As we approach Easter Sunday, I have been reviewing the nature of the atonement, particularly its nature and timing. I wrote a post along these lines several years ago (link), and while I agree with aspects of what I said there, I don't believe I did full justice to the relationship of Christ's resurrection to our atonement.
I said there that Christ's "sacrifice was completed, finished, and accepted by the Father upon His death." I don't believe that to be the case now. I believe Leviticus 16:17 has an antitype after all, that being the post-resurrection, post-ascension presentation of Himself in the holy place described by the author of Hebrews. There are a few reasons I think this.
Evidence that the presentation of Himself in the holy place as described by the author of Hebrews is post-resurrection and post-ascension is that it wasn't until Christ ascended after His resurrection that He sat at the Father's right hand (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:32-33, Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Revelation 3:21, etc.).
Christ's sitting at His Father's right hand is an event taken up by the author of Hebrews in connection with Christ's sacrificial work. Hebrews 1:3 and 10:12 say that after Christ made purification for sin or offered His once for all sacrifice, He sat down at the right hand of the Father. This sitting down signified the completion of His sacrifice, suggesting He so sat immediately after making purification or sacrificing. That would imply everything Christ did up to that point - beginning from, at least, the point of His death, but probably His incarnation too (if we're considering His unblemished life as necessary for an acceptable sacrifice), up until His resurrection-ascension and appearance in the holy place - was typified in the sacrificial ritual mentioned in Leviticus 16.
Leviticus 16:17 mentions atonement is made in the holy place on the day of atonement, and Hebrews 13:11-12 - which includes the significance of the burning of the sacrificial carcasses on the day of atonement to Christ's death - also notes that the sprinkling of the slain animal's blood on the mercy seat in the innermost part of the tabernacle is sacrificial, further connecting this part of the typical ordeal to Christ's antitypical one. So while the death of Christ is integral to the atonement, that seemingly isn't the end of the story. Protestants already recognize that Christ's obedience in life was necessary for atonement, but there is a need to incorporate His resurrection-ascension in His atoning work.
Several passages in Scripture also mention the resurrection in the context of Christ's substitutionary work:
2 Corinthians 5:15 He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Romans 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
The idea here isn't that Christ's resurrection was just a bonus, an unnecessary component of Christ's work in which we get to graciously participate because the Father decided to instantiate it rather than some other possibility. If Christ wasn't resurrected, our faith is in vain. His resurrection is part of what grounds the application of the redemptive benefits: spiritual rebirth, justification, etc. How, then?
One thing to note is that Christ's fulfillment of the day of atonement type doesn't strictly follow the temporal order of events that day, which makes sense, as Christ is both the sacrifice and He who offers the sacrifice. Hebrews 13:12 correlates Christ's death to the burning of the sacrificial carcasses. This happened after the blood of the animals was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy place. However, Christ's death happened before His appearance in the holy place, per Hebrews 9. So it's the essence of the type that matters, not the timing, if we are to associate Christ's resurrection-ascension with some part of the day of atonement ritual.
Is there a part of the day of atonement ritual to which Christ's resurrection-ascension corresponds? I think so. I'm still working through it, but a natural fit seems to be the reemergence of the high priest from the holy place and/or his associates into the camp after both burning the remains of the sacrifices outside the camp (to which Christ's death explicitly corresponds) and a prototypical baptism-cleansing.
How would this aspect of the atonement ritual connect with the resurrection-ascension? Because it is how [the people of God knew that] the sacrifice was acceptable to God, [that] the high priest rightly represented them, [that] their sins were indeed being atoned for, and [that] they could continue to depend on God's presence dwelling among them. Christ not only fulfills these same functions but, as a better mediator of a better covenant, goes beyond them to bring us to the most holy place of God's dwelling. The resurrection proved it.
8 comments:
I was just thinking deeply about this same topic for a few weeks now. I once held a view that the Atonement was not complete until AD 70. Now I reject it as a false teaching, and I am an "Anti-Eschatologist" who believes that all eschatological doctrines are man-made, not from God. In fact, I think these doctrines subtly teach works salvation.
Either the cross is sufficient for our salvation, or it's not. If it's sufficient, why must Christ be physically raised? I even question that now. Yes, 1 Cor 15:17 says we would still be in our sins, but does not give a reason why. The whole argument in 1 Cor 15 seems to assume that one can only be alive in a physical body, not as a pure spirit/ghost. However, the Scriptures seem to say otherwise, that people can die and be "gathered unto" their family members in the afterlife. (Gen 25:17)
Regarding the priest coming out of the tabernacle, linking it to the resurrection is one of several interpretations. If you consider the accommodating character of God in the ceremonial laws, the Israelites would more easily believe in the Atonement if they saw the priest with their own eyes, than if they only heard their sins had been forgiven. I reject the book of Hebrews because it teaches works salvation: "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (3:14)
Do you believe Heb 9:28 is talking about Christ sitting at the right hand of God, or Christ's second coming? If the second coming, then it teaches there's no salvation until the second coming!
"If you consider the accommodating character of God in the ceremonial laws, the Israelites would more easily believe in the Atonement if they saw the priest with their own eyes, than if they only heard their sins had been forgiven."
That's more closely related to the people's response to the atonement rite than to the rite itself. There is a double function. If the rite itself requires the reemergence of the priest et al. for our atonement, a way to make sense of that is if they had not reemerged, the sacrifice would not have been acceptable to God. Obviously, this means the people would also know one way or another whether it is acceptable.
"I reject the book of Hebrews because it teaches works salvation"
Hebrews 3:14 does not suggest our works are the ground of our salvation, only that those who partake in Christ - the true ground of our salvation, as the whole epistle is at pains to communicate - will do good works (cf. 6:11-12). Do you disagree with that? Exactly which books do you accept?
"Do you believe Heb 9:28 is talking about Christ sitting at the right hand of God, or Christ's second coming? If the second coming, then it teaches there's no salvation until the second coming!"
Are you not familiar with the already-not yet distinction? This is found throughout the NT.
"That's more closely related to the people's response to the atonement rite than to the rite itself."
But isn't the rite designed to teach the people?
"Hebrews 3:14 does not suggest our works are the ground of our salvation, only that those who partake in Christ - the true ground of our salvation, as the whole epistle is at pains to communicate - will do good works (cf. 6:11-12). Do you disagree with that?"
Does not Heb 3:14 imply you're not a partaker of Christ until the end? Also, Heb 6:12 adds 'patience' to the faith which inherits the promises. 'Patience' = works?
"Exactly which books do you accept?"
In terms of divine revelation, I accept only the Pentateuch. The other Bible books are interesting, but I can't say they're from God. I believe Paul was a true apostle and I accept some fragments of his letters as remnants of true gospel preaching. Rom 3:20-26 for example.
"Are you not familiar with the already-not yet distinction?"
Yes, Full Preterists teach it, and I was one for 3 years. They teach that salvation was "already, but not yet" prior to AD 70. I am curious how you yourself would interpret Heb 9:28.
Yes, that is one of the functions.
No, it doesn't imply that (cf. 3:6).
Already-not yet refers to the fact that we who believe can be treated as having the blessings and rewards of the new covenant promise although we have not yet received them, as our salvation is so secure as to ensure us of our inheritance. Thus, we're living yet seated in the heavenly places with Christ, etc. We already have been saved yet will be saved, for justification necessarily leads to glorification.
Your view has to be the most bizarre I've ever heard. You believe that the Pentateuch only is divine revelation? Israel hadn't even received their typological inheritance by the end of Deuteronomy! Why would you believe them but not other OT books? Do you believe in Christ? Your statement about Romans 3 implies it, but how could you unless you accept some or all of the gospel narratives? From what I can gather in these and previous comments, you seem to be blown about by every wind of new doctrine, to be honest. I'd spend a bit more time working through what I thought before trying to tackle something like what I'm talking about in this post.
"Your view has to be the most bizarre I've ever heard."
I would not be surprised if I am the first to hold this view, because no one taught it to me and I came to it independently.
"You believe that the Pentateuch only is divine revelation?"
The extent of written revelation, yes. But to believe in, and grow in understanding of the Torah, you must be regenerated (born again), and to be born again, I think it's necessary for there to be a revelation of a different kind than written.
"Israel hadn't even received their typological inheritance by the end of Deuteronomy!"
God promised it, so we know they would receive the physical land, by implication.
"Why would you believe them but not other OT books?"
I see stark contrasts of doctrine between the other OT books and the Pentateuch, but I don't have time now to write it; it's a work in progress. Also, the other books do not show marks of divine origin, in my opinion (except MAYBE some fragments of the prophets). I cannot explain the existence of the Pentateuch any other way than it must have come from God. As a test, I'm reading critics of the Torah to see if any arguments hold water, or if they can easily be debunked. If it really is the Word of God, it will withstand all critical scrutiny.
"Do you believe in Christ?"
I believe the Law teaches Christ, yes. I also believe it teaches Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace, and Unconditional Election.
"Your statement about Romans 3 implies it, but how could you unless you accept some or all of the gospel narratives?"
Prior to God's work of regeneration, He reveals there is a Christ. It doesn't have to be on paper. In my opinion, the 4 Gospels contain a mixture of truths and legends.
"From what I can gather in these and previous comments, you seem to be blown about by every wind of new doctrine, to be honest. I'd spend a bit more time working through what I thought before trying to tackle something like what I'm talking about in this post."
I'm on a spiritual journey with many turns.
Hello, Ryan,
Thanks for the post. I'm not settled but thought I'd interact with your post from the opposing point of view. Your thoughts are appreciated as time allows.
"This sitting down signified the completion of His sacrifice, suggesting He so sat immediately after making purification or sacrificing."
I notice you added the word "immediately." Of course, this adds to your argument but it's not in either passage you cited. To me, it's saying that one thing took place after another, the work was done and sufficient. Even a man that completes a task in place A must walk to the chair at location B, but the walking isn't adding to the work. Besides, I think your argument here proves too much. Then would not post-resurrection appearances be atoning work as well?
I won't interact with all your texts but as to Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." You may know that the NKJV renders it "because of our justification." I'm no Greek guy but this makes sense seeing that in Rom 5:9 Paul states that we've "been justified by His blood." Yes his righteous life is necessary too but it's as if Paul uses the cross alone so as to say it's the capstone of all his work. He was "obedient to death-even death on a cross." It's as if the obedience we are imputed ended there.
"The idea here isn't that Christ's resurrection was just a bonus, an unnecessary component of Christ's work in which we get to graciously participate because the Father decided to instantiate it rather than some other possibility. If Christ wasn't resurrected, our faith is in vain."
I would have thought that you'd say that not only is the resurrection necessary but the number of grains of sand too! :-) Our faith would indeed be in vain if
he was not raised for two reason other than you are proposing. One, we believe he was raised and to believe falsehood is vanity. Two, God promised to raise the successful Messiah, thus if Christ was not raised, he was not successful, and we are still in our sin.
"a natural fit seems to be the reemergence of the high priest from the holy place and/or his associates into the camp after both burning the remains of the sacrifices outside the camp"
This is great and I look forward to your future thoughts on it, but the priest showing himself far from accomplishes atonement, but rather is good news saying that he made it out alive and atonement was accomplished (all typological qualifications aside)
"Even a man that completes a task in place A must walk to the chair at location B, but the walking isn't adding to the work."
Christ wouldn't have had to walk over to the seat. He'd have sprinkled His blood on it a la the day of atonement ritual and sat down.
Also, Revelation 3:21 suggests a post-resurrection seating. How did Jesus conquer death? Through dying - and rising - for our sins. Our baptism is, like His, not only a death to death but also a resurrection to life.
"Besides, I think your argument here proves too much. Then would not post-resurrection appearances be atoning work as well?"
Not all of them need be, I don't think, but note that burnt offerings may legitimately be referred to as ascension offerings. Interesting, no?
"You may know that the NKJV renders it "because of our justification.""
But neither Paul nor his readers were justified at the time of the resurrection, so how could Jesus have been raised because of something that happened later? An already-not yet argument? Seems strained.
"Yes his righteous life is necessary too but it's as if Paul uses the cross alone so as to say it's the capstone of all his work."
You seem to admit the point but then read too much into the statement.
"Our faith would indeed be in vain if
he was not raised for two reason other than you are proposing. One, we believe he was raised and to believe falsehood is vanity. Two, God promised to raise the successful Messiah, thus if Christ was not raised, he was not successful, and we are still in our sin."
The gospel includes the resurrection. Do you think someone can be saved without having heard of or believing in His resurrection, merely His death? Can you present the gospel in such a way that the resurrection is more or less just assurance the atonement has been made for His people, thus not requiring you to include it in any presentation of the gospel?
Nope.
"This is great and I look forward to your future thoughts on it, but the priest showing himself far from accomplishes atonement, but rather is good news saying that he made it out alive and atonement was accomplished (all typological qualifications aside)"
I think the prototypical baptism is closer to what would be a sound type. Rereading the passage, those who burned the animal outside the camp didn't have to reenter. And reemerging from the holy place didn't take place in front of the whole camp, unless I'm mistaken. The ascension offering took place after this, interestingly enough.
Good news: I used to be a Full Preterist and a Universalist, but no longer. I'm a Reformed Protestant again, but my view of the Bible has changed as a result of my experience. I no longer believe every sentence in the Bible is "the word of God" (including the Pentateuch), and yet my faith in the true gospel is unharmed. I trust the Ten Commandments, though: I believe God literally gave them to Moses on Mount Sinai, and I try to use that to test the validity of other claimed revelations from God. I believe in the simple Law and Gospel, and all the systematic theology that follows.
Also, thanks to Drake Shelton, I no longer believe in the immortality of the soul. Since there's no consciousness after death, I believe in a future bodily resurrection again (only for God's elect), so Christ had to also be resurrected physically in order for us to participate in that. Universalism and Full Preterism teach a false gospel.
I believe forgiveness of sins comes from Christ's death, but our resurrection is made sure by Christ's. So yes, I agree with you that, "The gospel includes the resurrection."
I pray that God be gracious to us in our journey of faith.
Post a Comment