cross made it possible for us, or enabled us, to be set free from the practice of sin. You only assert that somehow the enablement occurred. By what mechanism, or is it an unexplained mystery? I can readily understand when I read that "without the shedding of blood. there is no remission (forgiveness) of sin". I can further understand how God could "internalize" the cost of forgiveness through the death of His sinless Son. We have a substitute, as the sacrifices of the Old Testament foreshadowed. With me, I do not conceive of any forgiveness without cost. There is always a cost in some form or another.

In my view, salvation from the consequences of sin is:

1. Based on our own merit, or

2. Based on the merit of Christ, or

3. Based on no merit at all.

#1 can not be true; scripture informs us clearly that we are saved by grace.

#2 is true in my opinion, but if it is not true, nor is #1 true, then #3 must be true, or no one is saved at all. And if #3 is true, then all will be and are saved: believers, agnostics, and atheists.

[Paidion]

Coupled with the Scriptural statement that there is "no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood", we have a good reason to think that God doesn't just "artibrarily forgive sins" apart from His sacrifice.

The Scriptural statement that there is "no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood" is not a universal truth. It was used by the writer of Hebrews to contrast conditions under the old order with those under the new.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

It was only under the law, that God forgave sin when they shed the blood of animals and sacrificed them to Him. This was not God's idea, but man's idea. The Israelites got it from the heathen.

God's forgiveness is not "arbitrary"; it's a consequent of our submitting to the authority of Christ and walking the narrow path.

Philippians 1:6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

One can see contextually that the statement specifically applies to the old order under the law.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Notice the writer gives the reason for Christ's single sacrifice: to "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" --- a more accurate translation is "to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself." So this is the contrast. Under the old covenant, God agreed to forgive their sins when they sacrificed animals to Him. This was never God's way of dealing with sin. It was the heathen way, to try to appease their gods by sacrificing animals and even people to Him. God's way is to do away with sin completely and this was accomplished through the sacrifice of Christ.

Two millennia before Christ in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, the Sumerians offered a lamb as a substitute for humanity. Their "liturgy was careful to explain, 'The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he has given up a lamb for his life; he has given up the lamb's head for the man's head.' --- and here we have a relic of human sacrifice such as was actually found in the graves of the prehistoric kings at Ur." --- The Sumerians by C. Leonard Woolley p. 126.

Mr. Woolley also wrote, "Some how or other, virtue does appeal to the gods,...but experience shows that mere virtue is not enough to engage and keep their favour; practical religion consists in the sacrifices and the ritual that placate and in the spells that bind them." ibid 125 Does this sound familiar?

... And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.

So the writer clearly states that God didn't want their sacrifices and offerings. He didn't really want to forgive their sin because of "the shedding of blood" the way of the heathen in trying to appease their gods. Rather God wanted to eliminate sin from the lives of His people. He wanted to "do away with sin" through the sacrifice of Christ.

Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.”’
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law),
then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 9:18-10:10

So through the sacrifice of Christ, God wants to sanctify us, enable us to be holy and pure and righteous. When we are on the highway to holiness, then of course God won't hold our past sins against us. Forgiveness will naturally follow.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

God's way is to do away with sin completely and this was accomplished through the sacrifice of Christ.

But you can not show, out of all the billions of people who have lived since Christ's sacrifice, even one case where this has been accomplished. If your theory is correct, God's plan is a complete failure.

On the other hand, if Christ's death is for the forgiveness of sin for all who place their faith in Him, we can be confident it was accomplished.

Hebrews 10:16-22 (New King James Version)
16. “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17. then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
19. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20. by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21. and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22. let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

[Jill]

.

[Paidion]

But you can not show, out of all the billions of people who have lived since Christ's sacrifice, even one case where this has been accomplished. If your theory is correct, God's plan is a complete failure.

What exactly is it that you claim I can't show? That no one has been enabled to overcome sin?

The apostle John wrote:

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. I John 3:2-10 ESV

Obviously John believed that Jesus died "to take away sins", in order that we might have the victory over sin and not practise it any longer.

Or are you asking me to exhibit people who have become totally sinless? That has not yet been accomplished, but true disciples are on the narrow path which leads to perfection, and they are continually being delivered from sin and moving closer to the goal. When Christ comes and His disciples are resurrected, God will put the finishing touches on them.

Philippians 1:6 And I am persuaded that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

So I say, it is indeed true that Christ died for the purpose of doing away with sin completely. This purpose has begun to be accomplished in every disciple, and will be completely accomplished at the resurrection of the righteous. In no way is it a failure!

On the other hand, if Christ's death is for the forgiveness of sin for all who place their faith in Him, we can be confident it was accomplished.

Why can we be confident it was accomplished? "You can not show, out of all the billions of people who have lived since Christ's sacrifice, even one case where this has been accomplished." So why do you believe it? How do you know that all who place their faith in Him are forgiven? Is it because you believe the Bible teaches this? Well, similarly, I know Christ died to do away with sin because the Bible teaches that!

[anochria]

paidion wrote:

It was only under the law, that God forgave sin when they shed the blood of animals and sacrificed them to Him. This was not God's idea, but man's idea. The Israelites got it from the heathen.

why then did God command it, if it was an artibary heathen invention?

paidion also wrote:

The Scriptural statement that there is "no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood" is not a universal truth. It was used by the writer of Hebrews to contrast conditions under the old order with those under the new.

Paidion- how do you know it wasn't a "universal truth"? The idea that a sacrifice must be made to appease or reconcile mankind with God/the gods is about as universal as you can get. What you see as a heathen idea to me is an inherent knowledge among all peoples that a sacrifice for sins must be made (even outside of the Jewish law).

[Paidion]

paidion wrote:

It was only under the law, that God forgave sin when they shed the blood of animals and sacrificed them to Him. This was not God's idea, but man's idea. The Israelites got it from the heathen.

why then did God command it, if it was an artibary heathen invention?

It wasn't arbitrary. The Israelites imitated the heathen ways, even to the extent of sacrificing their children. God commanded it as a concession to what they wanted to do anyway, a bit similar to His commanding them to select Saul as king, when they insisted on having a king like other nations. But God lamented, "You wouldn't have me to rule over you."

So God preferred having them offer sacrifices to Him, rather than to offering them to other gods. But through Jeremiah, God indicated that He hadn't spoken to the Israelites about sacrifices and burnt offerings when He brought them out of Egypt. He spoke to them only about obedience.

paidion also wrote:

The Scriptural statement that there is "no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood" is not a universal truth. It was used by the writer of Hebrews to contrast conditions under the old order with those under the new.

Paidion- how do you know it wasn't a "universal truth"? The idea that a sacrifice must be made to appease or reconcile mankind with God/the gods is about as universal as you can get. What you see as a heathen idea to me is an inherent knowledge among all peoples that a sacrifice for sins must be made (even outside of the Jewish law).

You are speaking of a universal practice among people of that day. Universal practice is a far cry from universal truth. At one time it was a universal practice within Christendom to buy indulgences from the Pope in order to reduce their time in purgatory. But this could hardly be said to be a universal truth.

[anochria]

But through Jeremiah, God indicated that He hadn't spoken to the Israelites about sacrifices and burnt offerings when He brought them out of Egypt. He spoke to them only about obedience.

I presume you're referring to Jeremiah 7: 22-23.

Here's the NKJV:

22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’

Though a woodenly literal reading of that passage might seem to support what you're saying, I think the NIV paraphrases the hyperbole better:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

I say this for the simple fact that I can think of no [other] biblical evidence that God "allowed sacrifices as a concession". Rather, God was the first to initiate a sacrifice as far back as Genesis 3. He had specific ideas about acceptable sacrifices in Genesis 4. He specifically commanded the entire sacrificial system without any sense of reluctance in the Pentatuech. He even commanded a sacrifice of blood on the night of the Passover.

I think this passage (rendered in the word for word, as in the NKJV above) is saying that during the time period between leaving Egypt and the covenant at Sinai, God first and foremost focused on obedience, and only later, and secondarily, about sacrifices.

But God always had a masterful plan in his instructions about sacrifices, not merely a putting up with "the hardness of their hearts".

Humans in most cultures have almost always been right about the fact that there has been a relational breach with God/ the gods that only the payment of a life can satisfy. They have just often been wrong about how that debt could actually be paid.

Let's keep dialoging about this.

[steve7150]

It wasn't arbitrary. The Israelites imitated the heathen ways, even to the extent of sacrificing their children. God commanded it as a concession to what they wanted to do anyway, a bit similar to His commanding them to select Saul as king, when they insisted on having a king like other nations. But God lamented, "You wouldn't have me to rule over you."




Paidion, There are 50 chapters related to the Tabernacle system in the Torah verses 2 chapters regarding the creation of the universe. How can you look at the weight of this evidence and claim God reluctantly initiated this system of sacrifices. It seems primitive but these animals were going to perish one way or the other and i guess at that time this system was needed even though to our modern sensibilities it may seem offensive.

[Paidion]

Though a woodenly literal reading of that passage might seem to support what you're saying, I think the NIV paraphrases the hyperbole better:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

The word "just" occurs neither in the Hebrew or in the Greek Septuagint. The addition of the word by the NIV is the result of an interpretation of the passage. I think the passage says that God didn't give them such commands when He brought them out of Egypt, but asked them only to obey. Throughout the entire Old Testament, this is what God asked of His people. The fact God requires obedience and not sacrifice is also born out in Psalm 40:6

Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

Instead of asking for sacrifices, God gave the psalmist "an open ear" to hear what He had to say to him by way of obedience.

Anochria, I have written about the matter of offerings and sacrifices in the following thread below. I have tried to show that even the first offerings were Cain and Abel's idea and not God's. God didn't say to Cain that his offering was unacceptable because it was vegetables. Rather He said to him, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" If was all about doing well, all about righteousness, and not about offerings or sacrifice.

Offerings and Sacrifice

Perhaps after you have read this chapter, we could discuss it further.