Atonement (Not PSA)

[Armchair Apologist]

THE COVENANT GOD MADE WITH ABRAHAM AND CHRIST

God called out Abram and made a covenant. God would bless him, make him a great nation, He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. In him all the families of the earth would be blessed. God would greatly multiply his seed and in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. I do not believe that Abraham realized the full implications of this covenant as it was yet to be revealed. The word “seed” is grammatically a collective singular. While it could point to Abraham’s descendants, Paul tells it that this points to his “Seed”, or Christ.

None of this was written down until several centuries later by Moses but I would guess many things were certainly passed down from generation to generation via "folklore" (oral tradition) or whatever. To me, it seems difficult that Moses would pull such things out of "thin air" but rather that such stories and accounts had already been known of by the children of Israel who were in the wilderness with him.

What is interesting to note here are the overlaps we see in the genealogies leading up to this. First of all, Abraham was born only 50 years after the death of Noah but Shem (father of the Semitic people) was not only alive during the time of Abraham but also for the birth of Isaac! You can also go back to Shem's birth and see that Shem was alive when Methuselah was alive and Methuselah was alive when Adam was alive! Abraham was therefore only four generations removed from Adam! Of course we could not say whether Abraham had any interaction with Shem; the scriptures do not speculate, but it certainly was plausible and what sort of conversation do you think they would've had if they actually met? Perhaps (and this is just my wild imagination here) Shem was Melchizadek? Probably not but who knows?

But what I would assert (commenting on what I have bolded in your statement) is that Abraham likely was well aware of the "Protoevangellium" in Gen 3:15 and that the promise of his "seed" was a continuation of the covenant that God had given to Eve in the garden and I believe you have alluded to this in your comment following.

It is important to remember that this is not the Old Covenant. This is an older covenant which has not replaced. Until the Old Covenant was established there existed no sacrificial system under which sins are atoned. All the sacrifices prior to the Law are in worship, not “making atonement”. But I believe that the Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant to come. I think this primarily because this is how Paul and the author of Hebrews used the Old Covenant.

I believe we have several "covenants" here (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and so forth) and each of these covenants build one upon another and each provides a clearer picture which ultimately points to Christ. We understand that the sacrifices in these covenants were not an actual "atonement" but they certainly illustrated the atonement that was to come that was fulfilled from the foundation of the world (had to throw this in somewhere).

THE EXODUS PASSOVER

Israel had been in Egypt for 430 years (many view this to include the journey). At some point they became enslaved in Egypt. God delivered Israel from this bondage.

On the tenth of the month the people took a lamb for themselves. If the family was too small for a whole lamb they went to a neighbor and divided the lamb according to what they would eat. The people assembled on the fourteenth day and killed the lamb at twilight. They took some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the home where they ate. That night they ate the lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. None was left over until morning as whatever was left, they burned with fire. They ate the meal ready to leave. God went through Egypt on that night, and He struck down all the firstborn (both man and animal).

When God saw the blood on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the home He passed over that home.

And of course there is the implication of a substitutionary atonement all throughout this account. It would be incorporated in the law of Moses and the Levitical Priesthood and Christ would ultimately be that "Passover Lamb."

THE OLD COVENANT

The covenant God made with Abraham was to him and his Seed. The law (the Old Covenant) was introduced 430 years later and it does not set aside the covenant God made with Abraham and Christ. The law was never intended to depart life otherwise righteousness would have come by the law. Instead, what the law did was lock up everything under the control of sin (under Satan’s domain) so that what was promised (that covenant God made with Abraham and Jesus) would belong to those who believe. In other words, man was held under the law (locked up under the power of Satan) until the faith or faithfulness of Jesus, the Promise, was to be revealed.

I concur with your bolded statement here. It was not a "new covenant" but rather additional revelation which God added to his prior covenants. Paul made it ciear that "By the law is the knowledge of sin" and this is the only reason for which it is intended as "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Paul states that "nevertheless, death reined from Adam to Moses" speaking of the time prior to the law that was given by Moses. In such a case, it is one's conscience that will either excuse or accuse. It is the law (either written on parchment or written on the heart) that reveals your spiritual condition and reveals your need for the redemption that is found ONLY in Christ.

You have given me quite a bit to respond to and it is my honor to do so! May take a couple of days to give it the attention it deserves.

 

[37818]

This additional issue here:

. . . Israel had been in Egypt for 430 years . . . .

This contradicts Galatians 3:16-17, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The promise to Abraham was before the Law given to Moses that 430 years.

 

[JonC]

This additional issue here:

This contradicts Galatians 3:16-17, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The promise to Abraham was before the Law given to Moses that 430 years.

It is a type of shorthand, I guess. From Moses to Abraham was 430 years. I was being lazy.

 

[JonC]

The passage does not specify why Cain's sacrifice was rejected.

Only that Cain did not do well.

I agree that we see progressive revelation in the Old Testament which is revealed in the New Testament. The only object of faith we have is in the Promise thar Satan will strike the Seed and He will destroy Satan. But as Scripture goes on this becomes more developed.

I think the way you are expressing this is that it is something THEY are doing in order to "appease" God and I would agree with you that this is a very wrong approach. The sacrifice illustrates God's redemption through his Son and their participation is indicative of their faith and that they are, in fact, resting on this promise.

I agree. In the Hebrew religion, even as early as Adam, God is not a God that can be appeased. The sacrificial system, the passover.. these things foreshadow what was to come. They are models, in a way.

 

[JonC]

None of this was written down until several centuries later by Moses but I would guess many things were certainly passed down from generation to generation via "folklore" (oral tradition) or whatever.

True. But the New Testament account of Jesus' words were also written down long after He said them (not as long). I suppose we have to view Scripture as coming from God in order to trust its accuracy.

I believe we have several "covenants" here (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and so forth) and each of these covenants build one upon another and each provides a clearer picture which ultimately points to Christ.

I disagree about some of the covenants (technically there is no "Adamic Covenant" as this makes many assumptions). But I agree that they build in detail.

A Reformed Professor (and friend) once described the covenants like a wheel. The Abrahamic Covenant (this "everlasting covenant" between the Father and the Son) is the wheel itself with other covenants being spokes. They exist within, not in addition to, the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed.

We understand that the sacrifices in these covenants were not an actual "atonement" but they certainly illustrated the atonement that was to come that was fulfilled from the foundation of the world (had to throw this in somewhere).

And of course there is the implication of a substitutionary atonement all throughout this account. It would be incorporated in the law of Moses and the Levitical Priesthood and Christ would ultimately be that "Passover Lamb."

Sacrifices were never atonement. But I do not think we can say the priest applying the blood was not actually making atonement for the people's sins.

The reason is the word "atonement". We are talking about a reconciliation. Those in the Old Testament were reconciled to an extent. But it was not the permanent change (being born of the Spirit). So I am ok using atonement, just not to its fullest extent.

It was not a "new covenant" but rather additional revelation which God added to his prior covenants. Paul made it ciear that "By the law is the knowledge of sin" and this is the only reason for which it is intended as "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Paul states that "nevertheless, death reined from Adam to Moses" speaking of the time prior to the law that was given by Moses. In such a case, it is one's conscience that will either excuse or accuse. It is the law (either written on parchment or written on the heart) that reveals your spiritual condition and reveals your need for the redemption that is found ONLY in Christ.

I somewhat disagree. There were things in the Law that were very new (sacrifices to cover sin, dietary laws, etc).

But the Law was a certificate of decrees which were ultimately against man. If you inadvertently or even unknowingly ate a piece of pork you committed a sin.

If somebody took you out and killed you by hanging you on a tree outside of town you became a sin and a curse (under the Law you became an unclean thing even if you had no control over the act). This was why the Sadducees crucified Pharisees in 76 BC.

So in a real way the Old Covenant was new when it was given.

But sin, the lesson it taught, existed apart from the Law.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

So where do we stand so far (to evaluate the passages that have been offered)?

Humanity is "sold under sin." To be man is to be sin, to be cursed, as "sin begats death" as a wage which is the power of Satan.

Christ bore our sin (He is sinless, yet He experienced the death sin produces as a "power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil"). He was made to be sin for us, made a curse for us. And He defeated this power of Satan.

BUT that is only one part of the issue because it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Christ was judged as righteous. He was vindicated from unjust oppression, raised to life, given a name above every names, was made a Life giving Spirit.

God set Him forth as a Propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. He entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands through His blood and we enter through His blood.

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. In Him we are made new creations, conformed into His image, justified and glorified. The old perishes, we die to sin, the guilty man perishes, the new has come.

 

[37818]

It is a type of shorthand, I guess. From Moses to Abraham was 430 years. I was being lazy.

No. It is an actual Hebrew textual variant issue.
Exodus 12:40, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Missing some words from the text. ". . . and the land of Canaan, . . . and their fathers . . . ."

LXX Exodus 12:40, And the dwelling of the sons of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers -- four hundred thirty years.

 

[JonC]

No. It is an actual Hebrew textual variant issue.
Exodus 12:40, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Missing some words from the text. ". . . and the land of Canaan, . . . and their fathers . . . ."

It probably is. I do not think the point Paul was the time frame but that sin reigned apart from the Law.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

True. But the New Testament account of Jesus' words were also written down long after He said them (not as long). I suppose we have to view Scripture as coming from God in order to trust its accuracy.

The New Testament (especially the Gospel accounts) were written by eyewitnesses and by eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses and this is what makes these accounts so powerful! Paul wrote 1 Cor 15 during a time when many who were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection were still around and that they themselves would verify the veracity of which Paul was speaking! The 1980s was mostly 40 years ago but many things I still remember as if it were yesterday. John wrote his Gospel about 60 years afterwards in his old age. Certainly the the Holy Spirit helped him out (as with all biblical writers of course) but John likely still had lucidity of thought and writing the accounts as he remembered them.

What Moses was writing was thousands of years removed but I believe that much of it had been passed down through folklore and story telling and that such was part of the Hebrew experience and the fledgling nation of Israel. Moses wrote through Holy Ghost inspiriation but I cannot accept that all of this history found in the book of Genesis would be just pulled out of a vacuum and becoming "new knowledge" to the Children of Israel! Remember also that on Mt. Sinai, God was giving the "Ten Commandments" and he makes reference to the "Seven days of creation?" This implies that the Children of Israel already have knowledge of this! Either Moses had recently completed the book of Genesis which was the current "Hot Seller" making its way around the camp, or they had prior knowledge of this that had been passed down through the generations. I am inclined to believe the latter.

I disagree about some of the covenants (technically there is no "Adamic Covenant" as this makes many assumptions). But I agree that they build in detail.

Actually, I made up "Adamic Covenant" myself though perhaps others have used it. This is, however, where the Covenant Theologians speak of the "Covenant of Law" and the "Covenant of Grace."

A Reformed Professor (and friend) once described the covenants like a wheel. The Abrahamic Covenant (this "everlasting covenant" between the Father and the Son) is the wheel itself with other covenants being spokes. They exist within, not in addition to, the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed.

I can go along with this. Dispensational Theology deals with divisions that are rather abrupt in nature but these divisions in time are still quite distinct. For one, it is interesting that there was no societal justice for Abel and it seems as if God was actually protecting Cain from such retribution! Government and capital punishment is quite prevalent after the flood and one of the first things God brought up to Noah!

Sacrifices were never atonement. But I do not think we can say the priest applying the blood was not actually making atonement for the people's sins.

The reason is the word "atonement". We are talking about a reconciliation. Those in the Old Testament were reconciled to an extent. But it was not the permanent change (being born of the Spirit). So I am ok using atonement, just not to its fullest extent.

Perhaps we had somewhat of a "Break Through" here noting that man cannot make "atonement" for anything. He is unable to appease God even through the act of a burnt offering or whatever. It is God who brings about atonement and reconciliation and all of these sacrificial offerings illustrate how God would eventually accomplish and make atonement for our sins.

I somewhat disagree. There were things in the Law that were very new (sacrifices to cover sin, dietary laws, etc).

But the Law was a certificate of decrees which were ultimately against man. If you inadvertently or even unknowingly ate a piece of pork you committed a sin.

If somebody took you out and killed you by hanging you on a tree outside of town you became a sin and a curse (under the Law you became an unclean thing even if you had no control over the act). This was why the Sadducees crucified Pharisees in 76 BC.

So in a real way the Old Covenant was new when it was given.

But sin, the lesson it taught, existed apart from the Law.

Much of what you are speaking of here is in reference to all of the "ceremonial laws" intended to separate Israel from the surrounding nations and in many cases, was for their benefit. It wasn't that mixed garments were sinful but perhaps that they did not wear as well and perhaps there were skin irritations as well? Who knows, but I would say it was more for their benefit. Same thing goes for dietary laws. Seething a kid in its mother's milk had nothing to do with different plates for meat and dairy products but perhaps there were some digestive issues? Many cannot eat cheeseburgers beause the cheese and meat together creates indigestion and acid reflux? My wife is bothered by stuff like this.

Of course none of the ceremonial laws pertain to us today but the moral laws most certainly do!

 

[37818]

It probably is. I do not think the point Paul was the time frame but that sin reigned apart from the Law.

God's promise to Abraham to the giving of the Law to Moses was the 430 years.