Featured Aspects of the Atonement

I will end this post by pointing you back to Hebrews 9 but I will begin it with looking at Genesis.

God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil under pain of death (Genesis 2:17). Adam disobeyed God's command and ate of the tree anyway (Genesis 3:6). God was true to His word and pronounced the sentence of death on Adam (Genesis 3:19). This pronouncement is keeping with God's holiness. God is without sin and cannot abide sin in His presence. Because of this, Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden; out of the presence of the LORD (Genesis 3:24).

While Adam and his posterity would now experience physical death, the first victims of the curse was an animal(s). Genesis 3:21 states that God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve. While the text does not state explicitly that animals were killed to provide these skins or that there was a redemptive theme involved, both are heavily implied. Kenneth A. Mathews writes:

"Following Adam’s act of faith, the Lord acts immediately in behalf of the vulnerable couple by providing adequate protection to cover their embarrassment and to preserve them in the new hostile environment to which they will be banished (v. 21; cf. vv. 7, 18, 23). In the same way that the woman’s pain at birth is a reminder of their disobedience, their clothing confirms that they have sinned against God and that no longer can they walk before deity in innocence (2:25). The language of the verse alludes to tabernacle setting and worship. “Garments” (kūttōnet) and “clothed” (lābaš) are reminiscent of the Pentateuch’s description of priestly garments, particularly for Aaron as high priest. This is another lexical link with the symbols of the tabernacle, where the priest must be properly clothed before God in the administration of his service (Exod 20:26; 28:42). But Aaron’s priestly garb was woven of colored yarn and fine linen, and his sons wore fine linen garments (e.g., Exod 28:4–5; 28:39; 39:27; Lev 16:4), while the garments of Adam and Eve are made of “skin.” In the Mosaic law the skin of an animal offered for sin or guilt atonement was reserved for the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). Here God bestows “garments of skin” upon the guilty in the garden. Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the garden too. Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill.
Moreover, that God “made” (ʿāśâ) these garments stands in striking relief to the seventh day, when God ceased from all that he had “made” (ʿāśâ) (2:2–3). “Made” routinely describes God’s creative work, occurring eleven times in 1:1–2:4. God has “made” the woman (2:18) and the animals of the fields (3:1) as acts of creation, but now his action in behalf of the couple is salvific in character. The God of the garden as Creator and Savior mirrors the God of tabernacle sacrifice, whom Israel had come to recognize by the voice of Moses and the prophets."
Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 254–255). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

While the curse of death was initiated in Genesis 3, God had mercy on Adam and Eve and extended to them grace. Had God killed them on-the-spot for their sin (as He was justified in doing), that would have been the end of humanity. It is because of God's mercy and grace that satisfaction for Adam's sin was provided. The blood of an animal would overlook sin temporarily and would have to be continually offered until the final, perfect sacrifice promised in Genes 3:15 was made in the body and blood of Jesus.

Both sin and guilt offerings required blood to be shed through the sacrifice of an animal (Leviticus 4-7). The Mosaic Law was never intended to atone for sins once and for all. It always pointed forward in types and shadows to the New Covenant in Christ's blood (1 Corinthians 11:25). Eventually, the need for repeated animal sacrifices came to its promised end through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ who made propitiation (satisfaction) for the sin of the Elect and the requirements of God's holiness.

The author of Hebrews writes:

Hebrews 9:13-15 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

In the above passage, we see the superiority of Christ's blood "how much more will the blood of Christ"; we Christ's perfect atoning sacrifice "offered Himself without blemish to God"; and we see the inauguration of the New Covenant with the Elect "those who have been called" (definite atonement).

So, your "why" is in there.

 

I have scripture, the testimony of others who have studied, and my opinion (which was offered). I am forming the opinion that scripture is not enough for you, given that you seldom cite it yourself. So, if my comments are not satisfactory there are plenty of other active threads you can grace with your comments.

 

Jon, you truly do strain credulity. I obfuscated nothing. I am not going to explain myself to you for a third time because you, sir, do not deserve it. I answered your question carefully and in detail because that is what was required on such a critical topic. That has always been my custom on this board when it comes to doctrine and theology. There are plenty of Baptist Board members who disagree with me on almost everything. But if they are honest (and most of them are) they will tell you that I regularly offer detailed scriptural support for my doctrinal positions. To prove that I am not off on some wild rabbit trail, I will quote recognized scholars and authors. If you have ever taken one college course you know the reason for that. It establishes the credibility of your argument but it is no replacement for one's own study and conclusions, of which I always provide.

What I am really bothered by is you judging my motives by writing, "I suspect, that you choose obfuscation is that you know Calvinism holds the shedding of Christ's blood, His suffering and death, as a sidebar to redemption." Your antipathy towards Calvinism is palpable and that is fine. No one can say a word to you without you twisting it or questioning the writer's authenticity. If there is a problem, it rests with you. You have your bully pulpit and you can bang your gavel and say what you want to say. So be it. I may not be able to block you but I do not have to engage with you.

 

Correct. I was trying to point that out when I said that God killed animal(s) to provide clothing made of skins for Adam and Eve. There was an atoning aspect to that merciful and gracious act of God. God had promised death upon Adam's disobedience but that death was not just physical (as you pointed out), it was also spiritual. Looking forward, both Adam and Eve's sins were ultimately atoned for through Christ's death on the Cross.

This is why scripture has to be central to every single thing we say about doctrine and theology. We do not want to cite scripture like a robot. Anyone can do that. Scripture should always be unpacked and expounded. And before that the person doing the unpacking and expounded needs to know what they are talking about. Both misrepresenting God's word purposefully or out of ignorance is a grievous thing.

As far as individuals understanding or not understanding biblical doctrine, all we can do is point out the truth. We are not the ones who give understanding. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. If calling attention to the truth puts us in the minority or causes us to be misunderstood, that is OK. In those situations, we should still point to the truth.

*Edited to correct grammar.

 

@Iconoclast , if you will permit me to go briefly off-topic, the cynic in me understands that I have to protect my content on the Internet. Every single post I make on the Baptist Board is saved in Google Docs. This way, I know exactly what I posted and the quotes of the person I am responding to. It is easy to forget things and saving posts works for me. It also allows me access to exactly what was said in case it is needed in a future conversation.

OK. Back to the topic of the thread.