The Limited Atonement

[Scott Downey]

This article describes the error some people hold onto about the atonement.
A Closer Look: Jesus and Atonement in the Old Testament
Many Christians think atonement in the OT originated with the Mosaic law, but in reality humans recognized their need for atonement long before the time of Moses. When Adam and Eve committed the first sin, they hid from God because they were ashamed (Gn 3:8). Rather than giving them up as hopeless, God initiated a plan of atonement whereby the ruptured fellowship between Himself and humanity could be restored. Our English word "atonement" (at-one-ment) explains well the theology behind such restoration, for it suggests that God and humanity can relationally be "at one" again.
How does atonement work? The first (indirect) OT reference to atonement occurs when God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, an act necessitating the death of a sinless animal and hence the shedding of its blood on their behalf (Gn 3:21). This introduces a theme that runs throughout the Bible: atonement involves an innocent party taking the punishment that was due to a guilty party.

 

[Particular]

EXACTLY - .And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

And this is outside of the Old Covenant (it is prior to the Covenant).

It is right after God made his covenant with Abraham.

Genesis 15:1-21 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

 

[JonC]

The BLOOD Atonement system, shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins and sacrifices came before the Law was given. So what you said earlier is an error, but I dont think see that yet.

Please quote a passage describing the blood atonement system that you are speaking of. I was working off the idea that you were speaking of the Old Covenant, not the fact that people (here we are speaking of non-Jewish ANE persons as it was prior to Israel) offered sacrifices.

 

[Scott Downey]

Please quote a passage describing the blood atonement system that you are speaking of. I was working off the idea that you were speaking of the Old Covenant, not the fact that people (here we are speaking of non-Jewish ANE persons as it was prior to Israel) offered sacrifices.

You came on here saying it only applied after the law was given, thereby attempting to nullify my original post. And I correctly showed you the atonement by blood sacrifice started from the beginning. You need to really consider the error your holding onto about the atonement.

 

[JonC]

It is right after God made his covenant with Abraham.

Genesis 15:1-21 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

The problem is that Paul limits the Old Covenant to the covenant made with Israel through Moses. Insofar as God's covenant with Abraham, this transcends the Old Covenant (read Romans 4 and Romans 9).

To be more specific, both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant belong within the covenant God made with Abraham. A Calvinistic professor from Dallas Seminary once explained it this way - think of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant (and covenants throughout the OT) as spokes in a wheel. The wheel itself would be expressed as God's covenant with Abraham. We are not under the Old Covenant, but we are still children of the promise and "spiritual children" of Abraham.

 

[JonC]

You came on here saying it only applied after the law was given, thereby attempting to nullify my original post. And I correctly showed you the atonement by blood sacrifice started from the beginning. You need to really consider the error your holding onto about the atonement.

Yes. The sacrifice system existed within the Old Covenant under the Mosaic Law. This does not mean that people did not sacrifice animals (all ANE religions sacrificed animals).

But there is a difference between the "blood sacrifice" you describe of Abraham and a "blood sacrifice" for the atonement of sin.

Please provide the verse you are speaking of when Abraham offered a blood atonement and we can go from there.

 

[InTheLight]

The first (indirect) OT reference to atonement occurs when God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, an act necessitating the death of a sinless animal and hence the shedding of its blood on their behalf (Gn 3:21).

A "sinless animal"? Really?

I looked up Genesis 3:21 and I did not see any reference to the shedding of blood. I do see "the Lord made coats of skin and clothed them." I don't see any killing being mentioned; no blood being shed, etc.

 

[37818]

". . . For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. . . , 1 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. . . ." -- Romans 14:9-11.

 

[Revmitchell]

A "sinless animal"? Really?

I looked up Genesis 3:21 and I did not see any reference to the shedding of blood. I do see "the Lord made coats of skin and clothed them." I don't see any killing being mentioned; no blood being shed, etc.

Can you get coats of skin from something dead?

 

[Particular]

The problem is that Paul limits the Old Covenant to the covenant made with Israel through Moses. Insofar as God's covenant with Abraham, this transcends the Old Covenant (read Romans 4 and Romans 9).

To be more specific, both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant belong within the covenant God made with Abraham. A Calvinistic professor from Dallas Seminary once explained it this way - think of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant (and covenants throughout the OT) as spokes in a wheel. The wheel itself would be expressed as God's covenant with Abraham. We are not under the Old Covenant, but we are still children of the promise and "spiritual children" of Abraham.

Paul does no such thing. Paul certainly compares the Mosaic Law with the New Covenant, but he also talks about being people of the promise, which is directly related to the Abrahamic Covenant and Adamic Covenant. If you understood the professor you would recognize Paul's broader use of covenants.

 

[Scott Downey]

Yes. The sacrifice system existed within the Old Covenant under the Mosaic Law. This does not mean that people did not sacrifice animals (all ANE religions sacrificed animals).

But there is a difference between the "blood sacrifice" you describe of Abraham and a "blood sacrifice" for the atonement of sin.

Please provide the verse you are speaking of when Abraham offered a blood atonement and we can go from there.

You are taking an unsupportable position here about the sacrifices and offerings done in the Old Testament.
The Law simply codified what had before been not written down.
What you believe is until the Law was given there was no establishing a covenantal relationship between man and God, which must include an atonement for forgiveness of sin by sacrificing an animal.
Yet I already linked several examples.
Then we read Abel offered animals for sacrifice to God, and God had acceptance of, regard for those sacrifices, He was pleased. But the non blood offering of Cain was rejected.
And we read Abel was of God and Cain was of the devil.

If there was no forgiveness, then there could not be a relationship between God and a man. The sacrifices always established a relationship as it allowed for an appeasement of wrath, for the soul that sins shall die.

But keep on persisting.

 

[JonC]

You are taking an unsupportable position here about the sacrifices and offerings done in the Old Testament.
The Law simply codified what had before been not written down.
What you believe is until the Law was given there was no establishing a covenantal relationship between man and God, which must include an atonement for forgiveness of sin by sacrificing an animal.
Yet I already linked several examples.
Then we read Abel offered animals for sacrifice to God, and God had acceptance of, regard for those sacrifices, He was pleased. But the non blood offering of Cain was rejected.
And we read Abel was of God and Cain was of the devil.

If there was no forgiveness, then there could not be a relationship between God and a man. The sacrifices always established a relationship as it allowed for an appeasement of wrath, for the soul that sins shall die.

But keep on persisting.

You are taking an unsupportable position here about the sacrifices and offerings done in the Old Testament. God specifically tells Moses that He did not make this covenant with the forefathers' of Israel but made it with those who were alive at that time.

What you want us to do is accept your theories at face value and not scratch the surface. I am not saying that I disagree with your conclusions in terms of atoning sacrifices. I am saying that you are making stuff up and expecting everyone else to just take you at your word because you cannot sustain your position via Scripture.

 

[InTheLight]

Can you get coats of skin from something dead?

Can God "make" coats of skin? Yes. God just got done creating the heavens and the earth. I think he could make coats of skin.

Note: I am not saying God DIDN'T make the coats of skin from a living animal by killing it. I'm saying the text says nothing about an animal sacrifice, blood being shed, etc. It only says that God made coats of skin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Can God "make" coats of skin? Yes. God just got done creating the heavens and the earth. I think he could make coats of skin.

Note: I am not saying God DIDN'T make the coats of skin from a living animal by killing it. I'm saying the text says nothing about an animal sacrifice, blood being shed, etc. It only says that God made coats of skin.

Would have been a blood sacrifice though, as life is in the blood!

 

[Son of Robert]

Scholars are split as to the reason Abel offered an animal as his sacrifice (Gen. 4.4-4). Some believe he did so because he was giving the best he had to offer. Abel was a herdsman, so that is what he had to offer. He selected "the firstborn of his flock—even the fattest of them." Firstborn and fattest = the best Abel had to offer. As he was a farmer, Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground but he did not bring his best. You see the difference in the two sacrifices by the disjunctive clause "But Abel brought..." Other scholars believe Abel's offering was a foreshadowing of the coming Mosaic Law and the need for animal sacrifices. They believe it is in keeping with God making skins of flesh for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3.21). All sin brings death (Jas. 1.15).

What's the right answer? Maybe both. A case can be made that there was a strong inference of the need for a blood sacrifice as a result of sin in Gen. 3 & 4. But a convincing case can be made that Abel's sacrifice was better because it was made in faith.

 

[Iconoclast]

You came on here saying it only applied after the law was given, thereby attempting to nullify my original post. And I correctly showed you the atonement by blood sacrifice started from the beginning. You need to really consider the error your holding onto about the atonement.

From A.W.Pink; Introduction to the atonement;

When we remember that the Atonement is the most important subject which can engage the minds of either men or angels: that it not only secures the eternal happiness of all God's elect, but also gives to the universe the fullest view of the perfections of the Creator:

that in it are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, while by it are revealed the unsearchable fiches of Christ: that through the very Church which has been purchased thereby is being made known to principalities and powers in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10)-then of what supreme moment must it be to understand it aright!

But how is fallen man to apprehend these truths to which his depraved heart is so much opposed? All the force of intellect is less than nothing when it attempts, in its own strength, to comprehend the deep things of God.

Since a man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven (John 3:27), much more is a special enlightenment by the Holy Spirit needed if he is to enter at all into this highest mystery.

 

[Jerome]

Gen 3:21

God had them make their clothing of animal skins: wearing such, rather than robes of linen or wool, was to be a degrading display/reminder of their being vile sinners.
They wanted to cover their naked skin?...well, God had them make their covering of animal skin, to shame them!

 

[Scott Downey]

There is a principle at work here that animal sacrifices point to the future atoning sacrifice of Christ, and that Christ's work and ministry is taught in the Old testament scriptures. It does not matter if they were done after the law was give or before the law was given.

No distinction OT versus OC because we even see Christ prophesied in Gen 3 right after the fall.
Following some posters arguments that every word in scripture has to absolutely name something for it to even be applicable, they would also reject this here being about Christ crushing Satan's head, while Satan bruised Christ on the cross.
So they then know nothing.

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

To some here, then the serpent is just a smart snake that can strangely talk that gets a body modification and diet plan.
And the women has some offspring, could be one or many who like to crush snake heads but the snake get to bite the kids on their heels.

 

[JonC]

There is a principle at work here that animal sacrifices point to the future atoning sacrifice of Christ, and that Christ's work and ministry is taught in the Old testament scriptures. It does not matter if they were done after the law was give or before the law was given.

The problem is that you did not try to link anamal sacrifice with the cross but with limited atonement. You are drifting in your argument.

This is the problem that often occurs when you start with an idea and then go to Scripture to prove it (it is eisegesis, even if the idea is correct).

 

[Iconoclast]

The BLOOD Atonement system, shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins and sacrifices came before the Law was given. So what you said earlier is an error, but I dont think see that yet.

IBId,The Atonement

To what source then can we appeal for light, for understanding, for an explanation and interpretation of the Cross? Human reasoning is futile, speculation is profane, the opinions of men are worthless.