Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Death FOR Sin: The Propitiatory and Expiatory Fulfillment of Christ’s Atonement
Preface
Before any theological system is considered, the plain sense of Scripture must be allowed to speak for itself. The following study simply gathers the relevant passages and lets their wording stand without adjustment or reinterpretation. My sole aim is to lay out the textual foundation upon which the doctrine of atonement rests.
Main Article
Scripture speaks with unmistakable clarity when it describes the relationship between sin and death. From the sin offerings of Leviticus to the apostolic witness of Romans, Hebrews, and Peter, the Bible presents a single, unified logic: sin demands death, and Christ dies for sins. This is not a later theological construction but the grammar of revelation itself.
The Old Testament establishes the pattern with precision. In Leviticus 4:3, when the anointed priest sins, Moses writes, “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.” The bullock is not offered because sin is unfortunate or because purification is aesthetically desirable. It is offered for his sin “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23. The animal dies because the sinner deserves to die. Its life is given in place of the guilty. The blood is applied because the life has been taken. The entire sacrificial system rests on this unyielding logic: sin, guilt, death, blood, atonement.
Leviticus 16 intensifies this pattern by presenting one sin offering made of two goats. Moses writes that Aaron shall take “two kids of the goats for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5). The chapter will not allow us to emphasize one goat at the expense of the other. The slain goat provides atonement by blood. “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil” (Lev. 16:15). This is the propitiatory, Godward side of the offering. Its blood addresses both uncleanness and transgressions. “He shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins” (Lev. 16:16). The living goat bears the confessed sins of the people and carries them away. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat” (Lev. 16:21). Moses adds, “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:22). This is the expiatory, manward side of the offering. Scripture uses the same bearing language here that elsewhere refers to bearing guilt. Both actions are essential, and both are part of the single sin offering Moses describes. If we treat only the living goat as the picture of Christ is to lose half of the atonement God intentionally gave, because atonement in Leviticus 16 includes both the shedding of blood and the removal of sin’s presence.
The New Testament does not soften this pattern. It brings it to its fulfillment. Paul, writing in Romans 8:3, states, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The wording is exact. Christ is sent for sin. Sin is condemned. And the place where that condemnation falls is in His flesh. This is punitive language. It is judicial language. It is substitutionary language. The condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ. The logic of Leviticus is carried forward, not discarded.
The writer of Hebrews speaks with the same clarity. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). A sacrifice for sins is not a metaphor for moral influence or symbolic cleansing. It is the offering of life in the place of the guilty. The blood that is shed is shed because a life has been taken. The sacrifice is made because sin demands death. Christ is the slain goat whose blood makes atonement.
Peter removes all ambiguity. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Here the substitution is explicit. The just suffers for the unjust. The righteous dies for the unrighteous. The innocent bears what the guilty deserve. Peter does not say Christ suffered because of sins or in the presence of sins. He says Christ suffered for sins. The preposition carries the weight of the gospel. It is the language of exchange, of substitution, of punitive bearing. Christ is the scapegoat who bears our sins and removes them.
Taken together, these passages form a single doctrinal thread. The sin offering of Leviticus is not an isolated ritual. It is the shadow of the cross. The bullock offered “for his sin” anticipates the Son sent “for sin.” The death of the substitute anticipates the condemnation of sin “in the flesh.” The blood applied anticipates the “one sacrifice for sins” offered forever. And the sinner standing forgiven anticipates the great exchange: “the just for the unjust.”
Christ is sent for sin.
Sin is condemned in His flesh.
That is punitive language.
And it is the language of the gospel itself, propitiation by blood and expiation by bearing away, both essential parts of the sin offering, fulfilled perfectly in the one offering of Christ.
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” D. L. Cooper
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2026 -
Free to use with proper attribution.
Preface
Before any theological system is considered, the plain sense of Scripture must be allowed to speak for itself. The following study simply gathers the relevant passages and lets their wording stand without adjustment or reinterpretation. My sole aim is to lay out the textual foundation upon which the doctrine of atonement rests.
Main Article
Scripture speaks with unmistakable clarity when it describes the relationship between sin and death. From the sin offerings of Leviticus to the apostolic witness of Romans, Hebrews, and Peter, the Bible presents a single, unified logic: sin demands death, and Christ dies for sins. This is not a later theological construction but the grammar of revelation itself.
The Old Testament establishes the pattern with precision. In Leviticus 4:3, when the anointed priest sins, Moses writes, “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.” The bullock is not offered because sin is unfortunate or because purification is aesthetically desirable. It is offered for his sin “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23. The animal dies because the sinner deserves to die. Its life is given in place of the guilty. The blood is applied because the life has been taken. The entire sacrificial system rests on this unyielding logic: sin, guilt, death, blood, atonement.
Leviticus 16 intensifies this pattern by presenting one sin offering made of two goats. Moses writes that Aaron shall take “two kids of the goats for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5). The chapter will not allow us to emphasize one goat at the expense of the other. The slain goat provides atonement by blood. “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil” (Lev. 16:15). This is the propitiatory, Godward side of the offering. Its blood addresses both uncleanness and transgressions. “He shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins” (Lev. 16:16). The living goat bears the confessed sins of the people and carries them away. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat” (Lev. 16:21). Moses adds, “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:22). This is the expiatory, manward side of the offering. Scripture uses the same bearing language here that elsewhere refers to bearing guilt. Both actions are essential, and both are part of the single sin offering Moses describes. If we treat only the living goat as the picture of Christ is to lose half of the atonement God intentionally gave, because atonement in Leviticus 16 includes both the shedding of blood and the removal of sin’s presence.
The New Testament does not soften this pattern. It brings it to its fulfillment. Paul, writing in Romans 8:3, states, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The wording is exact. Christ is sent for sin. Sin is condemned. And the place where that condemnation falls is in His flesh. This is punitive language. It is judicial language. It is substitutionary language. The condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ. The logic of Leviticus is carried forward, not discarded.
The writer of Hebrews speaks with the same clarity. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). A sacrifice for sins is not a metaphor for moral influence or symbolic cleansing. It is the offering of life in the place of the guilty. The blood that is shed is shed because a life has been taken. The sacrifice is made because sin demands death. Christ is the slain goat whose blood makes atonement.
Peter removes all ambiguity. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Here the substitution is explicit. The just suffers for the unjust. The righteous dies for the unrighteous. The innocent bears what the guilty deserve. Peter does not say Christ suffered because of sins or in the presence of sins. He says Christ suffered for sins. The preposition carries the weight of the gospel. It is the language of exchange, of substitution, of punitive bearing. Christ is the scapegoat who bears our sins and removes them.
Taken together, these passages form a single doctrinal thread. The sin offering of Leviticus is not an isolated ritual. It is the shadow of the cross. The bullock offered “for his sin” anticipates the Son sent “for sin.” The death of the substitute anticipates the condemnation of sin “in the flesh.” The blood applied anticipates the “one sacrifice for sins” offered forever. And the sinner standing forgiven anticipates the great exchange: “the just for the unjust.”
Christ is sent for sin.
Sin is condemned in His flesh.
That is punitive language.
And it is the language of the gospel itself, propitiation by blood and expiation by bearing away, both essential parts of the sin offering, fulfilled perfectly in the one offering of Christ.
- “for his sin” (Lev. 4:3)
- “for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5)
- “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3)
- “one sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:12)
- “suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18)
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” D. L. Cooper
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2026 -
Free to use with proper attribution.
Last edited: