Atonement: From Leviticus to Hebrews

"From Leviticus to Hebrews"

The Atonement of Christ

Introduction

     There is no bible doctrine or teaching that is more important than the biblical teaching of atonement. And that is because of the fact that atonement is what makes salvation possible. Every doctrine and teaching about salvation is built upon the doctrine of atonement. Whether it is right or wrong, Atonement is the foundation which all salvation teachings from the bible have to be build upon. So if a persons understanding of atonement is wrong, then everything that is built upon it will be flawed in one way or another. And sadly, most Christians do not have a proper understanding of atonement today at all. Although most do have a “good enough” understanding of it to be saved and lead others to salvation, and the amount of error they have can vary from person to person; they really have no clue that they have any error at all.

     Most Christians today have a limited understanding of atonement and what it means for mankind. What they do understand is based upon what they have learned through the teachings of men, and is not based upon scripture alone. So many people believe that what they have been taught is in the Bible, when it is not at all. Of course, a good amount of it really is. It is a certain percentage of error that is mixed with the truth they are unaware of. Even small amounts of poison may not harm a person. But the more it increases, the more dangerous it becomes. Then it will either make them extremely sick or kill them. Many Christians have been made spiritual sick or died because of a small error. Because small errors have the tendency to evolve into larger errors. And the errors found in atonement can seem small and insignificant. But they do lead to serious false teachings for some.

     A proper understanding of atonement will prove to be very important in determining correct and false doctrines that are taught in Churches today. But if the foundation is corrupted, everything built upon it will seem to be very true to them. Since their doctrines fit their faulty view of atonement, they cannot see how they can possible be wrong. And with that error being mixed with a high percentage of complete biblical truth, it is easily masqueraded and undetected for being what it really is.

  

People do not realize the importance of this doctrine. Yet the understanding of it is the very foundation of any Church, believer, and every doctrine that has to do with salvation. Every believer should study atonement and be sure they know what the truth is on this subject, before ever pursuing the study of other teachings on salvation. This teaching alone, and the improper teachings that come against true atonement will determine whether a person will accept Calvinistic teachings, Antinomian teachings (the teaching that nothing we do can cause the forfeiture of salvation once you have it – not any sin or even murder or walking away from the relationship with Christ), Universalism, or the true teachings of scripture. It will determine whether you believe in eternal security (OSAS) or conditional salvation. The reason so many people feel so sure about some of the false teachings they believe in as being truth is many times based upon false and corrupted roots out of which these teachings come. As long as they hold to a belief in the root, all that follows will naturally be received as truth – without question. 

To many Christians, atonement might seem to be such a basic teaching that they would rather not bother studying or reading about it. They have heard about it over the years and hear it all the time in sermons, teachings, and have read about it in books. But what they do not realize is that they have been taught incorrectly in all of those things. They have been given a foundational teaching that is corrupted by men through the misuse of words and phrases; building doctrines off of them, rather than forming them by the Bible alone. Most of these teachings rely on the New Testament scriptures alone, without even consulting the Old Testament scriptures that show us the reason and purposes of atonement. How can you understand true atonement without going all the way back to its beginning?

     So in order to understand how certain doctrinal teachings in the Church today can be wrong, we must go back to the foundational teaching of the atonement of Christ – where the salvation of man through atonement had begun. 
Anyone who has never heard the things shown in this book may be shocked to hear what we are about to cover. But in the same shock wave that makes one wonder if they are hearing heresy, will be the clear scriptural evidence that proves that it is not. So the shock may also be one of realizing the truth to be somewhat different than what they had been taught concerning atonement and the salvation that follows it.

 My prayer is that all who will read the contents of this book will open their heart and mind, search the scriptures for themselves, and not allow deception to have any part of their lives. Many people prefer to ignore evidence against their beliefs. This is easier, more comfortable, and without confrontation or dealings with those who will disagree. It is much more peaceable to ignore opposing doctrines than to consider them at all. But any God fearing, God loving, and truth seeking individual will consider greatly what is written in this book. It is not heresy, but a lost truth from centuries past that is clearly written in the scriptures for all to see. The scriptures tell the truth! Let’s see and consider greatly what they say, and let’s be sure that we are not merely trusting in man made theories. If we can know that our foundation is pure and solid, then other doctrines that follow will be as well.

     It is also my hope and prayer that readers will recognize all that scripture teaches, as what is written here is not based on an opinion or just another theory. But in comparing scripture with scripture, all becomes abundantly clear. But after many years of having false ideas pumped into our minds, it will require that a person humbly open their minds and hearts and be willing to consider all the facts. Carefully think things through. And be careful not to go into this with the purpose of rejecting it – no matter what! What you are about to read will likely be a little different than what you have always heard taught by pastors and teachers. And to some, the first thought will be “Heresy!” But for those willing to think things through and consider the many facts, it will not only prove to be scripturally true, but in the end, it mostly leads to the same facts about salvation through faith in Christ alone, and freedom from sin through that faith. As a Christian and pastor, I have had the privilege to fellowship with many Christians around the world who believe traditional teachings. I do not drill them on their beliefs, or insist that need to believe as I do. I do not question their salvation over such issues. The problem is not solely about the falsehoods in the teachings, since most Christians are still able to live above and beyond what such teachings can lead to. The issue is concerning the logical end of such teaching, as you will soon see. And how many go too far and end up getting involved in dangerous doctrines that lead to an eternity without Christ, while believing that they are one of His. Or they can be lead to false teachings in which the focus is more on the teaching itself than it gives to the people. It is about being aware of the fact that even though we love pastors and teachers as our brethren, they are still fallible men who are influenced by those before them. It is not about judging people, forming an attitude against those who believe these falsehoods, or working against the kingdom of God by doing harm to others and their faith. But it is also about finding the root of both truth and error, recognizing both when we see them, and keeping from deceptions. We need to think for ourselves, in humility and a fear of God. So before you read, please take the time to pray and ask God to speak to you, to show you truth, to open your heart and mind. May His abundant blessings and Holy Spirit be with you!

Atonement

     Most Christians today have a basic understanding of what the atonement of Christ is, and what it means for the Christian. But what most do not realize is that there are several different ideas and teachings concerning what exactly it means to say that Christ “atoned for the sins of the world”. If an atonement view is taught that is not completely Biblical in its teachings, the view itself can still appear to be a support for other doctrinal teachings, without the support of scripture. Many Christians feel confident about their doctrines of salvation, based on their view of atonement. But they have never checked their view of atonement against the entirety of the scripture. They check one teaching against another, assuming that their atonement view is correct. They therefore get the illusion of truth, and cannot see the error of their teachings, based on this one foundational teaching. So it is critical that a proper understanding of atonement is given as a foundation for receiving doctrine. If a doctrine does not stand up to or fit in with the Biblical teaching of the atonement, then it can correctly be considered a non-scriptural or false teaching. We will soon see how this is true of Calvinism’s third point, “Limited Atonement”, as well as the atonement teaching they and even most non-Calvinist’s hold to.

     In order for us to understand what exactly the atonement of Christ does for us, we first need to understand what atonement meant from the beginning. We can find this information in the book of Leviticus. Although in it’s origin, atonement was contained in the law, and many will want to say that law is done away with (As if this makes Leviticus null and void of and useless for modern interpretation purposes); the foundational principles, purpose, and methods of atonement still remain, since atonement is still offered in the New Testament through Christ. Most Christians realize that much of the Old Testament is a shadow of things to come in the New Testament, in the New Covenant with Christ. Therefore, a proper understanding of Atonement in the Old Testament should give us a clear understanding of what atonement does in the New Testament. So for this information we must turn to the book of Leviticus. After looking at Leviticus we will then look at a few different teachings of atonement taught today and see how they line up with what atonement really was then. The book of Hebrews can be a great help in supplying this information, as well as other New Testament books. Before we look at Leviticus, we need to look at the definitions of atonement so we know what the word really means.

     Atone – In Hebrew – kaphar (kaw-far’) to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: 
To “cover with bitumen” is to cover with a black tar, like what is used on our roads today to fill the cracks. This is figurative of blotting out sins. Acts 3:19 “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out…” 

The word “atone” is figurative in its use even according to its literal definition. Other figurative usages are also added to it as examples of how it applies to mankind. No man is or ever was literally covered with bitumen. The literal cannot work and makes no sense. But figuratively it does work, since sins are blotted out, or better understood as being “taken away”. To “expiate” or to “cancel” would best fit the Biblical understanding of atonement, because of the taking away of sins. This is what John said when He saw Jesus coming in John 1:9. “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world”. Since we know and can all agree that sin is the problem we are dealing with, and that it is the very thing that separates man from God – then if it is removed, it is then expiated and the “wages” of sin are cancelled. But this can only be true for those who repent, as told in this scripture in Acts. Whether blotted out, removed, wages cancelled, sins taken away, or any other figurative term; the results are all the same. No sin, no judgment! If there is sin, there will be judgment.

     We also need to understand that even the words “take away” are figurative. Sin is not a substance that can be moved. It cannot be taken off of a person, placed onto a person, and moved in any way at all. Sin is an issue of the heart. And that heart issue makes men seek after the lusts of the flesh and pleasing self. This is why Jesus told us in Luke 9:23 to, “…take up your cross daily and follow after me…”. Then in John 3:3, “You must be born again”. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If any many be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold, al things are become new”. And in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

     What atonement has always been all about is the change of the heart of men. When we repent of sins, accept Jesus and His atonement, we receive the Holy Spirit. Through the receiving of His spirit we are transformed! We have a new way of thinking; A new way of living; A new way of talking; and a new ability to live free from the life of sin. We are no longer controlled by sinful desires. We are new creatures in Christ! (Romans 12:1). Sinful living is a thing of the past. We are no longer sinners, but are now saints, who walk with God as we walk in the Spirit. So as Paul said in Galatians 5:16, “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”

     So what does atonement do? The biblical term is to “take away the sins of the world”. But we know this cannot be literal, since sin is still present in the world. But it is referring to the transformation in the heart and life of those who will believe in Jesus, as the freedom they live in through Christ is pure and real. And as transformed people, sin has been removed and forgiven. This is a very powerful fact of scripture! So as Jesus said, “If the Son sets free, you are free INDEED!” Atonement is not as many teach it today. It is not something that merely removes a penalty for sin, while we remain in sin! That is man’s teachings. It is not what the bible teaches at all! As we continue, we will see the problems with the teachings of men, and get into more biblical truth that is so powerful!

Dictionaries define atone – To make amends, as for a sin or fault.

   Atonement is the idea of dealing with sin through the shedding of blood. This is made clear in Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

    
Through the shedding of blood, sins are “expiated”. Meaning that the blood will “make amends” for the guilt and presence of sin in the life of the one whom is guilty, restoring them to a relationship with God. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that “without the shedding of blood is no remission” of sins. 

Life is in the blood! Innocent blood atoned for the sins of the guilty. This is in contrast with the death that abides in man because of sin. So an exchange is made between the life of the blood of the innocent for the death in the sinful men. This should not be confused as an exchange in the way of payment or punishment for sins, as we will cover. It is something done on the behalf of sinful men, not ‘in their place’. In Old Testament times, animals were a valuable asset to man. Animals determined a man’s wealth and livelihood, along with the lands they owned to produce crops and feed the animals and people. Many times men would even become attached to these animals, as much time that was given in shepherding, feeding and watering them. These animals were innocent creatures that held value to men. They were a large part of a mans wealth, much like having a lot of money in the bank today. So in offering them to God by shedding their blood, giving these animals would cost man something. They would cost man the giving of the best that they had as an offering to God. Animals were most men’s livelihood – which would indicate a true sacrifice on mans part. They could not be the crippled, defective, or animals that were useless or ready to die anyway. Animal sacrifices were to be offered to God as man’s best. Anything less than the best would not be acceptable to God.

     King David was one who was once a shepherd and understood attachment to animals. He also understood the value of them and what constituted a true sacrifice. When a man wanted to give King David animals to sacrifice unto God for free, David answered as follows: 2 Samuel 24:24 “And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.” 

The blood of the sacrifice, containing the life of innocence, would atone (make amends) for the sins of men. This would temporarily deal with the sin issue and keep men in right standing with God. But it was not in the offering of the animal alone that would atone for sins. Men also had to confess their sins over that animal. There could be no atonement in the act of sacrifice alone. The hearts of men needed to be involved by offering their best, and confessing their sins in repentance. Without heart involvement, it would only be a powerless religious act. God wants the hearts of men with their obedience. He demanded their very best and nothing less! Should we assume that God has changed in this area, just because we no longer sacrifice animals?

     The high priest of Israel had to come yearly to offer sacrifices for their sins of the nation in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Individuals would have to offer sacrifices more often, if they committed major sins. The main difference between the Old Testament system and the atonement of Christ is that Christ is the one time sacrifice for all sin forever, having been the perfect, sinless sacrifice. Old Testament animal sacrifices are done away with, since Christ died once for all. The work of God in atonement is completed through the work of Christ. But man’s part still remains. Men not only need to put their faith in Christ to atone for their sins; they also have to confess their sins any and every time they sin. Mans part has not changed, other than the fact that we do not have to offer animals. We now simply offer ourselves a living sacrifice unto God (Romans 12:1), spiritually – by offering our heart in repentance.

     The problem and disagreements arise because of different understandings of what atonement really means for mankind today. The one main teaching in the Christian world today receives its foundation based on their non-scriptural theory of the atonement of Christ. This is much more than an opinion or any interpretation of scripture. The problem with their belief system is that it is not based on the Old Testament system at all. They seriously miss very important parts of this system, and add their own ideas to the meaning of atonement. So, before we say too much about what they believe (as well as most Christian groups today that will agree with them – ignorantly), we will start with a good look at the beginnings of atonement in Leviticus.

 As mentioned, the word atone is defined “to make amends”. It is used only once in the New Testament in Romans 5:11, and although the Greek does describe a similarity to atonement, it should actually be translated “reconciliation”. This word has to do with a restoration between God and men, as atonement would do. But it still is not the same word as it is used in the Old Testament.
 Since man was cut off from God at the fall, there has always been need to “make amends” between God and men. Sin is the thing that caused separation. Atonement is to “make amends” by dealing with the issue of sin.

 Since there is life in the blood, and spiritual death is the very thing that sin caused – it is therefore by the blood of innocent animals that God chose to atone for sin. Spiritual death is the separation of man from God. Life therefore “makes amends” for the sin that caused death, repairing the broken relationship between God and men. But because sin would always reoccur, and men would have to offer sacrifices continuously for their repeated sins – God had a much better plan in store for men. This is of course in the sacrifice and atonement of Christ for the sins of men. 

It is based on the understanding of atonement that must be started with the old sacrificial system for atonement, in order to see how the atonement of Christ lines up with this original system. With the atonement of Christ we will find a lot of figurativeness in what He did, which all lines up with the old system. The figurativeness given in the scriptures will lead to a literal result for all that will believe.                      

The Levitical Sacrifice

     Under the Mosaic covenant their were a few different types of sacrifices that would be offered to God. Of these sacrifices, the ones we want to look at are those that atoned for sin. It has been the understanding of most Christians that sacrifices for sin were offered only once a year. This is not exactly what Leviticus teaches. Man could bring offerings at different times when ignorant sins were committed. Although this may be somewhat different than the yearly sacrifice that was given for the whole nation, it did still atone for those sins committed out of ignorance.

 Leviticus 1:
2-5 “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. 
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 
5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.”

     With this particular offering man would bring it to the priest, but it was the one offering the sacrifice that would lay his hand on it and kill it. This is not the yearly offering for Israel, but an individual offering that atoned for personal sin. This could be representative of repentance in the New Testament, just as man comes on an individual basis for forgiveness of sin. It is individual, and it makes atonement for the one offering it. 

The yearly sacrifice that was offered for the nation, by the high priest, is representative of Christ offering Himself for the sins of the world. With the two types of offerings in Leviticus we have a type of what is given in the New Testament in Christ. We have in these offerings man’s part and Christ’s part in the forgiveness of sins. Although Christ died for the sins of men, each man must still come to Christ with his own offering – surrendering our own selves through the repentance of sins and acceptance of His offering of Himself. The laying on of the hands to kill the animal included confession of sins. The yearly sacrifice is what made it possible for them to bring their personal sacrifice. This is likened unto Christ dying for us, so that we can now come unto Him and offer ourselves as a sacrifice back to Him. In this act we do as He said we must do, as we take up our cross and follow Him daily. We must now offer ourselves a living sacrifice to God. Romans 12:1 “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” This is man’s part in coming to God with his own offering. Christ already did His part as high priest, in the offering of Himself for our sins – once for all. Man must first accept His offering in order to receive atonement for sins. Unless men come with their part, Christ’s part has no effect on them whatsoever. 

Calvinism claims that men cannot come to God, unless God draws and elects them. But free will was another offering given to God, as was necessary for forgiveness of sins. No man could be forgiven of sins unless they took heed to God’s commands to come with an acceptable offering. The gospel message that Jesus commissioned His disciples to spread throughout the world and to teach others to do the same is the means by which all men may hear and take heed to God’s call and command to repent. Acts 17:30 “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” The Levitical system shows the necessity of repentance along with the giving of the offering for their own sins, as well as participating in the offering for the nation by the high priest, that was done on their behalf.

   

So if the people as a whole were to sin out of ignorance, including the priest, then instruction was given to atone for their sin as individuals. This is not the yearly sacrifice for the nation that is known as “the Day of Atonement”.

Leviticus 4:
2,3,12,20,21 “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: 
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.”

12 “Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.”

20 “And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
 21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.”     

     When the sacrifice is for the priest, the nation or people as a whole, the offering is a bull that is offered in the Tabernacle, which is then taken outside the city to be burned. This is representative of atoning for sin in the presence of God and then taking away sin to be destroyed. In a similar way Jesus was beaten in the city (for our sins), and taken outside of the city to be crucified. The Bible says that He bore our sins on the cross. The symbolism is present all through the teachings of Leviticus, as compared to the crucifixion of Christ. But the greatest symbolism from which the atonement of Christ comes is found in the yearly sacrifice. We can see in each instance in which sacrifices of animals were given that it says, “And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.”
 Blood was not only shed, but was put on the horns of the altar and poured out at the foot of the altar. The blood atoned for the sins of man as it was offered to God. The altar represents the place of God’s presence. It is also the place of the mercy seat, and what is referred to in Hebrews as the “throne of grace” where through Christ’s blood we now have access to God. Men can now obtain mercy and grace through Christ’s shed blood for the forgiveness and removal of sins.

The Two Goats

     In the yearly sin offering, on the Day of Atonement, there were two goats that were brought to the priest. One was the blood sacrifice offered to God, and the other was the scapegoat – which would carry away the sins of the people into the wilderness. This was of course figurative! The previous sacrifices for sins, using a bull, also atoned for the sins of men, but was a different type of the same that was to come in Christ, showing the part of men in coming before God. The yearly Day of Atonement is the type of Christ as sacrifice and offering on the day of His death, showing the two different ways sin was being dealt with, as well as how God accepted the sacrifice. 

The blood sacrifice was offered with the first goat. It was the blood that atoned for sins. There was no punishment of either of these goats, and the sacrifice was never given as a payment in any way for sins. Sins were actually taken away on the scapegoat – NOT dealt with in the subject of sacrifice. 

Leviticus 16:9-10 
“And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.”

     Sins were dealt with by taking them away, never by punishment of the goat. Even the sin offering was killed as a sacrifice, but was never the victim of “punishment”. The blood of innocent life was the object in focus here, not punishment for sins. An “acceptable sacrifice” to god was of key importance. If he did not accept it, there could be no atonement. So at no point whatsoever could God reject or turn His back on the sacrifice. Neither could God do this with Jesus when He was on the cross, as many teach today. Turning His back would indicate rejection of the sacrifice.

     Sins were figuratively placed on the scapegoat, not on the sin offering. The scapegoat actually was never harmed. So if sins were not on the goat that was killed, but on the goat that was set free into the wilderness, then it cannot be said that either was punished for sins. These facts create serious problems and obvious errors in the understanding that most Christians today have been given of the atonement of Christ, as we will cover.
 Christ was both the sacrifice for sins and the scapegoat. One of these goats alone could never have atoned for the sins of men. Both were necessary in the atonement process. God had them use two goats for a reason. The reason was to show the separation of God’s acceptance of Christ through blood atonement; and His dealing with sin by taking it away. Christ therefore could not have been punished for our sins by God or rejected in any way. He was punished by men for crimes He was innocent of. But never was He punished by God!

     John the Baptist said Christ came to “take away the sins of the world”. He was our scapegoat. We know that He also shed His blood by His death on the cross. The blood represents life, in contrast to death that reigns in man, and is figurative of purification. So men by receiving Christ have their sins taken away on the scapegoat and are purified by the blood of the other. In Christ we have both. Jesus was figuratively both goats in the giving of Himself. And as we will further cover, He was also both offerer and offering – high priest and sacrifice. 



     Just as two goats were required to complete atonement for sins under the old system, so it was also with Christ. Although the goat for the Lord was for atonement, atonement could never be completed without the taking away of sins. There can be no “amends” made between God and man as long as sin remains present. Sins must be taken away! So in Christ, the “Lamb of God who takes always the sins of the world”, we have both atoning sacrifice and scapegoat. This was never possible in any man, and neither could it be possible through God the Father alone. God the Father could not die as God, and man could not die for his own sins because of being born into sin. But the God/man could do this! Jesus bore the two natures we find in the two goats of the Levitical system. He was God – being a perfect and sinless (innocent) offering for atonement; and He was man – able to die as a sacrificial offering. And by His going to the underworld, He as scapegoat carried away the sins of man (figuratively, but with literal deliverance).

His resurrection secured this was all men past, present and future – whosoever shall call upon His name.

     A sacrifice NEVER paid for anything! An offering or sacrifice was never an object that God could reject because of sins on it, while still atoning for sins (as modern atonement theories insist God did with Jesus); but was something that had to be acceptable to Him. If a sacrifice was ever rejected then there could be no atonement for sins. Scripture gives no such indication of rejection of sacrifices in the process of making atonement for sin! The Levitical system teaches only the acceptance of offerings for atonement. 

How could God accept something that He was turning His back on? Yes, Christ did bare our sins on the cross. But this, like the scapegoat, is figurative. The meaning being that all sin of all time was being dealt with in the way of provision. Christ’s death on the cross was the one time sacrifice for all men, for all time. It provides forgiveness of sins for all men who are willing to repent. 

The OT way was to come often to offer a sacrifice for sins, and yearly for the whole nation. No longer is this the case with Christ. Being the perfect, sinless sacrifice, He provided forgiveness for all men forever. If He literally had man’s sin upon Him, then this in turn would make Him sinful and He could not have been the perfect/sinless sacrifice. Sins upon Him could not make Him “appear sinful” to God, whereby God would judge Him for our sins. That would make God ignorant of the truth or somehow deceived by a lie. God see’s all as it is. Judging a perfect sacrifice for our sins on Him makes no sense. God does not judge the righteous. He does not turn his face from the righteous. If God turned away when He was dying on the cross, He could not at the same time be accepting His sacrifice – since God ALWAYS watched and had to receive the sacrifices in order for sins to be atoned for. When Jesus died we know that the earth shook, it went as dark as can be, and God made it known that He was present. He was accepting the sacrifice Jesus made of Himself. Jesus “provided” – He did NOT literally pay for sins. And He was not punished for sins. Such an idea is drawn incorrectly from Isaiah 53, which will be covered in a later chapter. In order for this to be acceptable as truth, it will have to be proven that sins were on Him literally, rather than figuratively. Each of these points will be covered in greater detail under “Jesus took our place” and “Understanding the figurative and the literal”, as well as in other chapters.

     The one thing that makes the difference between the Old system and the new way in Christ is that fact that the priests in the Old Testament would have to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could offer sacrifices for the sins of the people. But because Jesus was sinless, He needed not to make sacrifice for His own sins and can therefore ever make intercession for men in heaven as high priest and the one time sacrifice for sins. As Jesus said when taking His last breaths of life, “It is finished”. The need for further sacrifices for atonement had ended. We read in Hebrews 7:27, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” 

Not only did the people need to come often for atonement of their sins, but they also always needed a priest to do it for them. As the perfect sinless and acceptable sacrifice for sins, Christ never needed to offer sacrifice for Himself. He is able to forgive sins forever from His place in heaven as the sinless high priest, as well as the sinless sacrifice. It is important to understand Christ as both sinless High Priest and sacrifice when comparing the old system with the new. It is by this understanding that we can see that it was not a payment for sins, but a provision. This is evident by the fact that He is ever present to “make intercession for our sins”. Just as it is mentioned in this same context of scripture in Hebrews 7:25, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Intercession is not necessary for sins that are “paid for”. The sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man can and should only be understood as being provisional, not as a payment. If sins were paid for, then intercession for our sins would have only been necessary once – not something that He would need to “ever liveth to make intercession for”. 

When offerings were offered to God, the scriptures say all through Leviticus that the smoke that arose from the burnt offerings were a “sweet-smelling savor” unto God. This shows that He was pleased with the offering that was offered, and that it certainly was not rejected at any time. In Ephesians we have a comparison of the sacrifice of Christ (even though He was never burnt), and how the Father accepted the offering of Christ. 

Ephesians 5:1,2 “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.” 

This fits with “provisional sacrifice for sins”, and goes against “punishment for the payment of sins”. God never turned His back on Christ on the cross because of our sins on Him. It is because of the figurative placement of sins on Christ that is interpreted as being literal that many have taught punishment and payment theories to be true. This is because of their false understanding of atonement. Many are in total ignorance of the true Biblical teaching of atonement. While others know well what they teach and believe, but refuse to accept anything different, or anything that appears to be a “new” teaching.

Understanding the Figurative and the Literal

     When I use the word “figurative”, this can refer to several different methods used in the bible. We know that Jesus spoke in Parable. These were made up stories or situations used to bring a comparison between the natural and the spiritual. In the Psalms we see Hyperbole, which is an exaggeration of a situation that is used to put great emphasis on the topic of discussion. Other figurative usages are a “Figure of speech”, metaphors, Allegory, simile, and personification. These are all “non-literal”, figurative ways of communicating something literal. So the figurative itself is never literal. But it does always point to something else that IS literal.

     Years ago I would have been offended to hear that anything written in the Bible was figurative. In my ignorance I assumed everything that was written in the Bible had to be literal. I took the word “figurative” to mean “not real”, when I was certain that the whole Bible was real (and it is!), as in containing truth. Although all is truth in the Bible – all is not literal. There are a lot of figurative usages all throughout the Bible. The figurative was used to explain a literal meaning by the use of examples and comparisons, in the effort to help men understand things better. 

Determining what is figurative and what is literal is very important in determining truth. If something figurative is taken to be literal, then this could cause false teachings on the topic of discussion, as well as every teaching that branches off of it. So it is my purpose to show how this very thing has happened to the Christian Church today. Many false doctrines have come into the Church by the misapplication of words, phrases, and contexts that are used figuratively in scripture, and have been misapplied as being literal. To help give a better idea of what I am talking about specifically; here are a few examples of figurative and literal words or phrases.

The Figurative of Christ

• High Priest – He is called our high priest because of what He did in offering Himself. But we know that He was never literally the high priest of Israel. He acted as high priest in the offering of Himself, and now is as a high priest (figuratively in Christianity) – meaning that He is the mediator between God and men.

• Lamb of God – He is called the Lamb of God, but obviously never was or never became a literal lamb. This is figurative of being the sacrifice for sin, like an animal would be in the Old Testament. More specifically, In His death He was as the lamb that was slain in Egypt, with its blood spread over the door posts to cause the death angel to pass over them during the final plague. Because of Jesus’ blood, when we apply it to our lives through faith, death passes over us and we gain life instead.

• The Vine– figure used to describe Christ, our being in Him (as the branches in the vine), and our connection to Him.

• Bread of Life – Jesus was never turned into a loaf of bread. Even in communion when He says “This is my body”, this is figurative of partaking of His life, teachings, and even His sufferings in persecution. Since bread gives life to the body, we also understand that He is the giver of spiritual and eternal life as the one who sustains us spiritually.

The Work of Christ

• Redemption/Redeem -  (to buy back) – No literal payment transaction was made between two parties. Financial terms like redeem, bought, and ransom are used to give a better understanding of what Christ did. Although the results of what Christ did are literal, these terms should never be used literally! His suffering on our behalf can be likened unto a “payment”. Not for our sins, but for us as His people. The great “price” He “paid” was not for sin, but because of sin. WE were the ones redeemed (Bought back); and not “sins paid for”. Sin had to be “taken away”, never paid for. Redemption speaks to the fact that we belong to Him because of what He did on the cross. We must be careful about adding anything more than this to the figurative!

• Propitiation – describes what pagan’s would do in offering sacrifice to their god’s to appease them of their wrath. Certainly God would not desire the same. The scriptures that use this word are misunderstood. They literal meaning is “atoning sacrifice”, in which the word propitiation is used figuratively to describe. Propitiation was a term that the Gentiles understood. In to relate to them, the Apostle used this word to figuratively describe the Atoning sacrifice of Christ.

• Jesus took our place – Atonement was always understood as “a life for a life”. But the truth is, the cross could only be Jesus’ place. No man could possibly ever die for their own sins and be saved. That is why animals were used in the Old Testament. It is better to say that what Jesus did, He did on our behalf – so we do not have to suffer for our own sins. If He took the place of anyone, it was the place of animals. But either way, it was for us!

• Covered by the blood of Jesus – this is a commonly use phrase that s used when we talk about the need of Christ’s blood being applied to our lives. But it doesn’t take a bible scholar to realize that none of us have literally had His blood cover us in any way in the literal sense. But figuratively we understand that the shedding of His blood made the way for forgiveness of sins (Sacrifice to the Lord), and by confessing our sins He can take them away (Scapegoat). His blood made salvation possible. But it has not been carried around for almost 2000 so it can be literally applied to every Christian throughout time. But it is figuratively available as a sufficient sacrifice for us all, until the end of this age.

Of the Church

• Body of Christ – This describes our place in Christ, as we are connected to Him spiritually. But obviously, even though our place in Christ is literal, the term here is not.

• Sheep – People are never called animals, except figuratively. In other scriptures people are called goats, pigs, wolves and dogs. Animals are only used to describe the type of attitude, demeanor, or response people have toward Christ and the gospel. Goats speak of the unsaved in contrast to those who are saved. Dogs and pigs speak of those who are not saved or those who go back to sin. Wolves are leaders who deceive people and pull them away from the truth. People do not change from being a dog to becoming a sheep or the other way around. But they do change the way they act, respond, or live their lives, and thus act like one or the other. This is the figurative of actions and should not be used to literally say that Christ’s sheep can never be turned into dogs or vice-versa.

The Literal
 of Christ

• God in the flesh – nothing figurative about this. Jesus is God manifested in the flesh!

• Atoning sacrifice for sin – Absolutely true! No figurativeness applied here.

• Provision for forgiveness of sin – very literal, with no figurativeness.

• Christ died for our sins – This should never be denied as literal!

     These are only a few examples, just to give an idea of how the figurative and the literal are often confused or misapplied. Some of the figurative and literal has already been pointed out in previous chapters. As we get into more on the atonement of Christ, the figurative and literal will be pointed out in more detail. It is the literal that is critical for us to know and understand. And the literal doesn’t take much explanation. The figurative should always lead us to the literal. Never to a flawed understanding of the literal by taking the figurative too far! Yet this is exactly what so many people have done. They add their own ideas to the figurative by teaching other aspects about it that were never meant to be added. For example, when Jesus is called the Bread of Life, the purpose of this comparison with bread is simply because bread is referred to as food that sustains our physical lives. While Jesus is the sole provider of spiritual life. If we were to take this use of Bread figuratively too far, we could get into different errors that go completely against the character of Jesus. We could say that bread has leaven in it, and that leaven figuratively refers to sin in the Bible. So by calling Him the Bread of Life, we are also calling Him the Sin nourisher of life. Of course this is so absurd that nobody would teach it. But when things are not so obviously against scripture as this example, people don’t have a hard time accepting it. As a matter of fact, they accept it so hardily that such things become doctrine to them. And once the doctrine is formed, they don’t even realize that its roots are in a metaphor taken too far, rather than from the scriptures.

     So when we look at examples like the figurative phrase of “Jesus paid for our sins”, it is so engrained into our minds that we don’t ever question it. Yet no such thing is taught by any scripture in the literal sense. As a matter of fact, the Bible doesn’t even use the phrase in the figurative sense. It is completely a made up phrase by men. The phrase alone would be fine if men didn’t draw false doctrines out of it. That is the real issue here. I am around Christians every week who use such phrases like this. I don’t ever feel the need to go around correcting people every time I hear it said. Because most Christians really do not intend to use it wrongfully. But it opens the door for false teachings and confusion if people do not understand the figurative and the literal. Teachings like Calvinism’s Limited Atonement, Universalism, and the Unconditional Eternal Security teachings all come out of this single phrase, as well as a few others. None of which are found in the scriptures, but are mans own figurative creations. With such man made phrases, then one-sided choices of scriptures in a failure to “rightly divide the Word of Truth”, people end up being convinced of false teachings. So I implore all those reading this to always consider the figurative and the literal. Pray to God for wisdom in determined which is which. The literal is actually very simple when we set aside the figurative long enough to see it. But always consider literal that the figurative is pointing to, rather than focusing on the figurative alone!

Provisional Atonement

     The Provisional view of the Atonement of Christ is that He is the provider of all that is necessary for salvation by faith. It is the support system for free will, and the belief that whosoever desires to be saved can receive what He has provided. It is what clears up the confusion that is added to atonement by the “payment for sins” teaching, which leads to universalism or Calvinism’s Limited Atonement. Instead of teaching that sins are already paid for, it teaches that forgiveness of sins is provided for. So with this biblical understanding of atonement, there is no confusion that requires these false teachings to “fix” it.

     Atonement is not what was done to Christ. It is what He did as Priest and Sacrifice when He offered Himself.
The focus of the Provisional atonement is that Christ was both the sacrifice and the High Priest. He was the offerer and the offering.  This fact adds further problems for those who teach punishment and payment. Although it could be argued that Christ did not become the High Priest until after His ascension into heaven (when He sat at the right hand of God); the fact that He gave “Himself” (as it was the High Priest who had to offer the sacrifice to God) shows that He was the offerer (High Priest) even before His death. The fact that He was the “offering” is not disputed by anyone. Only the high priest could offer the sacrifice to God. Although scripture does indicate that the Father gave the Son, this is in reference to sending His Son into the world and allowing Him to give Himself. The Father was never in the place of high priest. 

And as scripture indicates, it was the Son who was the one giving the sacrifice (Himself) unto the Father. Here are a few scriptures to support this view.  

Galatians 1:4 “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:” 
The Son gave according to the will of the Father, just as the high priest under the Old system would take the sacrifice before God – according to God’s will and command. The giving here was for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world. The word “might” shows the subjunctive mood in the Greek language, which is a conditional use that allows for the choice of men to hopefully make the right choice. This shows the provision of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and not a payment for sins as most assume.

Ephesians 5:25-27 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
 He “gave Himself” that He “might”… This again shows that provision has been made for mankind, with a condition placed on them receiving it. Provision is conditioned upon the choice man makes to receive Christ or not. If it taught payment for sins, then there would be no “might” about it. This word is a definite position given in the Greek language of these scriptures, showing that man does indeed have his part. Payment of sins does not allow man’s part, since it teaches that all is completed in Christ’s work for men – which nothing can change. It is all “paid for” in full. If paid for, then salvation is completed even before repentance. Calvinists will use such an idea to support their teaching of regeneration taking place for the “elect” even before salvation takes place in a person. For the elect, all is paid in full and all is the work of God from start to finish, with no choice of your own. There is no balance to be paid, so sin can no longer ever be an issue of separation between God and men. This is the logical end of saying that Christ “paid for sins” on the cross. It is purely Calvinistic! And very unscriptural!

1 Timothy 2:5-6 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
 With the old system, the high priest was the mediator between God and men. He was the one who would go into the holy of holies to present the offering to God for the people. In this scripture we see Jesus as the mediator between God and men. He is in the position of high priest. And in addition to being the high priest, the same scripture says “Who gave himself a ransom for all”. He was also the sacrifice for our sins in the same sentence. But as it says in 1 John 2:2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”. Calvinists must insist that “all” and “whole world” refer only to the elect (chosen by God for salvation) in order to avoid the teaching of universalism. That is because their minds have been filled with this payment teaching, which in taking it to its logical end leads to Universalism as we know that Jesus would have “paid for” the sins of “all” men. Payment of sins does not work except with the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. But the same scripture says that He did this for “all”. “All” means all, and “whole world” means whole world, and cannot refer to only the “Elect”, as Calvinists must insist in order to maintain their doctrinal beliefs. Our mediator is between God and men, NOT God and the elect chosen of God alone. This is a “payment” teaching of Calvinism, and not of scripture!

   

Titus 2:13-14 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” 
As with the previous scripture, this one also says that He gave Himself that He “might redeem us”. Redeem refers to ‘buying back’ something. However, it does not refer to a payment for sins. It is only figurative of saying that He “bought us”, not that He “paid for sins”. What he endured was suffering for our sins, which is figuratively a “high price to pay”. It was literal suffering, and was literally for us, and because of our sins. But it was not a literal payment. It was literal suffering, with the provision for forgiveness of sins through repentance and acceptance of His sacrifice that was done “on our behalf”. 

With this understanding, the sacrifice of Christ remains a gift for “whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord”, and not just those whom God supposedly chose to be saved, while rejecting all others. Payment for sins necessitates a belief in Limited Atonement or Universalism in order to be consistent with the payment teachings.

  
  The fact the Jesus offered Himself would seldom ever be disputed. But it can be overlooked. And this is much more than just a willingness to die for sin on the part of Jesus. It has been shown that He was also the High Priest who gave the offering of the sacrifice unto the Father. As shown, a sacrifice had to be acceptable to God and was never an object of punishment. The fact that Jesus endured such brutal punishment by men shows His great love for mankind. But that punishment was not God punishing Him, but rather God allowing men to punish Him without good cause.

     The High priest had to be clean before God in order to offer the sacrifices to God. Who could have possibly offered Jesus as the perfect sacrifice as High Priest? His disciples had walked away and were also not qualified even if they hadn’t.. The High Priest of the Jews was one of the key persons who sent Him to the cross. As explained, the Father could not be the one offering the Son to Himself as high priest. There was no one at all who could have done this. Only the Son can take this title. The scriptures are clear that He (as High Priest) gave Himself (as offering) for our sins, as a ransom, so that He might redeem us. It was a complete work of Christ. The Father did not ever reject Christ or turn His back on Him. But as in the Old Testament system, He accepted the sacrifice of Christ from start to finish. He was present at the crucifixion and watched every minute of it, receiving Christ as the acceptable one-time sacrifice for the sins of all men forever. If the Father were to turn His back on Christ when He was on the cross (as the penal satisfaction atonement insists), then this would actually show a rejection of the sacrifice of Christ. The Provisional Atonement view illustrates the Old Testament system in the work of Christ as High Priest and offering, and the Father as the recipient of the offering – as sweet smelling savor. It was not the death of Christ that the Father took pleasure in, but rather the perfect offering of Christ. His death was only a necessary means of providing this acceptable offering.

​

​

​