What is Biblical Atonement?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- I sat down with Nick Quient and Warren McGrew to discuss atonement. We had a great discussion walking through the path of atonement through the Bible. We did not address many of the theories until the end. It is a fascinating conversation! Give it a chance.
Where to find Nick:
/ @nickquient
Where to find Warren:
/ @idolkiller
![Caminhando a noite em T'shuvah [16] - Beshalach (a)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iWm-seUI_uc/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the discussion on the Passover. My view of it is that the Passover was a celebration of YHWH’s imminent deliverance. To my mind the blood on the doorposts and lintel when a public declaration that those inside the house trusted that YHWH was going to do what He promised.
More importantly, this is a great video.😊
I love Leviticus. One of my favorite books!
Leviticus is the best!!
I think it is important to distinguish between atonement as “reconciliation” and atonement as “reparation for a wrong or an injury”. This word, because of the evolution in its meaning and the way Biblical translators have chosen to use it, caused a lot of confusion for me and it took a lot of time and effort to clear it up. It was only after doing an immense amount of study, especially with regard to the Greek and Hebrew words in the scriptures which are rendered into English as “atone(ment)”, that I was able to recognize that much of the confusion was a result of this distinction between reconciliation and that which can lead to reconciliation.
Kapar can maintain relationship or lead to reconciliation. Likewise, “reparation for a wrong or an injury” can maintain relationship or lead to reconciliation. However, kapar or “reparation for a wrong or an injury” are not equivalent to reconciliation itself.
This was such a great chat! I learnt some stuff, and i had fun listening 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'm lovin' it.
One perspective I have that may be helpful in addressing the ambiguity surrounding the "scapegoat" of Lev 16 is to look to the allegory of Isa 54. Isa 54 has a literal meaning AND an allegorical meaning.
Isa 54:1-14 NASB95 1 "Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no [child;] Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed; For the sons of the desolate one [will be] more numerous Than the sons of the married woman," says the LORD. 2 "Enlarge the place of your tent; Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, spare not; Lengthen your cords And strengthen your pegs. 3 "For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left. And your descendants will possess nations And will resettle the desolate cities. 4 "Fear not, for you will not be put to shame; And do not feel humiliated, for you will not be disgraced; But you will forget the shame of your youth, And the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. 5 "For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. 6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of [one's] youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I forsook you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 "In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you," Says the LORD your Redeemer. 9 "For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor will I rebuke you. 10 "For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake, But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you, And My covenant of peace will not be shaken," Says the LORD who has compassion on you. 11 "O afflicted one, storm-tossed, [and] not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, And your foundations I will lay in sapphires. 12 "Moreover, I will make your battlements of rubies, And your gates of crystal, And your entire wall of precious stones. 13 "All your sons will be taught of the LORD; And the well-being of your sons will be great. 14 "In righteousness you will be established; You will be far from oppression, for you will not fear; And from terror, for it will not come near you.
Paul interprets this passage as allegorical in Gal 4:
Gal 4:24-28 NASB95 - 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these [women] are two covenants: one [proceeding] from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND." 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
So I think we can see that Gal 4 describes Isa 54 as speaking about the Abrahamic covenant. This was a covenant between God and Abraham and Abraham's descendants... yes... but it was also a covenant between God the Father and God the Son.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. ... 19 Why the Law then? It was added [a]because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the [b]agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Jesus is the Seed to whom the promise had been made. So the Abrahamic covenant is a promise from the Father to the Son that He would not leave Him in death, but that He would resurrect Him by redistributing His righteousness through the covenant.
So Isa 54 describes what the Lev 16 scapegoat represents. There is one goat who represents the flesh and one goat who represents the spirit. The goat in the flesh is slaughtered, but the goat in the spirit cannot be destroyed, so it is sent away and separated from God. This is the 3 days Jesus was "in the heart of the earth" sometimes referred to as the "harrowing of Hell." But in Isa 54 it says "you will not be disgraced; But you will forget the shame of your youth, And the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more."
The Trinity is "one" just as a married couple are "one."
Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (ehad)!
Gen 2:24 NASB95 - 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one (ehad) flesh.
So in Isa 54, while it is literally a promise between God and Israel, it is also an allegorical promise between the Father and Son who are "one" that though they will be separated for a time, that God will restore the son.
"Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of [one's] youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I forsook you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 "In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you," Says the LORD your Redeemer."
That is the picture of the scapegoat in Lev 16. We just saw the iniquity of us all laid upon Him, just as happens with the scapegoat.
Isa 53:6 NASB95 - 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Admittedly, this concept is less developed than my other studies... and there are a number of unanswered questions this raises... but it is an illuminating take, I think.
Great feedback! We ran out of time to get into that. I might do a separate video about the Day of Atonement and the goats. It is fascinating! Thanks for warching Ben!!
There's some great thoughts here.
It needs a follow up to finish it. We didn't get everything covered and I have refined my thoughts since then.
@@WhenDeepCallsDeep-Amber I say just edit out everything Nick says and it's perfect. lol Hope you had a great Christmas.
Jon aka Ryan Gosling with a beard.
Warren hanging with movie lookalikes ... see his series on the atonement with his guest, whose name I can't recall, who looks like a rather serious Ray Liotta
Ransom theology: the question raised is who is paid off in this ransom exchange? Is that not possibly pushing the metaphor of ransom too far? Further than it's meant to go? The price of our rescue is the death of our Lord. In that sense a price is paid. Not necessarily to a recipient. (As Warren explains while im typing this message).
Awesome
Glad you enjoyed it! This was fun!
First!
You win an invite back! Next up, "What is Biblical Theology?"
"Do your own research"
I sometimes say the story of the Bible is "a Father finding a (suitable/worthy?) Bride for the Son.
Paul and Jesus use that language despite popular virtue signaling.
I like it!
Where are you studying?
i sent you some info on facebook regarding atonement and Lev 16
I saw that! I'm up to my eyeballs in school research and homework. I will read it later when I have some time. Thanks!
In the day of atonement, are you saying that Jesus was the sacrificed lamb and Satan was the scape goat? You said in Ezekiel Jesus is portrayed as both lambs. This is no I understood it and I tie it together with Jesus being both 100% man and 100% god. Now I’m not sure which was the lamb and which was the goat, but Jesus died to bring us back to God, and then went to hades (the wilderness) to carry the sins of man, shown in the violence, betrayal, hatred, etc, of the cross back to Satan who, as you said, was the author of sin.
ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death, defeat the devil, be a good influence, establish his government, and ransom everyone back, is this:
The punishment of sin creates all the problems, and sin must be fully judged for God to redeem.
Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture.
*God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.*
Here's the deal:
God can defeat the devil and death without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?
*Makes no sense.*
God can influence people and display his government without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?
*Makes no sense.*
God can ransom people back and prove himself innocent, without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?
*Makes no sense.*
Ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"
Or how about, "A shortcut seldom is?"
We know, even if the lunch comes to us free, someone, somewhere paid for it.
And it is interesting just how much Scripture uses "payment" language in both the OT and the NT, this is very significant.
But what is essentially being said by denying PSA is:
*Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.*
That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd.
It's not about God being angry, we already know there are instances of this.
It's not about God punishing God, or breaking up the Trinity, or suffering an eternity of wrath, we know all things are possible for God, it's a relational not ontological break, an infinite being can suffer in finite time what a finite being can suffer infinitely, God can experience himself negatively, none of those are real problems.
It's about *the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin.* And yet if all we emphasize is "God is all love" language, we deny a very vital, essential, and integral part of God, his justice. God is not *just* love. Else there would be no punishment, no judgment, no hell, no wrath anywhere at all, no diseases, viruses, pain, suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, unfairness, loneliness, sadness, unhappiness, violence, evil.
God is not just love.
If God were JUST love-think of it-God would allow anybody to do anything.
God would not have enemies, if he were JUST love.
God would send Satan flowers every morning and make him a fresh cup of coffee, if God were JUST love.
God would never rebuke or warn or threaten anyone, if God were JUST love.
There would be nothing painful or confusing or offensive or hard, if God were JUST love.
_If God were JUST love, there would be no need to punish sin.... ever._
Now there are those who try to change the word punishment with a watered down version they just call "consequences." But this is just a semantic game removing the moral guilt element inherent in committing an evil action. If I trip walking down some stairs, that's a consequence of my actions, but there is no morally wrong aspect to what I did, there is no guilt. If we just redefine "if you do something evil and have something bad happen to you as a result of what you deserve" with the term "consequence," all we did was put a new word to the same meaning as "punishment." What is being attempted here, is removing moral guilt from sinful actions, and a removal of God's rightful acting role as Judge and dispenser of justice, as if "karma" takes over the job from God.
So what we see here, is that people who deny PSA, are denying an essential attribute of God:
*God's hatred for sin, God's necessary judgment on sin.*
So they "rewrite" the Cross to be about anything BUT judging sin.
_The Cross is about God being willing to show he will suffer._
*But not judgment on sin.*
_The Cross is about God being a super nice fella' who is willing to get beat up and killed._
*But not judgment on sin.*
_The Cross is about God showing he's in charge and governs the world._
*But not judgment on sin.*
_The Cross is about God beating up the devil and giving him a big black eye._
*But not judgment on sin.*
_The Cross is about God defeating death and giving creation a brand new chance._
*But not judgment on sin!*
_The Cross is about Jesus being a great example to us, and inspiring us to die like him._
*But not judgment... on our sins.*
See how that tricky "swapparoo" happens in this shell game, where we sneak out one of God's essential attributes? Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible.
There is no verse that says *God skips over justice.* There is no verse that says *God will leave sin unpunished.* And yet they try to take verses that express God's forgiveness won through the Cross and through Jesus' suffering, and neuter and rip out the actual sacrificial element of Christ that is made to suffer for the sins of the world, as if God can just skip over his own holiness!
_Anti-PSA is a spirital "free lunch."_
The Law doesn't bring wrath under this scenario, because Jesus never really has to pay for our sins. But the whole reason Jesus said he came, the cup of redemption in his blood for the forgiveness, the basis of the ransom, was the true actual substitution in our place. "The Law brings wrath," but it's not true, if we all sinned against the Law, yet there was no wrath against our sins, it all just magically disappears without honoring God's holiness.
That's striking at the very CORE of the Gospel, the DEEPEST and MOST CENTRAL reason Christ came to die, to die in our place, to suffer what we should have gotten.
Not less-God's integrity uses equal weights and measures.
There's a great advertisement for sugar I once saw, it is short and gets your attention:
*"Sugar. There is no substitute."*
Now we all know they are always trying to find a substitute for sugar, because everyone has a sweet tooth. But there is a substance and authenticity that an artificial substitute just never has to the original. What we are being offered here, is a spiritual "artificial substitute" for the punishment of our sins. Jesus does not have to really fulfill the Law's punishment, he doesn't really have to pay, he just has to physically die the first death, and never the second.
All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin.
Jesus paying a ransom, Jesus conquering death, Jesus conquering the devil, Jesus being a a good moral influence, Jesus conquering sin, Jesus redeeming the suffering and imperfections of creation.
All these bad things that need redeeming all came from the creation's rebellion, all these things came from the original sins, all these things are curses and judgments that came as a consequence of what each of our sin deserves-
There is no "problem" Jesus "solves" that is not in some way connected to "sin"!! The atonement of Jesus Christ is not just a good example, a legal loophole, fighting the bad guys, or doing a good deed for humanity. The atonement of Jesus Christ and all the good things that come from it are based in one thing, the Law bringing wrath.
Jesus is judged with the consequences of what sinning against a holy God deserves on our behalf.
Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, his soul became a guilt offering.
He takes the bullet, he takes the fall, he takes the exact punishment we deserve.
*That's the Gospel.*
Great points!
@@WhenDeepCallsDeep-Amber I'm wondering, do you affirm PSA?
@@Dizerner No I do not. There is an element of sacrifice in atonement, but the satisfaction and PSA theologies are a no go for me.
@@WhenDeepCallsDeep-Amber I thought so. Well, everything I wrote was a full defense of PSA, so it seems you responded without reading.
I urge you to actually read it, and consider that the evilness of sin and holiness of God does indeed require a real substitution for you.
Regards.
Thanks for the response! Sorry I'm slow getting back. My comment about those being great points was my appreciation of your thoughtful response. It wasn't meant to be agreement. I was in a hurry and rushed a response. I didn't have a chance to go through and respond to each point. I have added your feedback to my notes and will address them in future content about it. Thanks again for your feedback! I appreciate it!