Meaning of the Words "the Atonement"?

[Jerry Shugart]

I am not sure exactly what others mean when they use the term "the atonement."

Can anyone tell me exactly what is meant when they use that term?

It seems that some use it as being equivalent to "propitiatory sacrifice" but that certainly cannot be its meaning in the following verse:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).
​

There the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present" tense so it cannot be referring to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross.

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not sure exactly what others mean when they use the term "the atonement."

Can anyone tell me exactly what is meant when they use that term?

It seems that some use it as being equivalent to "propitiatory sacrifice" but that certainly cannot be its meaning in the following verse:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).
​

There the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present" tense so it cannot be referring to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross.

Thanks!

Bottom line, I beleive it is a legal "satisfaction" for sin. It consists of the shedding of blood by a properly qualified candidate until the life is completely forfeited. It is the giving of life in the place of another represented in the blood presented upon the altar in the holy of holies that appease God's wrath toward those presenting it in their own behalf.

For example, God's wrath against the sin of Israel was appeased by the shedding of the blood of an innocent animal presenting in the behalf of Israel before God upon the altar lid in the holy of holies.

The lamb is symbolic of Christ. The blood shed is symobolic of Christ's life given to satisfy God's holiness. The lid on the ark in the holy of holies is symbolic of Christ. This is the essence of the message of the gospel that Christ died for sinners to satisfy the righteous demands of God against sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bottom line, I beleive it is a legal "satisfaction" for sin.

Hi Biblicist, you failed to address that words which I quoted from the book of Hebrews:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

There the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present" tense so it cannot be referring to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross.

And here we see that in the OT the priests also made atonement for the sins of the people:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

Is that not the same thing that is happening now in regard to Christians when they confess their sins?:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist, you failed to address that words which I quoted from the book of Hebrews:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

There the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present" tense so it cannot be referring to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross.

If you will reexamine the Greet text you will see it is not the "present" tense but rather the SUBJUNCTIVE AORIST tense. The cross is the place where the blood was offered but it is the offering up of a spotless/sinless life that qualifies it to be offered as an atonement. The writer of hebrews is looking at his life in the flesh as suitable for making that atonement on the cross.

And here we see that in the OT the priests also made atonement for the sins of the people:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

The priests, especially the high Preist were types of Christ. Hebrews 10:10-12 demonstrates that Christ is the antitype of the offering (Heb. 10:10) and the preist which offered up the offering (Heb. 10:11-12):

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Is that not the same thing that is happening now in regard to Christians when they confess their sins?:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

Thanks!

Confession and cleansing is based upon Christ's atonement not the replacement of Christ's atonement or the equililent of Christ's atonement:

1 Jn. 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.... 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you will reexamine the Greet text you will see it is not the "present" tense but rather the SUBJUNCTIVE AORIST tense.

I did examine the text and the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present tense."

At the present time the Lord Jesus is making atonement for the sins of His people.

The cross is the place where the blood was offered but it is the offering up of a spotless/sinless life that qualifies it to be offered as an atonement. The writer of hebrews is looking at his life in the flesh as suitable for making that atonement on the cross.

The life in the flesh did not make atonement. It was only His death that could do that and the "atonement" which He performs now is to cleansing us from our sins which we commit once we are saved:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

The Greek word translated "cleanseth" is in the "present" tense.

The priests, especially the high Preist were types of Christ.

Yes, and the "type" pictures the Lord Jesus as High Priest doing the same thing which they did in regard to atonement":

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

In both instances the atonement was only for those who were already redeemed by blood (both in "type" and "antitype").

The sins of His people separates them from Him:

"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa.59:2).

It is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ as High Priest which brings us back together with Him, and that is exactly what the word means:

AT-ONE-MENT.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did examine the text and the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the "present tense."-

I am sorry, you are correct. I looked at the previous phrase instead of that phrase. My apologies.

At the present time the Lord Jesus is making atonement for the sins of His people.

Heb.2:17 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.

The phrase "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" is a purpose clause that modifies the aorist subjunctive phrase "might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God." It merely states the intended purpose for being made like unto his brethren during his earthly ministry rather than the time of the atonement.

This text does not deal with the time of the atonement but only the means and purpose of the atonement. In regard to the time of the atonment the same writer makes it abundantly clear that it occurred at the cross by one offering and it was accomplished at that point in time:

Heb. 9:12 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.

Heb. 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The life in the flesh did not make atonement.

I did not say that. I said that his life in the flesh is what qualified his death to be a suitable atonement for sin. The shedding of his blood was representative of the qualifications of his life that satisfied God's law of righteousness and the law's penalty against sin.

It was only His death that could do that and the "atonement" which He performs now is to cleansing us from our sins which we commit once we are saved:

You are confusing when the atonement was made versus when the atonement is applied. It was made at Calvary. It is being applied to each of his elect in time and space. 1 John 1:7,9 is the application whereas 1 Jn. 2:2 refers to the provision made by Christ.

Yes, and the "type" pictures the Lord Jesus as High Priest doing the same thing which they did in regard to atonement":

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

In both instances the atonement was only for those who were already redeemed by blood (both in "type" and "antitype").

You are confusing the day of atonement which typifies the cross and the completed work of atonement with the daily sacrifices that typify the application of the atonement on a daily basis.

The difference is like being washed but once but the need of your hands and feet being washed daily (Jn. 13:10). Sin breaks fellowship on a daily basis but does not break relationship because chastening is for children (not enemies) who fail to daily cleanse themselves.

The sins of His people separates them from Him:

"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa.59:2).

Do you have children? When they rebell against your wishes what ceases when they are not repentant? Your fellowship with them or your relationship with them. What does 1 John 1:7 say is maintained by daily cleansing? Your relationship with God or your fellowship with God?

1 Jn. 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,


In verse 3 does "fellowship" mean you are RELATED to the apostles? Does what they declare to saved persons obtain any RELATIONSHIP with the apostles or provides "fellowship" with the Apostles.

Hebrews 12:5-10 demonstrates that sin breaks fellowship but not relationship as they are still "children" of God when they are in sin unconfessed. So sin does not break their relationship with God only their fellowship.

If sin actually broke the relationship with God then they would cease being related to him spirituallly as children and have to be resaved, reborn again every time they sinned or failed to repent of sin! Howeve, that is not the case becuase chastening is God's response to HIS CHILDREN who fail to repent of sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I am sorry, you are correct. I looked at the previous phrase instead of that phrase. My apologies.

Your apology is accepted.

This text does not deal with the time of the atonement but only the means and purpose of the atonement.

You whole argument depends on that idea. However, if the time of the atonement spoken of in the verse does not speak of the "present" time then why does the author of the book of Hebrews put the Greek word translated "make atonement for" in the "present" tense?

In regard to the time of the atonment the same writer makes it abundantly clear that it occurred at the cross by one offering and it was accomplished at that point in time:

Heb. 9:12 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.

The Lord Jesus did not become a Priest while He was on the earth so His work as High Priest cannot possibly be in reference to the Cross which happened on the earth:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

You are confusing when the atonement was made versus when the atonement is applied. It was made at Calvary. It is being applied to each of his elect in time and space. 1 John 1:7,9 is the application whereas 1 Jn. 2:2 refers to the provision made by Christ.

No, John's first epistle is written to those who are already saved and have already been redeemed. And he tells them that confessing their sins will result in those sins being taken away and being cleaned from the defilement which their sins cause:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

This cleansing is not something that happened in the past when they were saved but instead nat the time when they confess their sins. And here we see exactly how those who are already redeemed are cleansed:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

The Greek word translated "cleanseth" is in the "present" tense. Therefore the reference is to gthings in regard to those already saved. Otherwise the author of Hebrews would not use the present" tense.

You are confusing the day of atonement which typifies the cross and the completed work of atonement with the daily sacrifices that typify the application of the atonement on a daily basis.

No, the day of atonement was for those who were already redeemed by the blood (in "type"). So the work of the priest on that day was only in regard to "cleansing" and not redemption:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

The difference is like being washed but once but the need of your hands and feet being washed daily (Jn. 13:10). Sin breaks fellowship on a daily basis but does not break relationship because chastening is for children (not enemies) who fail to daily cleanse themselves.

In verse 3 does "fellowship" mean you are RELATED to the apostles? Does what they declare to saved persons obtain any RELATIONSHIP with the apostles or provides "fellowship" with the Apostles.

That has nothing to do with anything. The point is that unconfessed sin results in a loss of fellowship with the Lord and that fellowship will not be restored until a person is cleansed from the defilement which unconfessed sin causes.

You do not really think that a Christian can have fellowship with a HOLY Jesus Christ while he remains defiled from his sins, do you?

If sin actually broke the relationship with God then they would cease being related to him spirituallly as children and have to be resaved, reborn again every time they sinned or failed to repent of sin! Howeve, that is not the case becuase chastening is God's response to HIS CHILDREN who fail to repent of sin.

I never said that defilement breaks our relationship as children of God but sin does separate Him from defiled people. And it is not until when the Lord Jesus cleans us from all sin that we are restored to fellowship with Him and that is exactly the meaning of the word under discussion:

AT-ONE-MENT

 

[Gup20]

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.​

I would assume you wouldn't argue that the word "atonement" in the above passage refers to the traditional meaning of atonement that you understand. It should be pointed out, however, that this is the Greek word katallagē.

In the passage in Hebrews 2 it says:

Hbr 2:17 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.​

Where did the word "atonement" go? This is the KJV which uses the word "reconciliation". The Greek word is hilaskomai. It is a completely different word from "atonement."

You should always have your Greek available when using the NIV. The NIV uses a "modern equivalent" type of translation rather than a literal translation. You can see how this method can lead to confusion.

 

[The Biblicist]

You whole argument depends on that idea. However, if the time of the atonement spoken of in the verse does not speak of the "present" time then why does the author of the book of Hebrews put the Greek word translated "make atonement for" in the "present" tense?

However, the text does not address the time of completion in this text. He addresses the means and purpose. The present tense phrase identifies the purpose as a purpose clause.

The time of completion is addressed in Hebrews 9:12; 10:10-14. By the way, verses 10-14 do demand he acted as the High Preist at the cross in offering up his own body. Hebrews 8:4 is dealing with his presence in heaven after already having offered up his body and finished his work as High Preist on earth at the cross.

No, John's first epistle is written to those who are already saved and have already been redeemed. And he tells them that confessing their sins will result in those sins being taken away and being cleaned from the defilement which their sins cause:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

This cleansing is not something that happened in the past when they were saved but instead nat the time when they confess their sins. And here we see exactly how those who are already redeemed are cleansed:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

The Greek word translated "cleanseth" is in the "present" tense. Therefore the reference is to gthings in regard to those already saved. Otherwise the author of Hebrews would not use the present" tense.

You are simply building a straw man and then burning it. I never argued they were sins of the past. I simply argued that present cleansing is based upon the past provision of Christ at the cross (1 Jn. 2:2). I simply argued that there is a difference between the atonement provided and the atonement BEING applied in time and space.

No, the day of atonement was for those who were already redeemed by the blood (in "type"). So the work of the priest on that day was only in regard to "cleansing" and not redemption:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

So you see no typological distinction between the day of atonement that occurred once a year and the daily sin and tresspass offerings??? That is the difference between having finished his work "BY ONE OFFERING FOREVER" at Calvary (Heb. 10:10-14) and the DAILY application in regard to our daily life.

That has nothing to do with anything. The point is that unconfessed sin results in a loss of fellowship with the Lord and that fellowship will not be restored until a person is cleansed from the defilement which unconfessed sin causes.

You do not really think that a Christian can have fellowship with a HOLY Jesus Christ while he remains defiled from his sins, do you?

So you make no distinction between fellowship and relationship as God's children?? Then why do you go on to say:

I never said that defilement breaks our relationship as children of God but sin does separate Him from defiled people. And it is not until when the Lord Jesus cleans us from all sin that we are restored to fellowship with Him and that is exactly the meaning of the word under discussion

So, what does sin break? Fellowship or Relationship? I never argued that sin did not break fellowship. I only argued that sin did not break relationship because even in sin they are still God's children (Heb. 12:5-10). However, for those who confess their sins, fellowship is restored but for those who do not, chastening is the consequence.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
​

I would assume you wouldn't argue that the word "atonement" in the above passage refers to the traditional meaning of atonement that you understand. It should be pointed out, however, that this is the Greek word katallagē.

In the passage in Hebrews 2 it says:

Hbr 2:17 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.
​

Where did the word "atonement" go? This is the KJV which uses the word "reconciliation". The Greek word is hilaskomai. It is a completely different word from "atonement."

Gup20, in the Septuaigint (LXX), the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word hilaskomais is from the family of Greek words that relate to the Day of Atonement. In the LXX the Greek word hilasmos appears at Numbers 5:8 in the expression "ram of the atonement."

On the Day of Atonement the hilasmos was the one of the two goats which was sacrificed. The Greek word hilaskomai is the verb form of this word, and it means "to make propitiation for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon) and hilasterion is "the mercy seat" where the blood of the atoning sacrifice was sprinkled. All these words have the same stem (hilas) and they all relate to the events of the Day of Atonement.

So the correct translation is as follows:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

This cannot possibly be referring to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross because we can see that it was in His role as High Priest that atonement is being made. And while on the earth He was never a High Priest:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

You should always have your Greek available when using the NIV. The NIV uses a "modern equivalent" type of translation rather than a literal translation. You can see how this method can lead to confusion.

What has lead to confusion is the faulty translation found in the KJV.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

However, the text does not address the time of completion in this text. He addresses the means and purpose. The present tense phrase identifies the purpose as a purpose clause.

Yes, and the purpose is in regard to something that is happening at the "present" time--not something that happened in the past.

The time of completion is addressed in Hebrews 9:12; 10:10-14. By the way, verses 10-14 do demand he acted as the High Preist at the cross in offering up his own body. Hebrews 8:4 is dealing with his presence in heaven after already having offered up his body and finished his work as High Preist on earth at the cross.

The verses which you mention do not demand that the Lord Jesus acted as the High Priest at the Cross. In fact, you failed to sddress the following verse which I quoted to prove otherwise:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

You are simply building a straw man and then burning it. I never argued they were sins of the past. I simply argued that present cleansing is based upon the past provision of Christ at the cross (1 Jn. 2:2). I simply argued that there is a difference between the atonement provided and the atonement BEING applied in time and space.

According to your idea that the atonement refers to 'redemption" then the benefit of it is realized at the very moment a person believes the gospel. But the verses which I quoted are in regard to a time after that redemption:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

You admit that the Lord Jesus is the "antitype" of the priest mentioned here:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

The work of the priest there is in regard to "cleansing" from sin and that is exactly what is being referred to here:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

So you see no typological distinction between the day of atonement that occurred once a year and the daily sin and tresspass offerings??? That is the difference between having finished his work "BY ONE OFFERING FOREVER" at Calvary (Heb. 10:10-14) and the DAILY application in regard to our daily life.

The verses from the 10th chapter of the book of Hebrews refers to the Christian's "standing," and it is mentioned here:

"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (Col.3:1-3).

The daily application of being cleansed from our sins is in regard to our actual "state" or "walk."

So, what does sin break? Fellowship or Relationship?

I have already said that it is our "fellowship." Here are my words again:

The point is that unconfessed sin results in a loss of fellowship with the Lord and that fellowship will not be restored until a person is cleansed from the defilement which unconfessed sin causes.

You do not really think that a Christian can have fellowship with a HOLY Jesus Christ while he remains defiled from his sins, do you?

It is not until when the Lord Jesus cleans us from all sin that we are restored to fellowship with Him and that is exactly the meaning of the word under discussion:

AT-ONE-MENT

 

[Gup20]

What has lead to confusion is the faulty translation found in the KJV.

KJV - reconciliation
NKJV - propitiation
NLT - sacrifice
NASB - propitiation
NIV - atonement
ESV - propitiation
RSV - expiation
ASV - propitiation
YLT - propitiation
DBY - propitiation
WEB - reconciliation


Atonement appears to be in the minority.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Atonement appears to be in the minority.

So are we to determine our doctrine by the view of the majority?

And why should we believe that the work of the Lord Jesus in His role as High Priest is in regard to his work at the Cross since He was not a High Priest at the Cross?:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

You also said nothing about these facts:

In the Septuaigint (LXX), the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word hilaskomais is from the family of Greek words that relate to the Day of Atonement. In the LXX the Greek word hilasmos appears at Numbers 5:8 in the expression "ram of the atonement."

On the Day of Atonement the hilasmos was the one of the two goats which was sacrificed. The Greek word hilaskomai is the verb form of this word, and it means "to make propitiation for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon) and hilasterion is "the mercy seat" where the blood of the atoning sacrifice was sprinkled. All these words have the same stem (hilas) and they all relate to the events of the Day of Atonement.

So the correct translation is as follows:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

we can also understand that the priests in the OT were "types" and therefore they picture Christ in His role as High Priest:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

That is exactly what the Lord Jesus is doing in His role as High Priest today.

 

[The Biblicist]

In fact, you failed to sddress the following verse which I quoted to prove otherwise:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

No, I addressed it but you simply failed to see it or admit it.

The writing of Hebrews was post-ascension not pre-ascension in dating. The writer simply makes the point that if Christ were present on earth right now, at the time he was penning these words, "he should not be a priest" because the preisthood of the temple did not recognize any preist outside the Aaronic Preisthood. Jesus was not a preist after the order of Aaron! Hence, his presence on earth right then would not be accepted in the temple at Jerusalem. Right then there were priests after the order of Aaron offering gifts ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

Sorry, but you are simply distorting this text from its context.

The same is true with the text you quote in chapter two. The context is explaining THE PURPOSE for why Christ came to earth as a man (Heb. 2:7-18). He had to partake of the flesh as a man in order to offer up a suitable sacrifice unto God (Heb. 10:5-9) as High Preist on the cross (Heb. 10:10-12). You cannot deny that Hebrew 10:10-12 has reference to his work on the cross "BY ONE SACRIFICE as High Preist:

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1. His body was the sacrfice - v. 10
2. It was offered only "ONCE" - v. 10
3. It was offered by "THIS MAN..HE HAD OFFERED" - v. 12
4. It was offered only "ONCE" -v. 12
5. It was offered by this man once BEFORE he sat down by God in heaven - v. 12

He is both the offering and the offerer according to these verses and what he offered was done only ONCE not "continually."

According to your idea that the atonement refers to 'redemption" then the benefit of it is realized at the very moment a person believes the gospel.

No, I do not! I simply distinguish between things that differ. The atonement sacrificial offering was offered but "ONCE" before he sat down on the right hand of God. However, the APPLICATION of that "ONCE" completed offering/atonement is BEING applied to his people in time and space.

So, I distinguish between what the atonement IS versus what is the APPLICATION of the atonement. You confuse the atonement with its application.

But the verses which I quoted are in regard to a time after that redemption:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

Sure these verse refer to after the atonement sacrifice on the cross because they are the consequences of APPLICATION of the atonement provided by Christ on the cross as the continuing reading of this context demands in 1 Jn. 2:2! The atonement of Christ is the past tense completed action on the cross BASIS for the present tense APPLICATION found in 1 John 1:7-10.

It is simply a difference of what is the atonement vesus what is the application of the atonement. Hebrews 9:12; 10:10-12 proves the atonement was finished on the cross PRIOR to his ascension and that Christ was both the OFFERING and the OFFERER.

You admit that the Lord Jesus is the "antitype" of the priest mentioned here:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

This is the type of the antitype spelled out in clear English for you in Hebrews 10:5-12 - It is was performed only ONCE per year as the antitype in Hebrews 10:10-12 was performed "ONCE FOR ALL" and finished before He sat down on the right hand of God.


You are confusing what is the Atonement with what is the application of the atonement in regard to both the type and antitype.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The writer simply makes the point that if Christ were present on earth right now, at the time he was penning these words, "he should not be a priest" because the preisthood of the temple did not recognize any preist outside the Aaronic Preisthood.

The same holds true when the Lord Jesus walked the earth. Even then "he should not be a priest" because the preisthood of the temple did not recognize any preist outside the Aaronic Preisthood.

But you say that He was a High Priest when He walked the earth even though He is of the tribe of Judah and the Law did not recognize anyone as a priest who was not of the tribe of Levi.

Here the author of Hebrews tells us exactly "when" the Lord Jesus began to fulfill His role as High Priest:

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation" (Heb.9:11; NASB).

He began His role as High Priest when "He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle," and that tabernacle is the "heavenly" one (Heb.9:24).

You cannot deny that Hebrew 10:10-12 has reference to his work on the cross "BY ONE SACRIFICE as High Preist:

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

You are confusing the "types". Here is the "type" that pictures the Lord Jesus' role as High Priest:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

And here is the antitype:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

These verses are referring to making atonement for a people who were already redeemed by the blood. The following verse is referring to the "type" which is in regard to the sacrifice of Christ and is in regard to providing for redemption:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor.5:7).

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.1:18-19).

You are confusing what is the Atonement with what is the application of the atonement in regard to both the type and antitype.

It is you who cannot distinguish between the "type" which pictures the work done by Christ in His role as High Priest for a people who are already redeemed from the "type" which pictures His role as the Passover Lamb which brings redemption.

 

[The Biblicist]

The same holds true when the Lord Jesus walked the earth. Even then "he should not be a priest" because the preisthood of the temple did not recognize any preist outside the Aaronic Preisthood.

But you say that He was a High Priest when He walked the earth even though He is of the tribe of Judah and the Law did not recognize anyone as a priest who was not of the tribe of Levi.

However, the point is, your text is not proof text for your point at all.

He is the High Preist after the order of Melchizedek. He never was a preist after the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek was a KING/HIGH PREIST while ON EARTH!

Here the author of Hebrews tells us exactly "when" the Lord Jesus began to fulfill His role as High Priest:

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation" (Heb.9:11; NASB).

He began His role as High Priest when "He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle," and that tabernacle is the "heavenly" one (Heb.9:24).

Don't you recall that the tabernacle on earth is patterned after the one in heaven? The High Priest would offer up the sacrifice in the OUTER COURT before he entered into the holy of holies and placed it on the altar lid.

Hebrews 10:10-12 explicitly teach that Christ offered His body on earth at the cross BEFORE entering into the holiest in heaven

You are confusing the "types". Here is the "type" that pictures the Lord Jesus' role as High Priest:

The idea that Jesus is a "TYPE" in Hebrews 10:10-12 is so ludricrous that it is hardly worth responding to. Are you being funny???? Jesus is NEVER a type of anything in the Old Testament preisthood but the very reverse.

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

And here is the antitype:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

Your interpretation is so messed up it hardly deserves attention!!! You cannot reverse type and typology just to get yourself out of false interpretation!!! Jesus Christ has never been and will never be a "TYPE" of anything under Mosaic law. Look at Hebrews 10:1-4!! The "shadows" or types are found under the law not in Christ!!!! Look at Colossians 2:16. Christ is the antitype not the type of the tabernalce, offerings, priesthood! Pleeeeeeese be serious!

These verses are referring to making atonement for a people who were already redeemed by the blood. The following verse is referring to the "type" which is in regard to the sacrifice of Christ and is in regard to providing for redemption:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor.5:7).

The bread is a TYPE and Christ is the ANTITYPE not the reverse!

Sorry, but you thinking and applications of scripture are totally irrational and contrary to the whole tenor of Biblical types and antitypes.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is the High Preist after the order of Melchizedek. He never was a preist after the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek was a KING/HIGH PREIST while ON EARTH!

The priesthood of Melchisedec had nothing to do with offering sacrifices for sin but according to your ideas that is exactly what the Pristhood of the Lord Jesus was about.

Don't you recall that the tabernacle on earth is patterned after the one in heaven? The High Priest would offer up the sacrifice in the OUTER COURT before he entered into the holy of holies and placed it on the altar lid.

There is nothing in the scriptures which even hints that any "outer court" of the heavenly tabernacle is on earth.

The idea that Jesus is a "TYPE" in Hebrews 10:10-12 is so ludricrous that it is hardly worth responding to. Are you being funny???? Jesus is NEVER a type of anything in the Old Testament preisthood but the very reverse. Your interpretation is so messed up it hardly deserves attention!!! You cannot reverse type and typology just to get yourself out of false interpretation!!! Jesus Christ has never been and will never be a "TYPE" of anything under Mosaic law. Look at Hebrews 10:1-4!! The "shadows" or types are found under the law not in Christ!!!! Look at Colossians 2:16. Christ is the antitype not the type of the tabernalce, offerings, priesthood! Pleeeeeeese be serious!

You need to be serious and cease from misrepresenting what I said. I never said that the Lord Jesus is a "type."

I will go over this again and perhaps you will finally grasp the truth.

The following is a "type" of the Lord Jesus and a "type" pictures or illustrates certain truths in regard to the "antitype." In this case the "types" are the priests of the earthly tabernacle which the "antitype" of the heavenly tabernacle. Here is the 'type":

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

And here is the antitype:

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

In the "type" the atonement was made for a people zalready redeemed by the blood. And that is the case of the "antitype."

Now let us look at another type, and in this instance the "type" is the passover lambs in Israel. The blood of those lambs sprinkled on the doorposts of the houses spared the firstborn of those houses from death.

The Lord Jesus is the "antitype" of those passover lambs in Israel:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor.5:7).

And it is by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus that believers are sanctified and redeemed:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.1:18-19).

If you cannot tell the difference between the these two different "types" and their "antitypes" then I do not think that you will ever come to the knowledge of the truth.

The first "type" and "antitype" which I presented were only for a redeemed people.

The second "type" and "antitype" which I presented are in regard to how a people become redeemed.

 

[The Biblicist]

The priesthood of Melchisedec had nothing to do with offering sacrifices for sin but according to your ideas that is exactly what the Pristhood of the Lord Jesus was about.

Here is where your whole position totally and completely collapses. The whole Preistly ministry of Jesus Christ has to do with the Melchezidek Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood was the TYPE but the fullment of the PREISTLY ministry of Christ has to do with the Melchezidek Kingly High Preisthood. Christ has no other PREISTHOOD as he comes from the tribe of Judah not Levi!

This is the whole argument of Hebrews 7-10! Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic TYPE after the order of a KINGLY PRIESTHOOD that does not arise out of Levi.

Heb. 7:11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

As the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec He acted as a High Priest in offering his own body as a sacrifice for sin:

Heb. 8:27 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.

Look at the context of Heb. 7:27 both before and after and you will see it is Christ as a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec that is being described. Note also the bold part of Hebrew 7:27 is repeated again in Hebrews 10:10-12 which you say is only TYPICAL of Christ but here it confirms it is NOT TYPICAL but LITERAL of Christ. As a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec He offered up His own body for the sins of his people:

Heb. 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

However, if he were on earth he could not make this offer in the temple at Jerusalem because he is not after the order of Aaron (v. 4) so it was not offered in the temple at Jerusalem but on the cross outside the temple and then brought into the temple in heaven and offered:

Heb. 9:12 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.

The words "having obtained eternal redemption" refers to the cross before he ascended into the temple in heaven. The absolute proof of this is what is offered in the temple in heaven is his "blood" shed on the cross. The the sacrifice and shedding of blood occurred on earth but presented in the holy place in heaven:

Heb. 9:14 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?

Heb. 9:26 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.

Again, acting as High Priest after the order of Melchezidec ON EARTH he "appeared to put away sin by THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF." Not in heaven but on earth he "appeared."

Heb. 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Again, acting as the High Priest after the order of Melchezidec HE OFFERED HIS BODY as the sacrifice for sin - hence He is the offerer and the offering. He did it ONCE and "AFTER" doing it on the cross he "entered" into heaven and sat down.

The following is a "type" of the Lord Jesus and a "type" pictures or illustrates certain truths in regard to the "antitype." In this case the "types" are the priests of the earthly tabernacle which the "antitype" of the heavenly tabernacle.

Read Hebrews 10:5 and verses 5 and 8 and ask yourself this question - "when and why did God prepare him a body"?

1. When he came to heaven or for entering heaven?

2. Why was this body given him? For entering heaven or for a sacrifice on the cross?

3. Where was this body sacrificed so blood was shed? On the cross or in heaven?

There is no TYPE presented in Hebrews 10:10-12 but FACTS of what He actually did as the High Priest after the order of Melchezidec:

Heb. 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

QUESTIONS:

1. Verse 10 - are we TYPICALLY sanctified or literally through the offering of His body??
2. Verse 10 - Did he TYPICALLY or literally offer his body?
3. Verse 12 - Did he TYPICALLY offered one sacrifice for sins or literally offered one sacrifice for sins?
4. Verse 12 - Did he TYPICALLY sat down on the right hand of God or literally sat down on God's right hand???

If you answer TYPICALLY to these questions you are LITERALLY rejecting that Christ offered his body as a sacrifice for sins.

HE offered the sacrifice - HIGH PRIEST
He offered HIS BODY as the sacrifice - SACRIFCE

The whole preceding context from hebrews 7:1 to Hebrews 10:18 proves he acted as the High Priest after the Order of Melchezidec on the cross offering his body as a sacrifice shedding its blood!

He did not shed any blood in heaven!!!!

Here is the 'type":

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

It was ONE sacrifice done ONCE a year by the HIGH PRIEST when he could go but ONE day a year into the holy of holies. This is not the REPEATED daily sacrifice where the High Preist never went into the holy of holies. The antitype is Hebrews 10:10-12,14

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God....
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In regard to the rest that you write, you confuse the COMPLETED atonement with the INCOMPLETED application of the atonement.

However, if you cannot refute the evidence I have given between Hebrews 7-10 in regard to Christ's HIGH PREISTHOOD after the order of Melechezidec in providing a BLOOD SACRIFICE for our sins ON EARTH and presenting it in the temple in heaven then your whole theory crumbles. What happened ON EARTH (blood sacrifice) is the provision while what happens IN HEAVEN is the application of blood sacrifice. You deny this distinction but confuse them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here is where your whole position totally and completely collapses. The whole Preistly ministry of Jesus Christ has to do with the Melchezidek Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood was the TYPE but the fullment of the PREISTLY ministry of Christ has to do with the Melchezidek Kingly High Preisthood. Christ has no other PREISTHOOD as he comes from the tribe of Judah not Levi!

You failed to address the fact that the Melchezidek Priesthood had nothing to do with offering sacrifices even though you say the following:

As the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec He acted as a High Priest in offering his own body as a sacrifice for sin:

Heb. 8:27 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.

The "type" which pictures Christ there is the Aaronic Priesthood:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

It was the Aaronic Priesthood which offered up sacrifices for the people. The Melchisedec Priesthood had nothing to do with offering sacrifices.

As a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec He offered up His own body for the sins of his people:

Heb. 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

You fail to understand that the reference here is in regard to the heavenly tabernacle so the things mentioned there are not in regard to things which happened on the earth:

"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. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:1-4).

These verses scream out that the Lord Jesus' ministry as High Priest is not on the earth but instead it is in heaven. But you quote Hebrews 8:3 out of its context.

The words "having obtained eternal redemption" refers to the cross before he ascended into the temple in heaven.

Yes, but He was not the High Priest until He entered into the heavenly tabernacle:

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation" (Heb.9:11; NASB).

Let us look at the following verse and we can understand that the Lord esus' role in making atonement is something that is happening NOW and not something that happened in the past at the Cross:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

Here the words "make atonement for" are in the "present" tense. If the author of Hebrews was referring to something that had happened in the past then he certainly would not have used the "present" tense. Here is a defintion of that tense:

"The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense" (The Blue Letter Bible).

You have said nothing yet that makes sense as to why the author of Hebrews would use the "present" tense there if he was referring to something that happen in the past.

Also, you fail to understand that the Melchezidek Priesthood had nothing to do with offering sacrifices. You have not given a reasonable answer as to why anyone should believe that while on earth the Lord Jesus was a Priest despite the evidence to the contrary:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

You say that He was a Priest while He was on earth.

 

[The Biblicist]

You failed to address the fact that the Melchezidek Priesthood had nothing to do with offering sacrifices even though you say the following:

Are you serious????? Are you going to reject the explicit statements quoted in Hebrews 7-10 that explicitly state that Jesus as our High Priest after the order of Melchezidec did in fact offer up his own body as a bloody sacrifice for our sins????????????????? Are you calling the writer of Hebrews a liar??? You must be calling him a liar because he explicitly and clearly and repeatedly stated several times that Christ is a High Priest after the order of Melchezidec and as such a Preist he did in fact offer up his own body as a bloody sacrifice. So don't tell me that the order of the Melchezidec Preisthood does not offer up sacrifices!!!


The Aaronic Preisthood was the TYPE but the Melchezidek High Priesthood is the antitype!

I can't help you if you simply call the writer of Hebrews a liar!


1. Christ's Priesthood is after Melchezidec:

Heb. 7:11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

2. Christ as our HIGH PREIST according to the Melchezidec order offered one sacrifice:

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
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.

Heb. 9:11 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;
12 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.

14 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?

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 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.


So don't tell me his not a High Priest after the order of Melchezidec and don't tell me as that High Priest he did not offer himself as a bloody sacrifice for our sins! Don't tell me that bloody sacrifice occurred in heaven!

Your problem is not only that you contradict the explicit words of the writer of Hebrews but you have no concept of the text you keep jerking out of context and misinterpreting:


"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).

Look at the preceding and following context of this verse! His argument is simple. Since his preisthood does not originate with Levi, but since it does originate with the order after Melchezidec, if he were PRESENTLY on earth he could not enter the temple at Jerusalem because that is for priests after the order of Levi! Hence, in that temple he could neither make the sacrifice at the brazen altar NOR bring its blood into the holiest of holies.

However, since he is not after the order of Levi, He can after the order of Melchezidec act as our HIGH PRIEST and present his body on the cross as the bloody sacrifice for our sins and then bring that blood (representative of his holy life) into the holy of holies in heaven and present it to God as a completed redemption for his people and therefore the basis to apply it to his people.

The next thing you do not understand is that that earthly temple with its AARONIC PRIESTHOOD is patterned after heavenly temple and the MELCHEZIDEC PRIESTHOOD and so the Aaronic is the TYPE and the Melchezidec is the ANTI-TYPE!