What I believe about the Atonement

[GerhardEbersoehn]

That makes me think, I cannot further delay the final conclusion to the weighing of the one against the other HUMAN 'interpretation' which the TRANSLATORS, of inter alia the KJV, give for the INSPIRED words which Mark and Matthew (God's two Gospel witnesses) give for the DIVINE words spoken by Jesus Son of the Father.

Says Steve Owen above, <<If it was Hebrew, then azabthani [from azab, as I told you] would have been used instead of the Aramaic word "Sabachthani.">> Steve Owen explains what he said before, that <<what the Lord Jesus Christ experienced was the feeling, as a Man, of being forsaken by God.>>

Why? Because <<Enkataleipo means to forsake or abandon>> says Steve Owen. But Steve Owen FORGETS <forsake or abandon> is not what is written or what Mark or Matthew wrote or what Jesus, said-- is not even what Mark or Matthew "interpreted", but is what the translators decided "Sabachthani" - whether Hebrew or Aramaic (it does not matter!) -, must mean.

What could arguing like Steve Owen’s be called that’s not unfair? ‘Arguing in a circle’? ‘Begging the question’? Let’s see.

<<Steve Owen said: ↑in Mark 15:34, the Lord Jesus is speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew. This very point came up on this board just a short while ago.>> (Emphasis GE)

<<the Lord Jesus is speaking Aramaic>>, is Steve Owen’s reason for asserting <<Steve Owen said: ↑Also, enkataleipo is a stronger form of leipo, which does indeed mean, to leave. Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon.' Which is what happened to the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross between the third and ninth hours.>>

According to Steve Owen the ‘fact’ (or supposition) that <<Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon'>> is the proof that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and according to Steve Owen the ‘fact’ (or supposition) that Jesus spoke Aramaic, is the proof that <<Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon'>>.

This is ‘Arguing in a circle’ - ‘Begging the question’!

The cherry on the cake, however ...

I am not telling you different. …. "Eli Eli [or 'Eloi, Eloi']lama sabachthani?" is a Greek transliteration of Aramaic words. If it was Hebrew, then azabthani [from azab, as I told you] would have been used instead of the Aramaic word "Sabachthani." that is what I was trying to tell you in my last post.

No, you are <<not telling you (me, GE) different.>> You, are telling me exactly the same thing, <<Steve Owen said: ↑Also, enkataleipo is a stronger form of leipo, which does indeed mean, to leave. Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon.' Which is what happened to the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross between the third and ninth hours.>> <<If it was Hebrew, then azabthani [from azab, as I told you] would have been used instead of the Aramaic word "Sabachthani>>.

So what does ‘azab’ mean in Hebrew?

“fail” x 2; “forsake” x 123; “leave” x 67; “leave destitute” x 1; “leave off” x 4; “refuse” x 1; “be forsaken” x 6; “left / be left” x 5.

Steve Owen says ‘sabachtani’ means fail / forsake / leave / leave destitute / leave off / refuse / be forsaken / left / be left. YES OR NO?

Steve Owen says <azabthani> means fail / forsake / leave / leave destitute / leave off / refuse / be forsaken / left / be left. YES OR NO?

Any which one leaves one whosoever NOWHERE, both words mean <forsake> ACCORDING TO INTERPRETERS AND SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSLATORS.

Did Mark and Matthew with ‘enkataleipoh’ attach the meaning of “forsake” to ‘sabachtani’? Refer back to #260

TBC DV ASAP

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christ came had a body of corruptible flesh

Very very important! Christ came and had a body of corruptible, BUT NEVER CORRUPTED (because of sin) flesh. ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

A.T. Robertson Grammar Part 2 ‘Accidence’ Chapter 5 ‘Agglutinative Compounds’ (Juxtaposition or Parenthesis) p. 165 ‘Double Prepositional Compounds’

“Often two prepositions are used with the same verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each.”
“frequent method due to love for what is vivid and expressive.”

So now, what does ἐγκαταλεἰπω (en+kata+leipoh) mean?

It means the opposite of καταλεἰπω–‘distancing’, which is to ‘confine’, ‘enclose’ – to ‘lock-down’ (as in this time of the covid 19 virus!)

ἐγκαταλεἰπω = ‘sabachtani’ ≠ καταλεἰπω

‘confine’–ἐγκαταλεἰπω = ‘sabachtani’ ≠ ‘distancing’–καταλεἰπω

AS SEEN WITH OUR PASSOVER THE LAMB OF GOD IN EXODUS 12

ἐγκαταλεἰπω - en(in)+kata(down from=into)+leipoh(death and grave vivid place of sanctuary expressive of lacking human life and remembrance.)

posts
https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/ascension-on-the-fortieth-day.32686/?fbclid=IwAR28iIJlc4MdpInUjMzOqaOYsXwK1SP1JlYUBKNQUBDCNns6n61P4jB12fU#1#2

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/passover-feast-of-unleavened-bread.25499/?fbclid=IwAR3HNHyotVUmKGLuEz6oK0GnIe8oWBKh7V5E4mNLsGBFtTnPIjgVDpvlHoU#post-387733#62

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Gratis:

Example of “Often two prepositions are used with the same verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each.” ATR

Jesus’ 'distancing', "entering into" ‘lock-down’—death and grave...

2Peter 2:8 ((vs.6)Lot as “ensample”—— of Jesus...)
(For That Righteous Man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds
8βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ ὁ δίκαιος ἐνκατοικῶν (ἐν+κατά+οικέω) ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν

Examples of—— “frequent method due to love for what is vivid and expressive.” ATR

Luke 8:27
27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
27ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπήντησεν ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἔχων δαιμόνια, καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ οὐκ ἐνεδιδύσκετο ἱμάτιον, καὶ ἐν οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν. [Nestle not noticing “what is vivid and expressive”, wrongly, preferred ἐνεδύσατο.]

Luke 16:19
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day
19Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος, καὶ ἐν-ε-δι(α)-δύσκετο πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον εὐφραινόμενος καθ’ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς.

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

24καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰςβλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων, 25μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες, καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν.

“Considering one another” (κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους) worshippers

“in provoking/inciting (εἰς παροξυσμὸν )

“unto love and unto good works” (ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων)

“not as the manner of some” (μὴ καθὼς ἔθος τισίν)

“but exhorting one another: ” (ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες, )

“in assembling of ourselves together” (ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν)

“and so much the more as” (καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ)

“ye see the day approaching.” (βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν.)

 

[Mike Waters]

The way I see the question of ‘sin’ and its 'atonement' is as follows:

Firstly, we all have an inherently sinful nature that needs to be atoned.

Secondly, we then all commit actual acts of sin once we reach our own unique age of discretion, and those acts of sin also need atonement.

Then I look to Christ’s sacrificial death as being the only available means of atonement in both instances.

In the first instance I believe that Christ’s sacrificial death atoned for inherent sin for every person ever to be born, (including retrospectively those born before Christ’s sacrificial death). And I believe that atonement for inherent sin to be independent of anything needed from ‘man’. On that basis all who die before reaching their age of discretion are fully atoned; having committed no actual acts of sin.

In the second instance, regarding actual acts of sin, I believe atonement to be wholly dependent on faith in whatever it is that God reveals and requires of a ‘man’.

For those of us who come under the sound or sight of the Gospel message of John 3:16, then the faith that is required of us is faith in that Gospel message. Whereas for those who might never come under such a sight or sound then they will be called to show faith in one or more of many different ways.

Hebrews 11 is packed with examples of different calls and responses to faith that were accounted for righteousness.
Whereas Romans 1:11-25 can be extrapolated to indicate that those who receive no other call than that of the message of creation “have excuse” if their response to that call is to worship the evident God of creation, rather than worshipping idols which might be fashioned out of created things.

I draw from this that it is still Christ’s sacrificial death that is the only way by which man can be saved, but actually being aware of such is not necessarily a prerequisite.

Adding all this together I believe that I have covered every worldwide eventuality regarding sin and its atonement.
It’s what I call “being able to see the bigger picture”.

Nevertheless, such as I think I see, is clouded by the "darkened glass" through which we all have to peer, and all that matters for each of us is the degree of unprejudiced sincerity with which we hold our various beliefs.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Gratis

“Forsake” in Isaiah 6:11-13 LXX

Isaiah 6 και εγενετο του ενιαυτου ου απεθανεν οζιας ο βασιλευς ειδον τον κυριον καθημενον επι θρονου υψηλου και επηρμενου και πληρης ο οικος της δοξης αυτου

11And I said, How long, O Lord? And He said, until the cities be deserted
11 και ειπα εως ποτε κυριε και ειπεν εως αν ερημωθωσιν πολεις

by reason of their not being inhabited,
παρα μη κατοικεισθαι

and the houses by reason of there being no men
και οικοι παρα το μη ειναι ανθρωπους

and the land shall be left desolate.
και η γη καταλειφθησεται ερημος.

12 And after this God shall far off remove the men.
12 Και μετα ταυτα μακρυνει ο θεος τους ανθρωπους.

But they that are left upon the earth shall be multiplied
Και οι εγκαταλειφθεντες επι της γης πληθυνθησονται

13 and yet, there shall not be a tenth (left saved) upon it
13 και ετι, επ αυτης εστιν το επιδεκατον

and again, it shall be for a spoil as a turpentine tree
και παλιν, εσται εις προνομην ως τερεβινθος

and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk.
και ως βαλανος οταν εκπεση απο της θηκης αυτης.

(*Westcott-Hort & Strongs G2641 V-APPNP καταλειφθεντες)

Antonyms changed into Synonyms

In order to change the LXX antonyms καταλειφθησεται–“be left desolate”, and ενκαταλειφθεντες–“be left saved”, into synonyms, simply REMOVE the first Preposition ‘εν’ in εγκαταλειφθεντες.

and the land shall be left desolate…but they that are left saved upon the earth shall be multiplied.
και η γη καταλειφθησεται ερημος…και οι εγκαταλειφθεντες επι της γης πληθυνθησονται.

 

[Steve Owen]

Why? Because <<Enkataleipo means to forsake or abandon>> says Steve Owen. But Steve Owen FORGETS <forsake or abandon> is not what is written or what Mark or Matthew wrote or what Jesus, said-- is not even what Mark or Matthew "interpreted", but is what the translators decided "Sabachthani" - whether Hebrew or Aramaic (it does not matter!) -, must mean.

It is what the Holy Spirit decided "Sabachthani" means. It's right there in the Bible. Matthew 17:46; Mark 15:34. "My God. My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It is what the Holy Spirit decided "Sabachthani" means. It's right there in the Bible. Matthew 17:46; Mark 15:34. "My God. My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

With <<it>> you say and mean, "forsaken" means— NOT <<what the Holy Spirit decided
"Sabachthani" means>>— and NOT what Mark or Matthew decided "Sabachthani" means; BUT what the KJV's translators decided "Sabachthani" means and what Steve Owen decided that he agrees with <it>.

The TRUE meaning of the words Jesus uttered on the cross IN Greek illustrated...
Hebrews 10
“exhorting one another in assembling of ourselves together
παρακαλοῦντες ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν

and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.”
καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν.

‘Double Prepositional Compounds’ “The method frequent due to love for what is vivid and expressive.” A.T. Robertson

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

We Christians are the only Bible read by a large segment of the population, but the worst translation.
HJ Eckstein

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Hebrews 10:25

"Holy Confinement" — ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν — "unto Holy Assembly"

Church​

=
"Sanctified / Separated / Confined" — ἐγκαταλέlιπες εἰς τί — "unto this Holy Sanctuary"

unto death and grave ​

Mark 15:34 Matthew 27:46 "lama sabachthani".
Ὁ Θεός μου εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

unto Resurrection Life and Glory​

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[charity]

I told @Steve Owen that I would explain my view of the Atonement. I did not have a chance until now. Below is outlined my view. I know @Steve Owen , @Enoch111 , and certainly @David Taylor (probably a few more) take issue with my position but at least you can see where I do stand (we've been caught up in what I do not believe that I have not articulated what I do believe).

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us and that it is through Christ we escape the wrath to come.

I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.

Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit. God Himself took on the burden of our iniquities and gave His own Son as a ransom for us – the Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous.

I believe that because of the love that God had for us Jesus Christ gave his body for us by the will of God (His body for our bodies and His soul for our souls), that Jesus suffered and died for our sakes, that we might be saved.

I believe that Jesus endured to deliver up His own flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by His blood. He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: by His stripes we are healed. Christ took a body like our own, one liable to the corruption of death. He surrendered His body to death in place of all, representing mankind as the “second Adam”, and offered it to the Father so that in His death all might die and the law of death be abolished having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed. This Christ did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body, that is by dying to sin in Him) and by the grace of His resurrection.

I believe that the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Himself the curses of us all, knowing that after He had suffered and died He would raise Him up. He became a curse on our behalf, was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He Himself did not owe, but which we owed because of our sins. He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the beatings, the insults, and the death which were due to us. He drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. He made our sins His own and freed us form the bondage of sin and death that has held mankind in slavery by defeating the powers of evil.

Christ not only suffered and died, but by divine love sin was laid upon Him. He has and bears all the sins of man in His body (not that Jesus was a sinner but in the sense that He took these sins upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood). He is the “Second Adam” and the faithful “High Priest” and Redeemer of mankind. I believe that God is just and the justifier of sinners, that this is the righteousness of God manifested not through but apart from the law. I believe that the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.

Hello @John Caldwell,

I hope you will not mind my adding my understanding to that of the responses you have already received, which is that:-

Our Saviour 'offered one sacrifice for sins for ever' (Hebrews 10:12), 'He died unto sin once' (Romans 6:10: and this one Offering is all-sufficient for us. By this one sacrifice for sin, REDEMPTION and ATONEMENT was secured for the sinner.

Redemption giving 'deliverance from' (Exodus) sin, and
Atonement giving 'access to' (eisodus) God.

'And, behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
Who appeared in glory, and spake of His decease [exodus] which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.
(Luke 9:30)

'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter [eisodus] into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh ... ';
(Hebrews 10:19-20)​

Redemption being typified by the Passover (Exodus 12)
Atonement being typified by the Tabernacle and the propitiatory offerings that gave access to God.

* The word atonement gets broken down in my mind into 'at-one-ment': For the sacrifice of our Saviour made it possible for us to have access into the presence of God: for we have in Christ Jesus our risen Lord - 'at-one-ment' with God the Father.

* He Who led Israel out from bondage (redemption), led them in to His presence, a redeemed and reconciled people (atonement).

* The word 'atonement' means reconciliation.

Praise God!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[John Caldwell]

Hello @John Caldwell,

I hope you will not mind my adding my understanding to that of the responses you have already received, which is that:-

Our Saviour 'offered one sacrifice for sins for ever' (Hebrews 10:12), 'He died unto sin once' (Romans 6:10: and this one Offering is all-sufficient for us. By this one sacrifice for sin, REDEMPTION and ATONEMENT was secured for the sinner.

Redemption giving 'deliverance from' (Exodus) sin, and
Atonement giving 'access to' (eisodus) God.

'And, behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
Who appeared in glory, and spake of His decease [exodus] which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.
(Luke 9:30)

'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter [eisodus] into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh ... ';
(Hebrews 10:19-20)​

Redemption being typified by the Passover (Exodus 12)
Atonement being typified by the Tabernacle and the propitiatory offerings that gave access to God.

* The word atonement gets broken down in my mind into 'at-one-ment': For the sacrifice of our Saviour made it possible for us to have access into the presence of God: for we have in Christ Jesus our risen Lord - 'at-one-ment' with God the Father.

* He Who led Israel out from bondage (redemption), led them in to His presence, a redeemed and reconciled people (atonement).

* The word 'atonement' means reconciliation.

Praise God!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

I don't mind at all.

I've often said that the "biblical" word for "atonement" is "reconciliation".

Good stuff.

 

[Tong2020]

I told @Steve Owen that I would explain my view of the Atonement. I did not have a chance until now. Below is outlined my view. I know @Steve Owen , @Enoch111 , and certainly @David Taylor (probably a few more) take issue with my position but at least you can see where I do stand (we've been caught up in what I do not believe that I have not articulated what I do believe).

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us and that it is through Christ we escape the wrath to come.

I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.

Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit. God Himself took on the burden of our iniquities and gave His own Son as a ransom for us – the Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous.

I believe that because of the love that God had for us Jesus Christ gave his body for us by the will of God (His body for our bodies and His soul for our souls), that Jesus suffered and died for our sakes, that we might be saved.

I believe that Jesus endured to deliver up His own flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by His blood. He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: by His stripes we are healed. Christ took a body like our own, one liable to the corruption of death. He surrendered His body to death in place of all, representing mankind as the “second Adam”, and offered it to the Father so that in His death all might die and the law of death be abolished having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed. This Christ did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body, that is by dying to sin in Him) and by the grace of His resurrection.

I believe that the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Himself the curses of us all, knowing that after He had suffered and died He would raise Him up. He became a curse on our behalf, was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He Himself did not owe, but which we owed because of our sins. He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the beatings, the insults, and the death which were due to us. He drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. He made our sins His own and freed us form the bondage of sin and death that has held mankind in slavery by defeating the powers of evil.

Christ not only suffered and died, but by divine love sin was laid upon Him. He has and bears all the sins of man in His body (not that Jesus was a sinner but in the sense that He took these sins upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood). He is the “Second Adam” and the faithful “High Priest” and Redeemer of mankind. I believe that God is just and the justifier of sinners, that this is the righteousness of God manifested not through but apart from the law. I believe that the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.

In the OT, and in relation to the chosen people of God, that is, Israel, atonement was done by way of the Levite priests, first for their own sins and then for the people’s, according to the laws of atonement given by God for them to do, day by day, year by year. It demonstrates God's patience, forbearance, longsuffering. However, in the NT, there was no need for this, for Jesus Christ had made atonement or propitiation for their sins. But the good news is that this propitiation is not only for the Jews, but is also for the Gentiles. Now, we know that Jesus Christ is not only the high priest, but also the once and for all sacrifice of atonement for sins. So, unlike in the OT where atonement needs be made through the priest time and again, in the NT this is no longer the case. Jews and Gentiles alike, who were separated from God and are enemies and in hostility with God because of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus had taken away this hostility so that all, not only the Jew but also the Gentiles, may be reconciled to God.

Now, atonement is not justification nor is it salvation from sin and hell. Atonement does not make the sinner righteous nor does it save him from sin and hell. Atonement must not be confused or mistaken as justification or salvation from sin and hell. While atonement is involved in the salvation of God, atonement is different from justification, different from redemption.

Tong
R0479

 

[John Caldwell]

In the OT, and in relation to the chosen people of God, that is, Israel, atonement was done by way of the Levite priests, first for their own sins and then for the people’s, according to the laws of atonement given by God for them to do, day by day, year by year. It demonstrates God's patience, forbearance, longsuffering. However, in the NT, there was no need for this, for Jesus Christ had made atonement or propitiation for their sins. But the good news is that this propitiation is not only for the Jews, but is also for the Gentiles. Now, we know that Jesus Christ is not only the high priest, but also the once and for all sacrifice of atonement for sins. So, unlike in the OT where atonement needs be made through the priest time and again, in the NT this is no longer the case. Jews and Gentiles alike, who were separated from God and are enemies and in hostility with God because of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus had taken away this hostility so that all, not only the Jew but also the Gentiles, may be reconciled to God.

Now, atonement is not justification nor is it salvation from sin and hell. Atonement does not make the sinner righteous nor does it save him from sin and hell. Atonement must not be confused or mistaken as justification or salvation from sin and hell. While atonement is involved in the salvation of God, atonement is different from justification, different from redemption.

Tong
R0479

Atonement is Reconciliation.

 

[Candidus]

Atonement is Reconciliation.

Much of the debate on the Forum revolves around a dogmatic claim of what Atonement is. Most would agree that Atonement is Reconciliation of man and God. The nagging question then becomes... Who is reconciled to "Who"? Who is the "Object" of Atonement?

Some will say it does not matter... Two Parties are brought back together. (Why commit? Study hurts my brain!)
Some will say that it is both ways, God reconciled to man, and man reconciled to God. (Easy on the brain, and effort-free! And I don't feel I have to defend it!)
Some will say exclusively that the barrier is God's wrath which had to be propitiated. God is reconciled to man.
Some say that it is exclusively man who has to have the barrier of offenses against God taken out of the way (Expiation). Man is reconciled to God.

The same word is used to describe Expiation, Propitiation, and Mercy Seat. Is it exegetically viable to use any and all forms of the meaning of a word at the same time to Atonement? Such a hermeneutical approach is always disastrous.

Looking at all of the examples of Sacrifice and Atonement in Scripture, who is said to be the Benefactor? God or man? No matter what form of the word is used, the action of who is affected contextually determines the usage of the term. It would be a great error to take one term, use your definition of that term, and to bend all of Scripture into conformity of agreeing with what you see as the inevitable outcome of that term. Sadly, I see that many people do that.

 

[John Caldwell]

Much of the debate on the Forum revolves around a dogmatic claim of what Atonement is. Most would agree that Atonement is Reconciliation of man and God. The nagging question then becomes... Who is reconciled to "Who"? Who is the "Object" of Atonement?

Some will say it does not matter... Two Parties are brought back together. (Why commit? Study hurts my brain!)
Some will say that it is both ways, God reconciled to man, and man reconciled to God. (Easy on the brain, and effort-free! And I don't feel I have to defend it!)
Some will say exclusively that the barrier is God's wrath which had to be propitiated. God is reconciled to man.
Some say that it is exclusively man who has to have the barrier of offenses against God taken out of the way (Expiation). Man is reconciled to God.

The same word is used to describe Expiation, Propitiation, and Mercy Seat. Is it exegetically viable to use any and all forms of the meaning of a word at the same time to Atonement? Such a hermeneutical approach is always disastrous.

Looking at all of the examples of Sacrifice and Atonement in Scripture, who is said to be the Benefactor? God or man? No matter what form of the word is used, the action of who is affected contextually determines the usage of the term. It would be a great error to take one term, use your definition of that term, and to bend all of Scripture into conformity of agreeing with what you see as the inevitable outcome of that term. Sadly, I see that many people do that.

I think it helps to consider 2 Corinthians 5 and Colossians 1 when it comes to the Reconciliation. Through Christ God was reconciling all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. Mankind is reconciled to God through Christ, and because of this we plead that men be reconciled to God.

 

[Tong2020]

Atonement is Reconciliation.

Yes, but atonement is different from justification, and different from redemption.

Tong R0481

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes, but atonement is different from justification, and different from redemption.

Tong R0481

If "atonement" means "reconciliation" (or "at-one-ment") then it is the result of justification (which is the same as "righteousness") and redemption (which is the price paid for our reconciliation). What remains is to find out if we are reconciled to God via righteousness through the law or apart from the law.