In trying to rethink the debate between Calvinists and Arminians over the limited or unlimited nature of the atonement, I suggested we should rethink the assumption that the benefits of the cross come as a package deal. Maybe, just maybe, the cross has different benefits for different people, under different conditions.
But is there any Biblical reason to think that?
Before we look at the New Testament evidence in later blogs, think of the Old Testament sacrifices.
Was there only one sacrifice or many?
One benefit or many?
One beneficiary or many?
What do the Mosaic sacrifices show?
As you probably know, there were several different offerings in the Mosaic Law.
First, there were burnt offerings of a bull, ram, or dove. This was a voluntary act. It was made for unintentional sins or as an expression of worship (Leviticus 1).
Second, the grain offerings were in recognition of God’s goodness and provisions (Leviticus 2).
The peace offering of an animal without defect was for thanksgiving and fellowship (Leviticus 3).
The sin offering was a mandatory sacrifice for specific unintentional sins and cleansing from defilement (Leviticus 4).
The trespass offering was for unintentional sins that required restitution (Lev 5:14–6:7).
On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would make a personal sin offering of a bull for himself and his family. Then he would enter the Holy of Holies and sacrifice a goat for the nation of Israel, letting a second scapegoat go free (Leviticus 16).
Here’s the point—
Would it be safe for someone to have assumed the Old Testament sacrifices had one big benefit, for one beneficiary, under one condition, that was either limited or unlimited? No. That assumption would be badly mistaken.
Instead, there were different sacrifices, with different benefits, for different people, under different conditions. Some had individual benefits; others, corporate. Some were for families; others, for the nation. Some were for citizens; others, for priests. Some were for forgiveness; others, for thanksgiving. Some required sacrificing this kind of animal; others, that kind.
That doesn’t prove the same is true of the cross’ benefits. But it does show you should have an open mind about the New Testament evidence, which we’ll begin to explore next.
Jo Ann
You mention only unintentional sins. Was there no sacrifice for intentional sins under the old sacrificial system or will that topic come later. (It’s hard having to wait a whole day for the rest of this topic. Will you have an article in GIF later?)
Roger S Fankhauser
Interesting article! I wonder, though, if we look at the day of atonement and the initial Passover as comparable to Christ’s work – Passover available to all, applicable to those who applied their blood; Day of Atonement applicable to the nation, yet individual salvation only by faith. The other sacrifices are more akin to confessing sin, “praise offerings,” etc, comparable to how individuals within the church respond to God? The sacrifices, it seems, were not meant as means of salvation but rather acts by God’s people to maintain fellowship and/or worship. Just thinking out loud…
Tim Amoroso
The Cross = Different benefits, to Different beneficiaries, under D0ifferent conditions.
Thanks Shawn for today’s article and God bless.
Anon
Every Old Testament sacrifice only covered sin. That is why in Hebrew they are called ‘kaporahs’ or ‘kaporot’ …. coverings. We get the word ‘cap’ from the Hebrew. In Italian the Godfather can be called ‘Cappo’. All snitches get ‘capped’ in the ‘head’. During the Holocaust of the Jewish people the guards were called ‘Kapos’ for the same reason. Yom Kippur (singular ‘kaporah’) and Yom Kippurim (multiple ‘kaparot’) is the Day of Kaporahs, the Day of Coverings… or the Day of Atonement. Jewish males wear ‘kippas’ or ‘kippot’. It just covers the hair or the bald spot.
Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is actually not an Atonement (temporary covering). It is exclusively a once-and-for-all-time ‘korban’ or ‘sacrifice’. It is utterly expedient and eternally efficacious. It is required for the Eternal Security of the believer in ‘It’ and in ‘Him’.
Maranatha
Yeshua HaMaschiach’s sacrifice
Rod Norville
Anon,
Your two posts are most informative, your use of the Hebrew Scriptures most appropriate and your final summation clear, succinct and accurate. Thank you!
Anon
Jesus sacrifice was in no way comparable to the Old Testament ‘atonement’. Jesus sacrifice or ‘korban’ (not a ‘kaporah/covering’) was actually a ‘holocaust’ sacrifice. Utterly efficacious, expedient and final.
Hebrew meaning of sacrifice
In Judaism, the korban (Hebrew: קָרְבָּן qārbān; Arabic: قربان), also spelled qorban or corban, can be any of a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah. The plural form is korbanot. The most common usages are animal sacrifice (zevah זֶבַח), peace offering and olah “holocaust.”. Jesus crucifixion is definitely an olah. It never covers sin but expediently ‘expiates’ it.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise, He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Isaiah 43:25
I, yes I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake and remembers your sins no more.
Jeremiah 50:20
In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.
Rod Norville
Pastor Shawn,
The questions you are raising and the observations you are making appear to me to have been more than adequately addressed in Hebrews 9:1 – 10:23. The contrast is stark. The “first covenant” (9:1) had a multiplicity of offerings and sacrifices for the High Priest, the priests and the people at various times for various purposes, “which thy offer continually year by year” (10:1), but it is “not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” (10:4). Now Christ “is the Mediator of the new covenant by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant” (9:15), and “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many,” (9:28). The writer of Hebrews further says of Christ: “He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (10:9-10) This work of Christ is further described: “this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever . . . For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (10:12,14). It would seem that Christ made one sacrifice good for all time for everyone without condition. God is doing the sanctification, not man. Note the references to Jer 31:33-34 (16,17). (See also Romans 5, especially verses 17-19)
Timothy Grady
Thanks Roger .
Who does the believing in order to be born again -humans who could do otherwise –
or God alone ?
Second , who actually does the works during the process of sanctification ? You seem to imply a full throated monergism .
Third , can humans do otherwise than determined by an all-encompassing Decree that necessarily vitiates free moral agency ?
Appreciate your input .
Rod Norville
Timothy, I assume you are addressing me and not Roger.
To your first question I would point out that we are discussing the sacrificial work of Christ on the Cross, which is entirely of God and as the writer of Hebrews observed, is “one sacrifice” that “has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” Since this sacrifice occurred “while we were yet sinners” (see Rom 5:8) it would be impossible for our belief or faith to have any part in it.
Your second question is answered in my reply to your last post to me. I do not hold to monergism with respect to progressive sanctification.
I am not sure to what your third question is refers, but humans are free moral agents who will account for their actions, both good and bad, either at the Bema, if they are believers when Christ raptures us, or at His physical return to earth at the conclusion of the Tribulation (Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats, See Ezekiel 34 and Mat 25:31-46), or at the final judgment (Great White Throne, Rev 20:11-15).
Timothy Grady
An article by Dr. Wilkin addressing man’s role in the sanctification process :
https://faithalone.org/journal/1994ii/Wilkin.html
Rod Norville
Timothy, the Wilkin article you cite states its purpose as follows: “In this one we will consider man’s role. Present sanctification is also called progressive or experiential sanctification. Present sanctification concerns the goal of the Christian life: progressive increase in the believer’s experience of holiness.” It is a discussion of the believer’s walk with the Lord after becoming a child of God and it involves the believer’s reliance on the enabling power of the Holy Spirit and God’s promise to forgive and cleanse sins committed during that process (see 1Jo 1:9). It is not at all about the second birth, which as noted by Nicodemus, would be impossible for a man. Such regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit (See Joh 3:1-10). Chafer described this as “a personal message when He said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again,” and the universally acknowledged mystery of it must not be suffered to detract from either the reality or the necessity of that divine regeneration.” (Systemic Theology 3.334)
KEN TAMASHIRO
Hi Pastor Shawn,
May I share my opinion here,
I feel it is for the individuals who belonged to the Jewish Community.
The context will determine who and what would be spoken about much like individual belivers in Christ as well as the Corporate Body of Christ.
Hebrews 10 :1-10 gave me an insight as to the purposes of the sacrifices.
Grace and Peace,
Ken Tamashiro