Priestly Sacrificial Atonement

Introduction

     Most Christians today have a limited understanding of atonement and what it means for mankind. What they do understand is based upon what they have learned through the teachings of men, and not based upon scripture alone. So many believe that what they have been taught is in the Bible, when it is not at all. A proper understanding of atonement will prove to be very important in determining correct and false doctrines that are taught in Churches today.

     People do not realize the importance of this doctrine. Yet the understanding of it is the very foundation of any Church, believer, and every doctrine that has to do with salvation. Every believer should study atonement and be sure of what truth is on this subject before ever pursuing the study of other teachings on salvation. This teaching alone and the improper teachings that come against true atonement will determine whether a person will accept Calvinistic teachings or Arminian teachings; eternal security or conditional salvation; or even universal salvation.

     The reason so many people feel so sure about some of the false teachings they believe in as being truth is many times based upon false and corrupted roots out of which these teachings come. As long as they hold to a belief in the root, all that follows will naturally be received as truth - without question.

     To many Christians, atonement might seem to be a basic teaching that they would rather not bother studying or reading about. They have heard about it over the years and hear it all the time in sermons, teachings, and have read about it in books. But what they do not realize is that they have been taught incorrectly. They have been given a foundational teaching that is corrupted by men through the misuse of words and phrases, who have built doctrines off of them, rather than by the Bible alone. So in order to understand how certain doctrinal teachings in the Church today can be wrong, we must go back to the foundational teaching of the atonement of Christ - where the salvation of man began.

     Anyone who has never heard the things shown in this book may be shocked to hear what we are about to cover. But in the same shock wave that makes one wonder if they are hearing heresy will be the clear scriptural evidence that proves that it is not. So the shock may also be one of realizing the truth to be somewhat different than what they had been taught concerning atonement and the salvation that follows.

     My prayer is that all who will read the contents of this book will open their heart and mind, search the scriptures for themselves, and not allow deception to have any part of their lives. Many people prefer to ignore evidence against their beliefs. This is easier, more comfortable, and without confrontation or dealings with those who will disagree. It is much more peaceable to ignore opposing doctrines than to consider them at all. But any God fearing, God loving, and truth seeking individual will consider greatly what is written in this book. It is not heresy, but a lost truth from centuries past that is clearly written in the scriptures for all to see. The scriptures tell the truth! Let's see and consider greatly what they say, and let's be sure that we are not only trusting in man made theories. If we can know that our foundation is pure and solid, then other doctrines that follow will be as well.

Atonement

     Most Christians today have a basic idea of what the atonement of Christ is, and what it means for the Christian. But what most do not realize is that there are several different ideas and teachings concerning what exactly it means to say that Christ "atoned for the sins of the world". If an atonement view is taught that is not completely Biblical in its teachings, then the view itself can appear to be a support for other doctrinal teachings, without the support of scripture. Many Christians feel confident about their doctrines of salvation based on their view of atonement, but have never checked their view of the foundational atonement teaching against scripture. They check one teaching against another, assuming that their atonement view is correct. They therefore get the illusion of truth, and cannot see the error of their teachings, based on this one foundational teaching. So it is critical that a proper understanding of atonement is given as a foundation for receiving doctrine. If a doctrine does not stand up to or fit in with the Biblical teaching of the atonement, then it can correctly be considered a non-scriptural or false teaching. We will soon see how this is true of Calvinism and its five points.

     In order for us to understand what exactly the atonement of Christ does for us, we first need to understand what atonement meant from the beginning. We can find this information in the book of Leviticus. Although in is origin atonement was contained in the law, and many will want to say that law is done away with; the principles of atonement still remain, since atonement is still offered in the New Testament through Christ. Most Christians realize that much of the Old Testament is a shadow of things to come in the New Testament, of the New Covenant with Christ. Therefore, a proper understanding of Atonement in the Old Testament should give us a clear understanding of what atonement does in the New Testament. So for this information we must turn to the book of Leviticus. After looking at Leviticus we will then look at a few different teachings of atonement today and see how they line up with what atonement really was then. The book of Hebrews can be a great help in supplying this information, as well as other New Testament books.

    Before we look at Leviticus, we need to look at the definitions of atonement so we know what the word really means.

Atone - In Hebrew - kaphar (kaw-far') to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:

     To "cover with bitumen" is to cover with a black tar, like what is used on our roads today. This is figurative of blotting out sins. Acts 3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

 The word "atone" is figurative in its use even according to its literal definition. Other figurative uses are also added to it as examples of how it applies to mankind. No man is or ever was literally covered with bitumen. The literal cannot work and makes no sense. But the figurative does works, since sins are blotted out, or better understood as being "taken away". To "expiate" or to "cancel" would best fit the Biblical understanding of atonement, because of the taking away of sins. Since we know and can all agree that sin is the problem we are dealing with, and that it is the very thing that separates man from God - then if it is removed, it is then expiated and the "wages" of sin are cancelled. But this can only be true for those who repent, as told in this scripture in Acts.

Dictionaries define atone - To make amends, as for a sin or fault.

     Atonement is the idea of dealing with sin through the shedding of blood. This is made clear in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Through the shedding of blood sins are "expiated", meaning that the blood will "make amends" for the guilt and presence of sin in the life of the one whom is guilty. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that "without the shedding of blood is no remission" of sins.

     Life is in the blood! Innocent blood atoned for the sins of the guilty. This is in contrast with the death that abides in man because of sin. So an exchange is made between the life of the blood of the innocent for the death in the sinful men. This should not be confused as an exchange in the way of payment or punishment for sins, as we will cover. It is something done on the behalf of sinful men, not in their place.

     In Bible times animals were a valuable asset to man. Animals determined a man's wealth and livelihood. Many times men would even become attached to these animals, as much time that was given in shepherding, feeding and watering them. These animals were innocent creatures that held value to men. So in offering them to God by shedding their blood, these animals would cost man something. They would cost man the giving of the best that they had as an offering to God. Animals were most men's livelihood - which would indicate a true sacrifice on mans part, or they could be like offering the life of a pet to God as a sacrifice. They could not be the crippled, defective, or animals that were useless or ready to die anyway. Animal sacrifices were to be offered to God as man's best. Anything less than the best would not be acceptable to God.

     David was one who was a shepherd and understood attachement to animals. He also understood the value of them and what constituted a true sacrifice. When a man wanted to give King David animals to sacrifice unto God for free, David answered as follows: 2 Samuel 24:24 "And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver."

     The blood of the sacrifice, containing the life of innocence, would atone (make amends) for the sins of men. This would temporarily deal with the sin issue and keep men in right standing with God. Man had to come yearly to offer sacrifices for their sins in the Old Testament sacrificial system. It is evident to those who understand that Christ shed His blood for our sins that this idea came from this Old Testament system of sacrifice. The main difference being that Christ is the one time sacrifice for all sin forever, having been the perfect, sinless sacrifice. Old Testament animal sacrifices are done away with, since Christ died once for all.

     The problem and disagreements arise because of different understandings of what this really means for mankind today. The one main teaching in the Christian world today, known as Calvinism, receives its foundation based on their non-scriptural theory of the atonement of Christ. This is much more than an opinion or any interpretation of scipture. The problem with their belief system is that it is not based on the Old Testament system at all. They seriously miss very important parts of this system, and add their own ideas to the meaning of atonement. So, before we say too much about what they believe (as well as most Christian groups today that will agree with them - ignorantly), we will start with a good look at the beginnings of atonement in Leviticus.

     As mentioned, the word atone is defined "to make amends". It is used only once in the New Testament in Romans 5:11, and although the Greek does describe a similarity to atonement, it should actually be translated "reconciliation". This word has to do with a restoration between God and men, as atonement would do. But it still is not the same word as it is used in the Old Testament.

     Since man was cut off from God at the fall, there has always been need to "make amends" between God and men. Sin is the thing that caused separation. Atonement is to "make amends" by dealing with the issue of sin.

     Since there is life in the blood, and spiritual death is the very thing that sin caused - it is therefore by the blood of innocent animals that God chose to atone for sin. Life therefore "makes amends" for death, repairing the broken relationship between God and men. But because sin would always reoccur, and men would have to offer sacrifices continuously for their repeated sins - God had a much better plan in store for men. This is of course in the sacrifice and atonement of Christ for the sins of men.

     It is based on this understanding of atonement that we must start with the old sacrificial system for atonement and see how the atonement of Christ lines up with this original system. With the atonement of Christ we will find a lot of figurativeness in what He did, which all lines up with the old system. The figurativeness given in the scriptures will lead to a literal result for all that will believe.

                  The Levitical Sacrifice

     In the book of Leviticus we read about the different kinds of sacrifices that should be offered to God. Of these sacrifices, the ones we want to look at are those that atoned for sin. It has been the understanding of most Christians that sacrifices for sin were offered only once a year. This is not exactly what Leviticus teaches. Man could bring offerings at different times when ignorant sins were committed. Although this may be somewhat different than the yearly sacrifice for the whole nation, it did still atone for those sins committed out of ignorance.

Leviticus 1

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

    With this particular offering man would bring it to the priest, but it was the one offering the sacrifice that would lay his hand on it and kill it. This is not the yearly offering for Israel, but an individual offering that atoned for sin. This could be representative of repentance in the New Testament, just as man comes on an individual basis for forgiveness of sin. It is individual, and it makes atonement for the one offering it.

     The yearly sacrifice that was offered for the nation, by the high priest, is representative of Christ offering Himself for the sins of the world. With the two types of offerings in Leviticus we have a type of what is given in the New Testament in Christ. We have in these offerings man's part and Christ's part in the forgiveness of sins. Although Christ died for the sins of men, each man must still come to Christ with his own offering - surrendering our own selves through the repentance of sins and acceptance of His offering of Himself. We must now offer ourselves a living sacrifice to God. Romans 12:1 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." This is man's part in coming to God with his own offering. Christ already did His part as high priest, in the offering of Himself for our sins - once for all. Man must fist accept His offering in order to receive atonement for sins. Unless men come with their part, Christ's part has no effect on them whatsoever.

     Calvinism claims that men cannot come to God, unless God draws and elects them. But free will was another offering given to God, as was necessary for forgiveness of sins. No man could be forgiven of sins unless they took heed to God's commands to come with an acceptible offering. The gospel message that Jesus commissioned His disciples to spread throughout the world and to teach others to do the same is the means by which all men may hear and take heed to God's call and command to repent. Acts 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." The Levitical system shows the necessity of repentance along with the giving of the offering for their own sins, as well as participating in the offering for the nation by the high priest, that was done on their behalf.

     So if the people as a whole were to sin out of ignorance, including the priest, then instruction was given to atone for their sin as a nation. This is still not the yearly sacrifice for the nation that is known as "the Day of Atonement".

Leviticus 4

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

     When the sacrifice is for the priest, the nation or people as a whole, the offering is a bull that is offered in the Tabernacle and then taken outside the city to be burned. This is representative of atoning for sin in the presence of God and then taking away sin to be destroyed. In a similar way Jesus was beaten in the city (for our sins), and taken outside of the city to be crucified. The Bible says that He bore our sins on the cross. The symbolism is present all through the teachings of Leviticus, as compared to the crucifixion of Christ. But the greatest symbolism from which the atonement of Christ comes is found in the yearly sacrifice. We can see in each instance in which sacrifices of animals were given that it says, "And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar."

     Blood was not only shed, but was put on the horns of the altar and poured out at the foot of the altar. The blood atoned for the sins of man as it was offered to God. The altar represents the place of God's presence. It is also the place of the mercy seat, and what is referred in Hebrews as the "throne of grace" where through Christ's blood we now have access to. Men can now obtain mercy and grace through Christ's shed blood for the forgiveness and removal of sins.

The Two Goats
     In the yearly sin offering, on the Day of Atonment, there were two goats brought to the priest. One was the blood sacrifice offered to God, and the other was the scapegoat - which would carry away the sins of the people into the wilderness. This was of course figurative! The previous sacrifices for sins using a bull also atoned for the sins of men, but was a different type of the same that was to come in Christ, showing the part of men in coming before God. The yearly Day of Atonement is the type of Christ as sacrifice and offering on the day of His death, showing the two different ways sins was being dealt with.

     The blood sacrifice was offered with the first goat. It was the blood that atoned for sins. There was no punishment of either of these goats, and the sacrifice was never given as a payment in any way for sins. Sins were actually taken away on the scapegoat - NOT dealt with in the subject of sacrifice.
Leviticus 16:9-10 "And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness."

Sins were dealt with by taking them away, never by punishment of the goat. Even the sin offering was killed as a sacrifice, but was never the victim of "punishment". The blood of innocent life was the object in focus here, not punishment for sins. Sins were figuratively placed on the scapegoat, not on the sin offering. The scapegoat actually was never harmed. So if sins were not on the goat that was killed, but on the goat that was set free into the wilderness, then it cannot be said that either was punished for sins. These facts create serious problems and obvious errors in the understanding that most Christians today have been given of the atonement of Christ, as we will cover.

     Christ was both the sacrifice for sins and the scapegoat. One of these goats alone could never have atoned for the sins of men. Both were necessary in the atonement process. John the Baptist said Christ came to "take away the sins of the world". He was our scapegoat. We know that He also shed His blood by His death on the cross. The blood represents life, in contrast to death that reigns in man, and is figurative of purification. So men by receiving Christ have their sins taken away on the scapegoat and are purified by the blood of the other. In Christ we have both. Jesus was figuratively both goats in the giving of Himself. And as we will further cover was also both offerer and offering - high priest and sacrifice.

      In his book, "He Offered Himself", Dr. Malcolm Lavender says this: "The two goats are a beautiful type of the Incarnate Christ in hypostatical union-Divinity and humanity-two natures but one Person.

The need of man required a miracle; the requirement was beautifully pictured by the two goats . . . a fore gleam of the Saviour of men in hypostatical union-God and man."

     Just as two goats were required two complete atonement for sins under the old system, so it was also with Christ. Although the goat for the Lord was for atonement, atonement could never be completed without the taking away of sins. There can be no "amends" made between God and man as long as sin remains present. Sins must be taken away! So in Christ, the "Lamb of God who takes aways the sins of the world", we have both atoning sacrifice and scapegoat. This was never possible in any man, and neither could it be possible through God alone. God could not die as God, and man could not die for sins because of being born into sin. But a God/man could do this! Jesus bore the two natures we find in the two goats of the Levitical system. He was God - being a perfect and sinless offering for atonement; and He was man - able to die as a sacrificial offering and scapegoat that could carry away the sins of man (figuratively, but with literal deliverence).

     A sacrifice NEVER paid for anything! An offering or sacrifice was never an object in which God would reject becaue of sins on it (as Calvinism insists God did with Jesus), but was something that had to be acceptable to Him. If a sacrifice was ever rejected then there could be no atonement for sins. Scripture gives no such indication of rejection of sacrifices in the process of making atonement for sin! The Levitical system teaches only the acceptance of offerings for atonement.

     How could God accept something that He was turning His back on?  Yes, Christ did bare our sins on the cross. But this, like the scapegoat, is figurative. The meaning being that all sin of all time was being dealt with in the way of provision. Christ's death on the cross was the one time sacrifice for all men, for all time. It provides forgiveness of sins for all men who are willing to repent.

     The OT way was to come often to offer a sacrifice for sins, and yearly for the whole nation. No longer is this the case with Christ. Being the perfect, sinless sacrifice, He provided forgiveness for all men forever. If He literally had man's sin upon Him, then this in turn would make Him sinful and He could not have been the perfect/sinless sacrifice. And if God turned away when He was dying on the cross, He could not at the same time be accepting His sacrifice - since God ALWAYS watched and had to receive the sacrifices in order for sins to be atoned for. When Jesus died we know that the earth shook, it went as dark as can be, and God made it known that He was present. He was accepting the sacrifice Jesus made of Himself. Jesus "provided" - He did NOT literally pay for sins. And He was not punished for sins. In order for this to be acceptible as truth, it will have to be proven that sins were on Him literally, rather than figuratively. Each of these points will be covered in greater detail under "Jesus took our place" and "Understanding the figurative and the literal", as well as in other chapters.

     The one thing that makes the difference between the Old system and the new way in Christ is that fact that the priests in the Old Testament would have to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could offer sacrifices for the sins of the people. But Because Jesus was sinless, He needed not to make sacrifice for His own sins and can therefore ever make intercession for men in heaven as high priest and the one time sacrifice for sins. Because of His perfection He does not need to return to sacrifice again for His own sins first, and because of His perfection He can also be accepted as the one time sacrifice for all men forever. As Jesus said when taking His last breaths of life, "It is finished". The need for further sacrifices for atonement had ended. We read in Hebrews 7:27, "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

     Not only did the people need to come often for atonement of their sins, but they also always needed a priest to do it for them. As the perfect sinless and acceptable sacrifice for sins, Christ never needed to offer sacrifice for Himself. He is able to forgive sins forever from His place in heaven as the sinless high priest, as well as the sinless sacrifice. It is important to understand Christ as both sinless High Priest and sacrifice when comparing the old system with the new. It is by this understanding that we can see that it was not a payment for sins, but a provision. This is evident by the fact that He is ever present to "make intercession for our sins". Just as it is mentioned in this same context of scripture in Hebrews 7:25, "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Intercession is not necessary for sins that are "paid for". The sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man can and should only be understood as being provisional, not as a payment. If sins were paid for, then intercession for our sins would have only been necessary once - not something that He would need to "ever liveth to make intercession for".

      When offerings were offered to God, the scriptures say all through Leviticus that the smoke that arose from the burnt offerings were a "sweet-smelling savour" unto God. This shows that He was pleased with the offering that was offered, and that it certainly was not rejected at any time. In Ephesians we have a comparison of the sacrifice of Christ (even though He was never burnt), and how the Father accepted the offering of Christ.  

Ephesians 5:1,2 "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

This fits with "provisional sacrifice for sins", and goes against "punishment for the payment of sins". God never turned His back on Christ on the cross because of our sins on Him. It is because of a figurative placement of sins on Christ that is interpreted as being literal that many have taught punishment and payment theories to be true. This is because of their false understanding of atonement. Many are in total ignorance of the true Bibilcal teaching of atonement, while others know well what they teach and believe, but refuse to accept anything different or that appears to be a "new" teaching. We will cover more on this issue as we continue.

Understanding the Figurative and the Literal

     Years ago I would have been offended to hear that anything written in the Bible was figurative. In my ignorance I assume everything that was written in the Bible had to be literal. I took the word "figurative" to mean "not real", when I was certain that the whole Bible was real (and it is!), as in containing truth. Although all is truth in the Bible - all is not literal. There are a lot of figurative uses all throughout the Bible. The figurative was used to explain a literal meaning by the use of examples and comparisons in the effort to help men understand things better.

     Determining what is figurative and what is literal is very important in determining truth. If something figurative is taken to be literal, then this could cause false teachings on the topic of discussion, as well as every teaching that branches off of it. So it is my purpose to show how this very thing has happened to the Christian world today. Many false doctrines have come into the Church by the misapplication of words, phrases, and contexts that are used figuratively in scripture, and have been applied literally.

     To help give a better idea of what I am talking about specifically; here are a few examples of figurative and literal words or phrases.

The Figurative.
Of Christ

O     High Priest - He is called our high priest because of what He did in offerring Himself. But we know that He was never literally the high priest of Israel. He acted as high priest in the offering of Himself, and now is high priest (figuratively of Christianity) - meaning that He is the mediator between God and men.

O     Lamb of God - He is called the Lamb of God, but obviously never was or became a literal lamb. This is figurative of being the sacrifice for sin, like an animal would be in the Old Testament.

O     The Vine, bread of Life - figures used to describe Christ, our being in Him (as the branches), and our partaking of Him in order to have life (since bread gives life to the body).

The Work of Christ

O     Redemption (payment) - No literal payment transaction was made between two parties. Financial terms like redeem, purchase, buy, and ransom are used to give a better understanding of what Christ did. Although the results of what Christ did are literal, these terms should never be used literally!

O     Propitiation - describes what pagan's would do in offering sacrifice to their god's to appease them of their wrath. Certainly God would not desire the same. The scriptures that use this word are mistranslated. They should read "atoning sacrifice" instead of "propitiation" in order to give the proper understanding.

Of the Church

O     Body of Christ - Describes our place in Christ. But obviously, even though our place in Christ is literal, the term here is not.

O     Sheep - People are never called animals, except figuratively. Animals are only used to describe the type of attitude, demeanor, or response people have toward Christ and the gospel. Dogs speak of those who are not saved or those who go back to sin. People do not change from being a dog to becoming a sheep or the other way around. But they do change the way they act, respond, or live their lives, and thus act like one or the other. This is the figurative of actions and should not be used to literally say that Christ's sheep can never be turned into dogs.

The Literal
Of Christ

O     God in the flesh - nothing figurative about this. Jesus is God!

O     Atoning sacrifice for sin - Absolutely true! No figurativeness applied.

The Work of Christ

O     Provision for forgiveness of sin - very literal, with no figurativeness.

O     Christ died for our sins - This should never be denied as literal!

     These are only a few examples, just to give an idea of how the figurative and the literal are often confused. Some of the figurative and literal has already been pointed out in previous chapters. As we get into more on the atonement of Christ, the figurative and literal will be pointed out in more detail.

Priestly Sacrificial Atonement

     The Priestly Sacrificial view of the Atonement of Christ is the idea that Christ was both the offerer and the offering. It actually teaches many points that are very simular to the governmental atonement, which also stands against payment and punishment teachings. The main difference is the emphasis that the Priestly Sacrificial view places of Christ and His place in atonement, rather than the Fathers place in it. It focusses more on what Christ does in atonement, rather than what is done to Him in atonement, as all other atonement views teach. Atonement is not what was done to Christ. It is what He did as Priest and Sacrifice when He offered Himself.

     The focus of the Priestly Sacrificial atonement is that Christ was both the sacrifice and the High Priest. This fact adds further problems for those who teach punishment and payment. Although it could be argued that Christ did not become the High Priest until after His ascension into heaven (when He sat at the right hand of God); the fact that He gave "Himself" (as it was the High Priest who had to offer the sacrifice to God) shows that He was the offerer (High Priest) even before His death. The fact that He was the "offering" is not disputed by anyone. Only the high priest could offer the sacrifice to God. Although scripture does indicate that the Father gave the Son, this is in reference to sending His Son into the world and allowing Him to give Himself. The Father was never in the place of high priest. And as scripture indicates, it was the Son who was the one giving the sacrifice (Himself) unto the Father. Here are a few scriptures to support this view.

Galatians 1:4 "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:"

     The Son gave according to the will of the Father, just as the high priest under the Old system would take the sacrifice before God - according to God's will and command. The giving here was for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world. The word "might" shows the subjunctive mood in the Greek language, which is a conditional use that allows for the choice of men. This shows the provision of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and not a payment for sins as most assume.

Ephesians 5:25-27 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

     He "gave Himself" that He "might". This again shows that provision has been made for mankind. Provision is conditioned upon the choice man makes to receive Christ or not. If it taught payment for sins, then there would be no "might" about it. This word is a definite position given in the Greek language of these scriptures, showing that man does indeed have his part. Payment of sins does not allow man's part, since it teaches that all is completed in Christs work for men - which nothing can change. It is all "paid for" in full. If paid for, then salvation is completed even before repentance. There is no balance to be paid, so sin can no longer ever be an issue of separation between God and men. This is the logical end of saying that Christ "paid for sins" on the cross. It is purely Calvinistic! And very unscriptural!

1 Timothy 2:5-6 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

     With the old system, the high priest was the mediator between God and men. He was the one who would go into the holy of holies to present the offering to God for the people. In this scripture we see Jesus as the mediator between God and men. He is in the position of high priest. And in addition to being the high priest, the same scripture says "Who gave himself a ransom for all". He was also the sacrifice for our sins in the same sentence. But as it says in 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". Calvinists must insist that "all" and "whole world" refer only to the elect (chosen by God for salvation) in order to avoid the teaching universalism. Payment of sins does not work except with the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. But the same scripture says that He did this for "all". "All" means all, and "whole world" means whole world, and cannot refer to only the "Elect", as Calvinists must insist in order to maintain their doctrinal beliefs. Our mediator is between God and men, NOT God and the elect chosen of God alone. This is a "payment" teaching of Calvinism, and not of scripture!

Titus 2:13-14 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

     As with the previous scripture, this one also says that He gave Himself that He "might redeem us". Redeem refers to "buying back" something. However, it does not refer to a payment for sins. It is only figurative of saying that He "bought us", not that He "paid for sins". What he endured was suffering for our sins, which is a "high price to pay". But it is not a literal payment. It was literal suffering, with the provision for forgiveness of sins through repentance and acceptance of His sacrifice that was done "in our behalf".

     With this understanding, the sacrifice of Christ remains a gift for "whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord", and not only those whom God supposedly chose to be saved, while rejecting all others. Payment for sins necessitates a belief in Limited Atonement in order to be consistent with ones teachings.

     The fact the Jesus gave Himself would seldom ever be disputed. But this is much more than just a willingness to die for sin on the part of Jesus. It has been shown that He was also the High Priest who gave the offering of the sacrifice unto the Father. As shown, a sacrifice had to be acceptable to God and was never an object of punishment. The High priest had to be clean before God in order to offered the sacrifice to God. Who was there that could have possibly offered Jesus as the perfect sacrifice? His disciples had walked away. The High Priest of the Jews was one of the key persons who sent Him to the cross. As explained, the Father could not be the one offering the Son to Himself as high priest. There was no one at all who could have done this. Only the Son takes this title. The scriptures are clear that He (as High Priest) gave Himself (as offering) for our sins, as a ransom, so that He might redeem us. It was a complete work of Christ. The Father did not ever reject Christ or turn His back on Him. But as in the Old Testament system, He accepted the sacrifice of Christ. He was present at the crucifixion and watched ever minute of it, receiving Christ as the acceptable one time sacrifice for the sins of all men forever.

     If the Father were to turn His back on Christ when He was on the cross (as the penal satisfaction atonement insists), then this would actually show a rejection of the sacrifice of Christ. The Priestly Sacrificial view illustrates the Old testament system in the work of Christ as High Priest and offering, and the Father as the recipient of the offering - as sweet smelling savor. It was not the death of Christ that the Father took pleasure in, but rather the perfect offering of Christ. His death was only a necessary means of providing this acceptable offering.

Hebrews

     A study of Hebrews is a must in studying the atonement of Leviticus! It explains the sacrifice of Christ compared with the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Listed here are more scriptures that show Christ as our High Priest, in offering Himself for all that will come to Him.

Hebrews 2:17-18 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

     This seems to say it all. We know that He "did" reconcile for the sins of the people. Who are "the people"? Those in need of atonement - which could only refer to all of mankind! Otherwise, if limited, then it would only be limited to the Jews, "his brethren" - not to an elect outside of this group. If opened to "the people" in need of atonement, then atonement must be for all men.

     The word "might" is not meant to teach a possibility of Christ failing to do what He set out to do here. It is placed in this scripture as a condition placed upon mankind in choosing to believe and have faith in Christ. The high priest could only deal with the sins of men as men came to him with their sacrifice. We do not have to bring an animal sacrifice, since Christ was the one time sacrifice. But we do have to receive the sacrifice so that we have in Him an acceptible offering to God for our sins, by which Christ can also serve as high priest in order for our sins to be forgiven. In our receiving Him we also offer ourselves as a living sacrifice, our own personal free will offering.

     The "might" here is placed upon the fact that there are definite possibilities for sinners to come to Christ and be saved - but they only "might" be saved by accepting Him as savior. Just like an attorney can only take our case before a judge if we go to him with our issues with the law - so also man must go to Christ in order for Him to be their mediator. There is no limited atonement here, just as there is no payment for sins. Provision is the only possibility.

Hebrews 3:1 "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;"

Hebrews 4:14-16 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

     Jesus was High Priest even before His death, on our behalf before the Father in Heaven. We now have access to the throne of grace or "Mercy Seat (where the high priest would take the blood of the offering). Any time we sin, we only need to pray and ask the High Priest of our profession, and He will forgive us (figuratively, cleanse us with His blood). He is the mediator between God and men. Provision has been made for us, and for all men everywhere, as long as they live. If they refuse, they will die for their own sins without a mediator. And without a mediator, and without atonement being received, men will stand before God in judgment for their sins. They will be judged because they refused Christ's provision - not because God did not choose them for salvation, but for damnation!

Hebrews 8:1-3 "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."

Hebrews 9:11-16 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."

     Reference is made here to the old system and how it atoned for sins. It tells of how the new tabernacle is now in heaven. Jesus made an eternal redemption, whereas the old system was only temporal. Many confuse this to teach eternal security, when this is not what it is saying at all. It is simply saying that Christ is the one time sacrifice for redemption forever. Never again does a sacrifice of blood need to be given for sins. Complete provision has already been made for all men. The hope here is that the "called" ones (all men who hear the gospel) "might" receive the inheritance that is eternal. The inheritance is what is eternal, not individual salvation. Only "payment" can teach such a thing. "Provision" puts everything in the scriptures into a proper perspective, as the subjective moods in the scriptures often teach conditions. An eternal gift may be received and later rejected. The gift of eternal life remains eternal, even if a person no longer has it in their own possession. Christ gives eternal life, not eternal salvation. It it is certainly never without conditions in the scriptures. Man must receive it and and abide in it and in Christ.

Hebrews 9:24-28 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

     The old system was only a figure of the true that was to come through Christ. With Christ in heaven, the real holy of holies, as the perfect offering/sacrifice, He is ever present to forgive sins. But sins are not previously forgiven without repentance, else the command for men to repent and the warning of not doing so is vain.

     To say that Christ bore the sins of "many" is not teaching that He only died for the sins of the elect, as Calvinism teaches. The word "many" is in contrast with only a few, or the singular. It is the plural as opposed to the singular. To say that Christ died for many people is not saying that He did not die for some. "Many" is not a percentage or portion of any number. It is simply referring to all of mankind, as it is clearly stated in other scriptures, which adds up to "many".

Hebrews 10:19-23 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter 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; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)"

      Because of the fact that His blood was so much more powerful that that of animals, being the sinless Son of God, His sacrifice has made the way for men to enter the holy of holies. All men need to do is "draw near with a true heart in the full assurance of faith". This is powerful! There is no need to add a payment theory, as if it adds power to the effectiveness of His sacrifice. Provision is very meaningful alone. But it does require a response to God, as intructed here by the words "Let us.". We must "draw near" and "hold fast".

Hebrews 13:11-12 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."

     Again, here is another comparison of the Old Testament system found in the sacrifice of Christ. Just as the priest was to take the sacrifice outside of the city and burn it (after offering the blood before the altar) - Christ also was taken out of the city to suffer.

     Now, just as the writer to the Hebrews (as well as the other mentioned scriptures) shows the comparison of the sacrifice of Christ to the Old Testament system, we should expect that much of what Christ did on the cross would line up in the same way.

     The problem we have today in understanding exactly what the Atonement of Christ means for us is that so many theories have been determined according to logic or by taking what is figurative in the literal sense. And because they do not compare their theories to the Old Testament system of offering sacrifices, they will believe they have truth according to their own interpretations of New Testament scriptures, when in reality they are off track completely. Then because of being off track in their belief in the Atonement of Christ, this opens the door for other errors in doctrines of salvation.

     A proper understanding of the atonement will lead us to the only truth taught in the Bible in regards to the salvation of men. It is the foundational truth that will determine a proper understanding of the doctrines of salvation. It is a major dividing argument in the Calvinist and Arminian debates today. Many Arminians do not even realize that their belief in the Penal Satisfaction view of the atonement actually weakens their arguments on salvation doctrines (because they believe similarly or the same view of the atonement as the Calvinists). A good and proper understanding of what the Atonement really is gives great strength to their view. But even Arminians have been taught incorrectly concerning atonement. They argue and debate Calvinists based on many scriptural truths, but do not understand that they are missing the biggest blow to Calvinism by showing the error of the Penal satisfaction atonement theory, which teaches punishment of Christ and payment for sins. A proper understanding and teaching of atonement eliminates any scriptural possibility for Calvinism, which comes from this false penal satisfaction view.

     If the root doctrines are corrupted, then so is everything that follows. So with this in mind, we must look at the scriptural view of the atonement in the Old Testament, line it up with the New Testament, and thus determine which view of the atonement is correct according to such a comparison.

Provision

     When we look at the sacrificial system, one thing that stands out clear is the fact that an offering for sin would provide forgiveness of sins. The giver of the offering was to cleanse their selves before entering the holy place of the tabernacle, and then kill the sacrifice in front of the priest. When the people would lay their hands on the head of the animal, they would at this time confess their sins and then kill the sacrifice. The Priest would take the blood of the sacrifice and pour it under the altar in the "holy of holies". Along with other acts in the sacrificing of the animal, the blood would atone or "make amends" for the sins of the offerer.

     The shedding of blood "provided" a means by which man could be rid of the guilt of his sin, through an exchange of the life and innocense of the sacrifice for the death and guilt from sin in the life of the person. But blood did not atone without a repentent heart of the offerer. In this same way, the blood of Christ cannot atone for any sinner that does not repent of their sins. Provision is made for them, but their sins are not paid for. Repentance is the key to receiving what has been provided.

     The high priest was the mediator between God and men, and would carry out the atoning for sin through the pouring out of the blood at the foot of the altar. Since the wages of sin is death, and man could not die for his own sin and still be saved eternally - innocent, pure animals were accepted as a means of atoning for sins. Through the life of innocent blood, and through a true sacrifice on the part of men, provision was made for the forgiveness of sins. Sins were considered "washed away" by the blood. It is important to note the figurativeness of such a statement, as we understand that the blood of animals was never literally poured out upon men in order to cleanse them. And neither is the blood of Christ.

     Much figurativeness was used in these ceremonies and should be understood only as figurative - but also that there is a literal result in the end. But the literal is not identical to the figurative. In other words, our sins are literally removed from us so that we are no longer in bondage to them, but we were not literally washed in blood. The blood is the cause of our literal cleansing, but not the actual agent by which we are cleansed. This fact is given in scripture and is very logical. And being the case, "provision" is the only possibility. To make this literal would teach that we were cleansed at the death of Christ when He shed His blood, and thus were forgiven, predestined, and elected by His limited atonement for a chosen few. All our sins were dealt with ahead of time, and no future sins can be an issue of any consequence whatsoever. This is very unscriptural and is theological hogwash!

     Although there are many points to be made concerning the "provision" that was made through the sacrificing of animals, as was also through Christ; many of these points may be best made when explaining the error of the Penal satisfaction view of the atonement. Half of understanding truth is to understand error.

Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement

     The Penal Satisfaction theory of the atonement of Christ is by far the most commonly received amongst Christians today. This is not because it is more convincing of a view, but rather that it is the view that has been taught by Calvinists and modern baptists on radios, television, is written in most books Christians read, and has been passed down from the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant reformation times. Most Christians today believe this view, but they have no idea what it is called. They are sure that they only believe what the Bible teaches about the atonement, being totally ignorant of the foundation upon which they stand. They have simply heard nothing other than what they have been taught, heard over and over again, and have believed for years. It has never been challenged, and therefore never questioned in their own minds.

     The defination of "Penal Satisfaction" comes from the two words. Penal - meaning that a penalty is applied in the way of punishment. And satisfaction - meaning that God's wrath is somehow "satisfied" by the punishment that is applied. Therefore, the teaching is that Christ bore the penalty of our sins on the cross, undergoing punishment that was appointed by God for sin, and thus satisfied His anger against those of whom Christ's death "paid for". As we will soon see, many problems arise from such a theory!

     There are three main points made by those who teach this view of the atonement that are necessary to explain, and then compare to the Biblical teaching of atonement. We have already made mention of these, but now will go more into detail.

O     The Punishment of Jesus.

O     The Payment for sins.

O     That Christ took our place on the cross.

     It is with this view, that we not only find that it is the foundation of false teachings, such as those of the 5 points of Calvinism and all that branches off of it; but also that the figurative uses of the scriptures are taken in the literal sense. So as we discuss these three points, it will also be necessary to explain what is figurative and what is literal when speaking of the atonement. We must keep in mind that the atonement of Christ is a "type" of the Old Testament system, and therefore we should expect a lot of figurativeness in what Christ did for us, having to do with the Old system of atonement. But we also must continue to hold the understanding that the figurative in what He did is not without literal results.

....Punishment

     It is the understanding of the majority of Christians today that Christ was punished "by God" in His death on the cross. This understanding has been assumed because of the understanding that sin must be punished, and because our sins were placed on Jesus when He was on the cross. Therefore, it is understood by so many that Jesus endured the punishment for our sins in our place. People seem to confuse His suffering for punishment, which are two different experiences.

     First, it is important to state that there is some truth in these statements. It is true that the scriptures say that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. But this is figurative. It is also true that He did this for mankind, because it was something we could not do ourselves. But it is incorrect to say Christ was being punished for our sins by what He did on the cross. The scriptures do not teach anywhere that He was punished for our sins! And certainly not by God! These are teachings that are assumed or read into the texts, which do not exist in the scriptures.

     Second, sin itself is never punished. It is man that is punished for having sin in his life. And men that have sin in them will receive their fianl punishment it hell for eternity. Christs dealing with with sin can only provide the way for the removal of sin in men. Sins are dealt with only by taking them away. But it is men who are dealt with when sin is in them. So Christ only needed to take our sins upon Himself figuratively for the purpose of provided the literal removal of sin for all who call on His name. This was done by the scapegoat, whom Christ was figuratively in our behalf to take away sins. The scapegoat was never punished!

     If we put this idea to the test by comparing it to the Old Testament sacrificial system, we see nowhere in the Old system that animals were ever victims of punishment. They were offerings, sacrifices, and made provision for forgiveness - but were never "punished" in the place of men for their sins.

     The teaching of punishment in the Penal Satisfaction theory fails the test! It teaches that the wrath of God must be satisfied through the punishment of another. But guilt is never transferable. An innocent man can never die in the place of a guilty man and have the guilty declared innocent. The product of guilt (sin) must be removed! Unless sin is removed, the one who committed sin is still guilty and held responsible. Punishment of an innocent man cannot change this fact. But if a perfect man were to die in order to provide a way for the guilty to receive forgiveness by a literal taking away of the sin, then the guilty man can be declared innocent. Even though a man had sinned, he is no longer a sinner by lifestyle. He is therefore aquited by God for the guilt of his sin. WHERE THERE IS NO SIN, THERE IS NO GUILT. It was the perfect sacrifice of Christ that provided such for mankind, not punishment in order to pay for our sins. Jesus provided access to the throne of grace (the Mercy Seat), being the sacrifice that always had to proceed man in getting to this place for atonement. Nothing had to be paid for this to be made available.

     Since man has access to the throne of grace through Christ, all he has to do is simply pray, repent, and receive what He provided. Although the old system was something that had to be done at least once a year - it still would take away sins at least on a temporary basis, through the offering of an acceptable sacrifice. Punishment was NEVER given to the animals. Man only needed to come before the priest, cleanse himself with water and through repentance, offer of his own sacrifice to God, and receive the atonement through the blood as the high priest took it before the Mercy Seat. Man came before the priest, who went to God, who in turn provided forgiveness of sins. As our high priest, Jesus is always at the right hand of God, the throne of grace, waiting for men to come to Him with their own offering of themselves to God, receiving His atoning sacrifice for their sins. In comparing the "provision" teaching of views like "Priestly Sacrificial Atonement" to the Old Testament sacrificial system, so far it passes the test. Punishment for sins is found nowhere in this system.

     One thing that stands out in Leviticus is that the sins of Israel were figuratively placed on the scapegoat - not on the goat for sacrifice. The one goat would be killed for the shedding of blood (the offering to God); while the scapegoat would have the sins of men placed on it, and would carry those sins away into the wilderness. The scapegoat was never punished in any way, and there is nothing even "figuratively" given here to say that sins were paid for. The two goats show the definite difference between the blood sacrifice/offering and the taking away of sins under the old system. Yet both were an important part of atoning for the sins of Israel. In Christ we have the two in one. He is our atonement. He was the blood sacrifice - the perfect offering, and He takes away the sins of men. This is shown figuratively by His "taking our sins upon Himself" on the cross and literally as men receive Him as atoning sacrifice and are delivered from sin.

     THE LITERAL CAN ONLY BE EXPERIENCED THROUGH RECEIVING THE FIGURATIVE BY FAITH. Any person who accepts by faith what Christ did for them will have a literal experience known as regeneration. This is salvation "by grace, through faith" as spoken of in Ephesians 2:8. In this experience man is cleansed of his sins, whereas the figurative use of "taking away sins" will literally free a person from the bondage of all sin, and thus also making them holy. The regeneration of a person will move them into sanctification, in which they will be purified, no longer giving in to the temptation to sin. The figurative has caused a literal result by the change of a person's nature. Once being controlled by a sinful nature, the Spirit now leads them into the divine nature in Christ. All this was provided for us on the cross.

     Christ suffered for us, but was not punished by God because of our sins on Him. This is making the figurative to be a present literal at the time of His death, rather than taking the figurative to refer to something that is to come later for all who will believe on Him. For such a present literal to be true, "our sins on Him" would have to be literal, rather than figurative. Can you picture this? Then rather than being the acceptable sacrifice for sin, Christ would have been rejected - because of sins on Him. The reason man cannot go to God on their own is because of being sinful. If sins were literally on Jesus, then He also would have been seen as sinful and thus rejected.

     The Penal Satisfaction view teaches that God turned His back on Christ because of our sins on him. But this goes against the sacrificial system in which sacrifices were received by God and never turned away unless they were unacceptable. Certainly Christ was an acceptable sacrifice to the Father, as shown by His own words, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased". To say that the Father turned His back on Jesus when He was on the cross is not only saying that He rejected Him as the acceptable sacrifice for sins. But this also necessitates that the Father could not see past the sin on Him in order to see His perfect sinless Son and be able to accept Him as the one time sacrifice for sin. God cannot be deceived by an appearance of sin, when in reality Jesus was perfect. The only way Jesus could have actually been punished for sin is to have actually been sinful. But then He could not have rose from the grave and would be in hell today. "Becoming sin for us" as the Bible says is speaking only in the figurative that He was literally dealing with all the sins of man in His death on the cross. But He was NOT literally "sin" when on the cross, just as the bulls and the goats were never treated as being sin when they were sacrificed. If Christ was not literally sin, or literally have sin on Him, then there is no logical reason for punishment. The Penal view fails the scripture test and cannot even work logically.

     Sin was dealt with on the cross, but remains in the world today. The power over sin abides in Christ. If men want freedom from sin, it is found only in Him. Provision has been made for us because of His perfect, acceptable offering to the Father!

     There are a few main scriptures that are used to support the teaching of Christ's punishment for the sins of men.

Isaiah 53:4-5

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;

     First, in looking at verse 4, it may appear to say that God smote Jesus. But it is saying no such thing. The NIV gives a better understanding of this verse. "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted." Men "considered" Him stricken by God, when He was not, but was rather taking upon Himself the only solution for forgiveness of our sins and willfully giving His own life.

     In verse 5 we read of the brutal beating that He endured for us. The beating that He endured was seen as chastisement, even though He did nothing wrong. The chastisement that He endured brought us the peace that any person who comes to Christ may have. This is not teaching punishment for sins in our place, but speaking of the brutality He did endure on our behalf, so that such a peace might be gained.

     Verse 10 says that, "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him". But we know that God never touched Jesus in any way to personally bruise Him. This injustice was done by sinners, not by God! But because God allowed it, it appears to say, "He bruised Him". It pleased God to allow Jesus to endure this so that He could be the one-time sacrifice for sins. But God in no way personally punished Jesus for the sins of men.

     There is only one New Testament scripture that those of the Penal view can really attempt to use to prove their theory of punishment. This is in Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Here we see Jesus crying out in His humanity. Although He was God manifest in the flesh, He was also a man. And at the time that He was on the cross He felt all alone. Much like the Christian feels at times in their life when things are not going well and we cannot sense the presence of God with us. Yet by faith we can know He is still near and hears our payers.

     Those of the penal view assume that because of this statement by Jesus that God did actually forsake Him, because our sins were on Him. Therefore God turned His back on Jesus, since He could not look upon sin. But this is not in the scripture at all. It is an added idea by men that does not exist in the scripture. There is nothing here to suggest that God turned His back on Jesus! God simply did not do anything to stop what was taking place. But He was present and did not turn His back on Jesus, just like He does not turn His back on His children - even though we may feel like He has at times in our lives. There is no real logical or scriptural reason for teaching that God ever turned His back on sin offerings or on Jesus, or for that matter, even on sin itself. God has seen every sin men have committed over the centuries since the creation of man, and He has judged men for their sins, or will judge then in eternity. He has seen it all! Sin offerings would make amends for sin, but God never turned His back at any time. The penal atonement theory can only fabricate such an idea out of unscrptural thoughts of men, and not from scrpture. Yet millions of ignorant Christians have bought these teachings from popular teachers without ever searching the scriptures for themselves. They just assume that it must be there somewhere.

     This statement that Jesus made here is taken from Psalms 22:1-2, where it says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent." The body of Jesus had been beaten to the last few breaths of life in Him. At this point He cried out from his humanity with this scripture from the Psalms. But His humanity did not lessen His divinity. He was still God in the flesh, but did have the limitations of the flesh, by which He may have felt as David did in the Psalms - forsaken by God. But even David went on to say the following:

Psalms 22:22-24 "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."

     David knew that His hardships came through the working of men, yet continued to trust in God. Even through being mocked for his faith, he continued to trust in God. In our limited abilities in the flesh, we all can wind up wonderig where God is at times - even while continuing to trust Him in our uncertainties of what exactly might take place. Have you ever asked God "why?" concerning something in your life, while still holding on to faith in Him? Jesus did not feel any different, since He was held by the limitations of the flesh while here on earth. He was not actually forsaken, even though the weakness of the flesh may have made Him wonder whether He was at the moment. The Father delighted in Him, and could never turn His back on His only son, in whom He was well pleased. Such an idea of God turning His back on Jesus can only be read into the text.

....Payment for sins

     Since most all Christians have ignorantly accepted the Penal theory as Biblical, it is not uncommon to hear people testify, or to hear in songs or comments made by many other means, about how Jesus "paid for" our sins on the cross. In fact, to suggest that He did not pay for sins on the cross would be considered heresy by most Christians today.

     The one thing that most Christians do not realize is that not one scripture can be given that says that Jesus was ever punished for or paid for sins. This is something that is assumed because of erroneous teachings of the atonement. A few scriptures are used to show that Jesus "bought us with a price", or that we have been redeemed - meaning to buy back. Or by the fact that the scriptures say He was a ransom for many, carrying the same meaning of redemption. But the death of Jesus on the cross still cannot be properly interpreted as a payment for sin. These terms that speak of buying men are financial terms used to figuratively explain what Christ did for us. They were never to be used in a literal sense as if men have been bought and paid for in full, of which such a transaction is final.

     The problem this creates is that if sins are "paid for", then all the sins of all men are dealt with on the cross in this form of payment. All men therefore would be saved and universal salvation would be true, because the wages of their sins would have been paid in full. Therefore there could no longer be any wages of sin for anyone, and thus no death in eternal punishment for any. Men would not need to repent of sin in order to be saved, and nobody at all would ever go to hell. Even the most evil men could never be judged for their horrible sins against God and other people, because their sins were "paid for" on the cross.

     Payment for sin does not leave any room for the need of repentance for salvation, since sins are already previously dealt with "in completion" - through payment in full. Payment logically concludes that all sins have been dealt with, and therefore no sin can damn anyone ever again. All has been paid!

     Provision on the other hand teaches that the death of Christ was indeed for the sins of all men. Not as a payment, but as a provision for forgiveness - by which men must choose to accept what has been provided for them, through the acceptable sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

     Looking once again at the Old Testament system, there is nothing that indicates that the sacrifices offered for sins were ever accepted as some kind of payment. Yet so many today will assume that Christ's death paid for sin, without any scriptural backing to support their claims. Although Christ's death and shed blood are so much more powerful than that of animals (to the degree that He was the one-time sacrifice for all time, just as scripture states), people attempt to take it a step further by trying to make the power of His perfection to the extent of changing the whole system to a payment for sin. But regardless of how powerful or perfect Christ is, we cannot add to His Word things that are not there. The only scriptures that can even appear to speak of any kind of payment for sins are scriptures that speak of such in a figurative sense. To take these scriptures literally causes other problems as well.

     One question comes to mind concerning a payment for sin. If Christ's death was a payment for sin, then to whom was the payment paid? Since we as sinners were called "children of the devil" (as are the unsaved today), then in order for Christ to "purchase" us, He would have to pay the devil. And since He rose from the dead, it would then appear that He took back the payment by which He paid for us. None of this makes any sense simply because it is an attempt to take something figurative and applying it literally. Payment for sins only makes sense when we will understand it as a figure of speech. We must understand payment not to be an exchange of money or product in a purchase, but rather only as a "high price" figuratively through His literal suffering and death, by which Christ made provision for our salvation.  Jesus literally suffered for our sins on the cross, a very "high price to pay". But only figuratively did He "paid for" sins on the cross. It is simply a way to explain extremity of what He did for us, without taking it to its literal end.

     With both in the Old Testament system and in Christ, sins had to be removed. The Old system would leave man in a condition that if he sinned again, then sacrifice would have to be made again, and again, every time he sinned. But in Christ sins are removed once and for all (figuratively) by His provisional sacrifice for sin. Christ now provides the removal of sins through man's repentance. The figurative tells us that Christ "takes away the sins of the world", meaning that sin is dealt with through the death of Christ once and for all. The literal is that this takes place at the moment of repentance. At the moment of true repentance we are cleansed and all sin is taken away, and we therefore cannot be judge for what is not present within us. This provision of Christ cleanses whosoever will call upon His name and receive His provision by faith in Him. Our sins are then cast as far as the east is from the west and remembered no more (Ps. 103:12, Is. 43:25). If payment for sins were true, then is would be necessary to say that sins were cast away or taken away immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ. Payment for sins removes the need of repentance in order to be forgiven and cannot avoid either a teaching in universal salvation or Limited Atonement.

     In 1 Corinthians it is mentioned twice "ye are bought with a price". It is also said in 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Here we can see that the false teachers, who most will agree were not saved, were also "bought" by the Lord. If being bought referred to a payment for sins or even for the individual "elect" of God, then these men were still saved. But if being bought is only figurative of being pulled away from the snare of sin, into a life of freedom in Christ by accepting the provision of Christ - it then makes sense that these false teachers could have once been "bought", and then later fallen from the place of freedom they once shared in Christ. These are figurative terms that were never meant to teach any type of "payment" for sins or for men in the literal sense, but only used to figuratively explain the freedom we have through Christ.

     It is through this false teaching of the atonement of Christ that at least 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism find their roots, and the popular teaching of eternal security or "Once saved Always Saved" find their support. When turning to the penal satisfaction view of atonement, those who believe these doctrines will always believe they have support scripturally for their doctrines. A proper understanding of the atonement of Christ pulls the rug out from under the false teachings - causing great loss of any so called scriptural support for these teachings. Any truth-seeking individual can see the all so common error of many Churches today, if only they will look at the scriptures and actually question what they have been taught concerning these points of the penal view of the atonement.

....Jesus took our place

     There is really nothing wrong with the phase "Jesus took our place", as long as we understand this to be figurative. The problem with this statement is the same as with payment. If Jesus took our place, then He did it at Calvary 2000 years ago. If He took our place, then He also took the place of every sinner that has died in his or her sins. Yet, if they were not saved, they went to hell. This then makes the act of Christ even ineffective or it necessitates a belief in Calvinism's teaching of Limited Atonement - that Jesus died to atone only for those whom God chose for salvation, the Elect. All others are predestined to hell. So here we have the problem with these three root teachings. They only really work for Calvinism or universalism! Anyone who teaches these 3 points while rejecting both of these is very inconsistent in their belief system. Calvinism, although consistent with their teachings, goes against the clear teachings of the Bible in all of their 5 points, as well as these three additional and foundational points.

     Man could never die for his own sins. Jesus came to do something that we could never have done for ourselves. Therefore, to die on the cross could only be His place, and never ours. If He took the place of anyone at all, it could only be of the animals that were sacrificed under the old system. He did take our sins upon Him, but only in the same figurative way as with the old system, as He was our scapegoat. He did not only atone for sins, but He became sin for us, as He was and is the atonement for our sins. So Christ is our all in all, providing all man needs for salvation. In offering Himself He is high priest. By being crucified He was the sin offering. By taking away our sins He was our scapegoat. And by being high priest, offering, and scapegoat - He is the atonement for the sins of men. He did not only "make amends" in our behalf for sin, but is the very object of our healing and deliverance. This is why He could say things like "I am the bread of life", "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the way, the truth, and the life", etc. He was not only the source of life, but is the life. He said "I am", not "I can lead you to." In the same way He is our atonement. He is the very thing that He was meant to be in our behalf, the atonement for our sins. This was His place, NOT ours!

The Predicate Nominative Construction

     There is really nothing wrong with the phase "Jesus took our place", as long as we understand this to be figurative. The problem with this statement is the same as with payment. If Jesus took our place, then He did it at Calvary 2000 years ago. If He took our place, then He also took the place of every sinner that has died in his or her sins. Yet, if they were not saved, they went to hell. This then makes the act of Christ even ineffective or it necessitates a belief in Calvinism's teaching of Limited Atonement - that Jesus died to atone only for those whom God chose for salvation, the Elect. All others are predestined to hell. So here we have the problem with these three root teachings. They only really work for Calvinism or universalism! Anyone who teaches these 3 points while rejecting both of these is very inconsistent in their belief system. Calvinism, although consistent with their teachings, goes against the clear teachings of the Bible in all of their 5 points, as well as these three additional and foundational points.

     Man could never die for his own sins. Jesus came to do something that we could never have done for ourselves. Therefore, to die on the cross could only be His place, and never ours. If He took the place of anyone at all, it could only be of the animals that were sacrificed under the old system. He did take our sins upon Him, but only in the same figurative way as with the old system, as He was our scapegoat. He did not only atone for sins, but He became sin for us, as He was and is the atonement for our sins. So Christ is our all in all, providing all man needs for salvation. In offering Himself He is high priest. By being crucified He was the sin offering. By taking away our sins He was our scapegoat. And by being high priest, offering, and scapegoat - He is the atonement for the sins of men. He did not only "make amends" in our behalf for sin, but is the very object of our healing and deliverance. This is why He could say things like "I am the bread of life", "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the way, the truth, and the life", etc. He was not only the source of life, but is the life. He said "I am", not "I can lead you to." In the same way He is our atonement. He is the very thing that He was meant to be in our behalf, the atonement for our sins. This was His place, NOT ours!

Substitution

     Now, in all that has been mentioned, someone might assume that the teaching of priestly sacrificial atonement does not teach substitution at all. Although there are major points against it because of the fact that the figurative is taken literal, the fact remains that there is a type of substitution in the atonement. Much of this point has already been mentioned in the discussion of punishment and payment, but should be clarified.

     The scriptures tell us that Jesus died as "the righteous for the unrighteous". They also tell us the "He became sin for us". But neither of these statements say that He actually "took our place" in the literal sense. But He did do this figuratively so that we would not have to spend eternity in hell for the wages of our sins.

     "The righteous for the unrighteous" is saying that Jesus did this on our behalf. A sacrifice had to be offered by a man and accepted by God. Jesus was a man. And being without sin, He could offer unto God a sacrifice for sins. Jesus was also God. This is what made Him perfect. So being righteous as He was, He did for mankind what they could not do for themselves, just as animals were sacrificed because man could not die for his own sins. In the Old system animals died to atone for sins, and in the New Testament Christ died to atone for sins - with the main difference being that Christ was the one time sacrifice for all time, and He made access to the throne of grace for men. What He did, He did on our behalf, but not in our place. The scripture says "the righteous for the unrighteous", not "the righteous in the place of the unrighteous". To do something for others is quite different than doing something in their place. If a person were to push another person out of a street to keep them from getting hit by a car, and wind up getting hit themselves - this shows that this person died for the other, but not in their place.

     The fact that the scripture says that Christ became sin for us is not proof that He took our place. This also only shows that what He did, He did for us - and the very thing that He dealt with in the process was our sins. Did He literally become sin? To assume such is a huge thing to assume. Did the Father not see Christ, but only our sins when He was on the cross? As mentioned earlier, this would be deception. God cannot be deceived or fooled. To make this literal, Jesus would have turned into one ugly creature, which all that were present at the crucifixion would have seen. Although all this may sound a bit silly, this is what happens when the figurative is taken to be literal. It causes confusion, false teachings, and a picture in the minds of people that does not fit anywhere in the scriptures.

     Christ did indeed die for our sins on the cross. He figuratively became sin for us, because this is a picture of who He is as the atonement for our sins. As Jesus said on many occasions, "I am.". As the atonement for sin, He became sin - which was the figure of dealing with the sins of mankind in the death of His body. When He died, sin was taken with Him. But this can only be in the figurative sense, since sin still reigns in the world today. All who trust Him and what He has accomplished for mankind can be literally freed from sin. So the figurative leads to the literal, but is not literal in itself. Christ became sin, so that by faith man can be rid of sin. Since it is not literal, it cannot be a payment, and it cannot be a literal taking the place of another. But because His death and resurrection are literal, He has provided for mankind the way to the literal freedom in Him.

     All this having been said; substitution can be understood properly as something that Christ did for mankind that they could not do for themselves. With this in mind, it is a type of substitution. But to add the literal to it as if Christ "paid for" something in full or even went to hell for our sins as many teach (which is the penalty that would have to be paid) is against scriptural teachings. As we continue we will get into this additional erroneous teaching.

The Confession of sin

1 John 1:8-9

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

     It is evident by the scriptures in many places, as well in verse 8 above, that men still have sin in their lives that needs dealt with. Before any sinner can come to Christ he must first confess that he has sin and is in need of forgiveness. By this fact we can know that sins were not literally taken away by Christ on Calvary. But vs. 8 reveals something more. It shows that when a person will confess their sins that they will be cleansed of all unrighteousness. Being cleansed of all unrighteousness is equivalent to having sins being taken away. What was revealed on the cross in the figurative can only become literal when a person will confess his or her own sins. The condition "If we confess." show the provisional aspect of the Atonement, and not a payment for sins.

     As mentioned earlier, when the people would bring their own sacrifices to the priest, they would lay their own hands on the head of the animal and confess their sins over it - just before they were to kill it for the sacrifice. Sins were confessed with the giving of the sacrifice. But in likening the crucifixion of Christ to that of the old system - where was the confession of sin when Christ was offered? The answer is, there was none! But confession of sin was always a necessary part of atoning for sins. So it would appear that the crucifixion of Christ is missing a very important part in its likening unto the old system. But it is not!

     If a brother offends another brother, the only way that he can "make am