Lately we have been reviewing some of the bigger key doctrines in the Bible, and today we are beginning a study on the topic of the atonement. This is a very complex and involved concept to present, not because it is so extremely difficult to understand, but because we have had a certain view over the centuries that may not reflect what the Bible actually teaches about this critical aspect of the biblical faith.
So let’s begin with a basic description of the common understanding of the atonement, taken from Wikipedia’s entry on the topic:
Atonement in Christianity, in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ’s sacrificial suffering and death. Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of atonement to express how atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of humanity have been forgiven, enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation.
As the article says, many Christians may not be aware of this, but like every other great piece of doctrine, there are widely different scholarly views of the specifics of how the atonement should be interpreted, such as:
- Ransom theory: Yeshua paid a ransom to the devil to free humanity from sin and death.
- Christus Victor theory: Yeshua defeated the powers of evil and liberated humanity from their bondage.
- Recapitulation theory: Yeshua recapitulated or summed up the stages of human life and reversed the effects of Adam’s disobedience.
- Satisfaction theory: Yeshua satisfied the honor and justice of God by offering himself as a sacrifice for human sin.
- Penal substitution theory: Yeshua bore the penalty and wrath of God for human sin in their place.
- Moral Influence theory: Yeshua Messiah came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Yeshua alongside His example and actions.
Depending on which church or denomination you may belong to, one of these views is likely favored. Most of these theories are ways of dealing philosophically with the concept of how Yeshua overcame original sin. However, in the previous episode 111 of Humans and Sin, we have already explored how the philosophical concept of original sin is itself a theory and is not actually biblical. This obviously takes away the importance of establishing how these theories of atonement justify a different theory of original sin.
While I would personally love to geek out and explore each of those theories in detail (something I may do in a subsequent episode if there is interest in it), I would rather spend this initial run-through of atonement by looking at the actual biblical themes that discuss what is represented by the concept of atonement. If we can start the journey on a biblical basis, then I believe the theories will sort themselves out as to how useful they may or may not be.
In order to view atonement from an authoritative biblical stance, it made sense to me to consider it by identifying the following categories:
- How was atonement represented in Israel’s past (the Old Testament, or Tanakh)
- How did Yeshua view his role in that worldview
- How were atonement themes viewed by Yeshua’s disciples and the NT writers
- What does all of this mean for believers today
And, because this is such a convoluted topic that intertwines with so many other biblical themes, I think it’s important to spend some time developing some of these pictures more fully for a better overall view. This will require more than one episode, so today I would like to cover atonement as represented in the Tanakh, and also how Yeshua viewed himself and his role in relation to that. Next time, we will look at atonement themes in the New Testament and then see how all of this information comes together for believers today, so I hope you will make the time to listen to both episodes for the full review of this topic.
Atonement in the Tanakh
The term itself is a theological word based on the Hebrew concept of covering, mercy, and reconciliation. As defined by Strong’s, the word kaphar is: “A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel — appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).”
The most prominent example of this type of transaction in the Old Testament is captured in the ceremony of the scapegoat ritual which was to take place once a year on the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur.
Leviticus 16:9-10 – “[Aaron] is to present the goat chosen by lot for Yahweh and sacrifice it as a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot for an uninhabitable place is to be presented alive before Yahweh to make atonement with it by sending it into the wilderness for an uninhabitable place.”
Without going into extreme detail, once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the high priest would present two goats to Yahweh. One was sacrificed as a national representative substitution for the sin of the community, and the other was symbolically imbued with the sins of the nation and sent off into the wilderness never to return. The entire process is fascinating symbology and can be reviewed in total in Leviticus 16. We will spend some more time reviewing this as we draw near to the actual Day of Atonement at the beginning of the fall season in a few months.
A key portion of the ritual was that the high priest would take the blood of the sacrificed goat and pour it out on the cover of the ark of the covenant, covering the lid. Since the Bible teaches that the life of the creature is in the blood, the life of the goat was substituted for the collective life of the congregation. This “life” was then poured out upon the ark of the covenant containing the ten commandments, covering the covenantal agreement. In so doing, the community was essentially committing their collective “life” before Yahweh to follow the law that he himself pronounced from Sinai to the entire assembled community that had been ransomed from Egypt. Because of the atonement offering, God extends his mercy to the community and forgives their offenses against his covenant, resulting in reconciliation. This whole ritual is a vivid illustration of themes that would have been commonly understood within that culture and that are continually built on in later biblical stories.
The life is in the blood
Leviticus 17:11 – “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have appointed it to you to make atonement on the altar for your lives, since it is the lifeblood that makes atonement.
This principle is one of practical understanding and symbolic representation. When an animal (or human for that matter) has the blood drained from their body, they die. All other medical considerations aside, this dying due to loss of blood demonstrates practically that blood carries the life of the creature. However, God has ordained that the the symbolic aspect of animal sacrifice in the process of atonement is that its blood is substituted in a representative way for the life of the one presenting the sacrifice. The one offering the sacrifice is essentially saying to God, “My life is now intertwined with the life of this creature which is provided completely to you.” While the offerer continues to live, they have had to provide something of great value to them as a substitute for their own life. This then would become the deterrent to future sin because of the high cost of sacrificing a perfectly good animal which would have had great value to an agrarian family, especially one that was perfectly healthy as it had to be provided without blemish.
The net result of the sacrifice would be that the offerer would have had their sinful behavior “covered” by the life of the animal so that they could be reconciled and continue to live in their relationship with God. And as mentioned, the value of the sacrificial animal would provide a deterrent against future sin.
What this whole sacrificial ritual demonstrates in a practical way is that when wrongs are committed, there are consequences, and also a God-provided mode of overcoming those consequences. Atonement as a biblical concept is a symbolic principle of substitution value, not a token of having to give God something he desires for himself. It is a principle which says, “God, I recognize I have done something you didn’t want me to do. I’m sorry and won’t do it again. Please accept this thing of value in place of my own life to demonstrate my sincerity.” God then views the value of this thing (sincerely offered) as a token of sincerity and he subsequently responds with mercy and forgiveness, resulting in reconciliation between him as the offended party, and the offerer, as the offender.
This is why atonement was able to be provided by money, as well, because money has value and requires sacrifice to offer it to God. We’ll take a look more closely at that concept as we explore how Yeshua viewed his role in atonement.
Yeshua’s view of his role
We have to always remember that Yeshua did not just arrive on the scene at the start of his ministry drawing on a blank piece of paper. To the contrary, everything he did was as a culmination of all the revelation that had come previously, to fulfill all of those things the ancients had been looking forward to. He did not come to start a new religion, but to bring the one faith in Yahweh into its fullest prophetic expression. As such, everything in his life and ministry has deep roots in his Hebraic culture and the life of the nation of Israel up to that point. The New Testament writers were constantly quoting from Old Testament passages to demonstrate how Yeshua validated the Messianic role by fulfilling all of these Old Testament types and symbols. As we spend some time on these concepts, we can gain the most wisdom as to what the meaning of his life, and his death, was all about.
As the primary indicator of atonement, I think it’s most important to see how Yeshua himself viewed his role and mission as it applies to this concept. These include the themes of the Good Shepherd, the Ransom, and as the institution of a new blood covenant.
Good Shepherd
John 10:11 – “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
This idea of a shepherd is not just a cool metaphor that Yeshua came up with for himself. The Shepherd was a reference to several prophecies in the Tanakh or Old Testament, most notably Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 50:6 – “My people [that is, Israel] were lost sheep; their shepherds led them astray, guiding them the wrong way in the mountains. They wandered from mountain to hill; they forgot their resting place.”
The redemptive work of Israel’s Messiah was to be their Good Shepherd; to provide a path of redemption for Israel from their sins that they and their ancestors had committed under the first covenant. Now as a good shepherd who lays down his life, it’s important to note that a shepherd can’t do anything for his sheep when he is dead, but he does have to demonstrate his commitment to his flock by being willing to die, if needed, in order to protect the sheep. This is what Yeshua was conveying; Yeshua knew that he would be killed for his teachings and taught it plainly to his disciples and also in parables to those who gathered to hear him. But he was adamant that he was going to shepherd them for as long as possible so that they could grasp how all things were being fulfilled. Now, besides this quote from Luke, there are at least four other parallel references in Matthew and Mark (Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23; Mark 9:31, 10:33-34).
Luke 18:31-33 – Then he took the Twelve aside and told them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. Everything that is written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles, and he will be mocked, insulted, spit on; and after they flog him, they will kill him, and he will rise on the third day.”
Even though he mentions resurrection in each of these passages, a concept that the disciples didn’t yet fully grasp (and one that we will pursue more deeply in a future episode), Yeshua knew that he was going to be killed and tried to prepare them as best he could ahead of time. He even taught the Jewish leaders they would do this to him, and he conveyed this by using the parable of the tenant farmers. I am quoting here from Luke but the parable is also in Matthew and Mark:
Luke 20:14, 19 – “But when the tenant farmers saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir. Let’s kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.’ … Then the scribes and the chief priests looked for a way to get their hands on him that very hour, because they knew he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people.
Yeshua even confronted the Jewish leaders openly on several occasions about their plans to murder him:
John 7:19 – “Didn’t Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me? “
John 8:37, 40 – “I know you are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill me because my word has no place among you. … “But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.”
Regardless of this known fact, Yeshua was adamant that he was the fulfillment of the role of that Good Shepherd, the one who would be willing to lay down his life for the sake of the flock.
Ransom/redemption
Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Yeshua also defined his own purpose as being a ransom for many. What does this mean? We know that a ransom in modern vernacular is typically an amount of money paid to a kidnapper to gain the release of a hostage. But is this what is meant in the Bible? If this is the case, and we are the kidnapped hostages, then what is the ransom and who is it being paid to? Some have suggested that this ransom, Yeshua’s life, was paid to the devil to secure our freedom from his clutches. If that is the case, then the devil won. Well, that can’t be right because the Bible teaches that Yeshua defeated the works of the devil, not cooperated with him.
Instead of going down these rabbit holes of conjecture with our wrong-headed modern cultural perspective, let’s just see what the Bible actually means by a ransom.
Exodus 21:28-30 – “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned, and its meat may not be eaten, but the ox’s owner is innocent. However, if the ox was in the habit of goring, and its owner has been warned yet does not restrain it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned, and its owner must also be put to death. If instead a ransom is demanded of him, he can pay a redemption price for his life in the full amount demanded from him.
Exodus 30:11-12, 16 – The Yahweh spoke to Moses: “When you take a census of the Israelites to register them, each of the men must pay a ransom for his life to Yahweh as they are registered. Then no plague will come on them as they are registered. … “Take the atonement price from the Israelites and use it for the service of the tent of meeting. It will serve as a reminder for the Israelites before Yahweh to atone for your lives.”
In these instances, we can see the concepts of ransom, redemption and atonement are becoming equivocated. In these passages, a price of money, a ransom, is paid to Yahweh (or his representative leaders) as a means of avoiding death. In the first instance, the ox owner was sentenced to death, but the leaders could provide him a price to be paid to avoid execution, sort of like bail is today when someone is to be released from custody. In the second instance, Yahweh institutes a ransom, or life-price, for the members of the life of the community to avoid any potential plague that might come upon them for taking a census. Why would this be the case? Censuses were usually taken as a measure of the pride of the nation, showing how numerous its fighting force could be. To avoid this connection with trusting in one’s army over trusting in Yahweh, the Israelites could demonstrate their honoring of God during a census by providing an atonement price to be used for his service. This money was to be used to maintain the tabernacle and its implements. Later on, this would be corrupted by the Jewish authorities to become the justification for the temple-tax in New Testament times.
As touched on earlier, we see how the principle of redemption is closely allied with the ransom, as the ransom is equated with the redemption money. Biblical redemption is essentially the process of intervening in an established process, statute, or condition to provide something of value which then allows for a different outcome. A redemption price could be paid for a person’s life (Exodus 30-11-12); it could be paid for land or a residence in a city prior to Jubilee (Leviticus 25:24, 29); or it could be paid to provide for a ministry representative for the firstborn males (Numbers 3:44-48). These examples are all using money or land value as an acceptable substitute for some other process, statute, or condition which God had ordained. Since Yeshua considered himself a ransom, instead of money as a value, he would provide his life.
Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Clearly, this is an allegorical ransom on behalf of the lives of others (those who would believe in him), not a literal ransom that was demanded to be paid to either God or the devil. While he did literally gave his life, the ransom/redemption he provided is a representative one based on the biblical pattern that the Israelites would have understood, not some cosmic balancing of the scales of justice. Once again, we have to keep things in their proper perspective as much as possible within the bounds of the cultural understanding of the time. Yeshua saying that he was giving his life as a ransom would be a word picture that the Israelites would have immediately picked up on as being represented physically in these other biblical motifs, or types and foreshadows. It is only in our modern era (the last 500 years or so) that these ideas have been solidified into philosophical and legal, cosmic absolutes which were never intended by God in the first place.
We will explore this concept of the ransom and redemption a little further next time when we look at Yeshua represented as the Paschal Lamb in New Testament writings. However, for now, it is important to note that the ransom was essentially a price to be paid, a value to be given, for the changing of a foregone outcome. In the sense that Yeshua is using it, the foregone outcome is that Israel was about to be judged in that generation for their sins under the first covenant and he was offering his own life as a representative ransom on the behalf of all who would believe in him. Those who placed their faith in him would have their sins forgiven, and they would not come under God’s judgment which was about to be poured out.
Covenant in blood
Now we come to one of the most prominent themes that Yeshua considered about his own life: that he was giving it up voluntarily to seal the new covenant.
Matthew 26:28 – “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24 – “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Luke 22:20 – “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Hopefully, after reviewing the Day of Atonement and how blood represented the life of the sacrificial victim, I’m hoping we can now come to these passages with a little more Hebraic perspective. Remember, we saw how on the Day of Atonement the blood of the sacrificial animal was poured out on the ark of the covenant. This was the vessel that contained the actual Ten Commandments, the original covenant between God and believers. This “life” blood being poured out symbolically represented the life of the community committing to follow the covenant in stone upon which it was based, and for them to be reconciled with God whom they had offended by disobeying that covenant agreement.
This is the way the blood of the new covenant is intended to be viewed, as well. Yeshua is capitalizing on that imagery, which would have been readily understood by his disciples, as a way of saying his blood (that represents his life) would be poured out on their behalf (that is, for any who believed in him as the Messiah) for the sake of the new covenant. The new covenant was not about a new set of instructions; it was about a new location for the existing instructions: on the heart instead of on pieces of stone in a box.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 – “Look, the days are coming” – this is Yahweh’s declaration – ”when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This one will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt – my covenant that they broke even though I am their master” – Yahweh’s declaration. “Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days” – Yahweh’s declaration. “I will put my teaching within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
Interestingly, we see that in all of these views that Yeshua held about himself, they were all in relation to the nation of Israel. That new covenant was for Israel and Judah. The ransom was for Israel’s forgiveness of sin under the first covenant. The Good Shepherd was a shepherd to lead Israel faithfully.
Matthew 15:24 – He replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Yes, all of these concepts are Israel-centric, but not exclusively so. It’s important for us to keep all of these things in their original perspective as much as possible. We have to remember, if these concepts seem difficult for us to grasp today, it is because all of this was originally intended for an ancient audience halfway around the world in other languages and another culture. Yet, because the new covenant is based on the simple faith of Abraham believing God, and on the heart application of God’s eternal instruction, we, too, in this day and age can participate in the fulfillment of these things, because that was also prophesied to that ancient audience:
Romans 15:8-13 – For I say that Messiah became a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises to the fathers, and so that nations may glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, Therefore I will praise you among the nations, and I will sing praise to your name. Again it says, Rejoice, you nations, with his people! And again, Praise Yahweh, all you nations; let all the peoples praise him! And again, Isaiah says, The root of Jesse will appear, the one who rises to rule the nations; the nations will hope in him. Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you believe so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Okay, so far we have reviewed the atonement as represented in the Tanakh or Old Testament and we have looked at how Yeshua represented himself within that ideology and culture as fulfilling those types and foreshadows that were present in Old Testament prophecy. Next time, we will continue into the writings of the New Testament to see how this concept of atonement was viewed in relation to the work of Yeshua, and I will hopefully be able to provide some measure of summarizing all of this information in order to make it more applicable for us today.
Well, I hope this first part of our study on the atonement brought you some concepts and ideas to meditate on and to study out further on your own. But remember, if you have thoughts or comments that you would like to explore further with me, feel free to email me at coreofthebible@gmail.com.
The Core of the Bible 