Hi,
I have been thinking about this and reading a book on the Atonement and I want to understand in what framework is the Atonement meant to be understood (for us today as Gentiles), or can be it be understood in different frameworks? What I was thinking was how different a context we live in from ancient israel. It depends of course on ones country what their laws are based on I think. But we haven't had an experience like the Israelites (ie deliverance from Egypt, giving of the ten commandments etc, sacrificial system.) So given our context does a purely legal or forensic framework (Law, Guilt, Condemnation, Reconciliation) make sense to people. If we went to Sunday School as children we no doubt were told about the ten commandments, the and the sermon on the mount and other Bible stories.
ANyway I just was wondering about it since we have our own law systems. What way is the atonement to suppose to be understood?
First off: If you are forgiven 100% then there is nothing to pay and if Christ paid 100% there is nothing to forgive. That is Law.
Penal Substitution is not fair/just where you have the innocent being punished (even if the innocent is willing to be punished) so the guilty can go free.
The “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement” put the problem of forgiveness in God’s lap needing Christ to be cruelly, tortured, humiliated and murdered (sounding very blood thirsty) in order to be personally satisfied to forgive.
God would have no problem forgiving, God is totally fair and just, but any rebellious disobedient child needs more then just forgiveness, since if at all possible a wonderful parent would see to the fair/just Loving discipline of His children for all the benefits discipline provides. Atonement thus is a disciplining process we go through with God and Christ as we are crucified “with Christ”.
The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:
Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want any time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.
Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself, it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.
We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).
The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.
Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.
Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.
Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).
Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship.
We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.
Please think up some questions to ask me.
