Christ’s Death is Better Than Atonement

Christ’s death was not an atonement and the New Testament never speaks of it this way. The blood of bulls and goats covered sin, but those sacrifices had to continually be offered because atonement wasn’t enough.

Christ died once and He did not cover sins, He removed them. The classic text to grasp this distinction is Hebrews 10. Here are the highlights:

10:1–those sacrifices can never make the comers thereunto perfect
10:4–it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins
10:6–God had no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifice
10:10–we are sanctified by the body of Christ once for all
10:12–Christ offered His body one time as a sacrifice for sin
10:14–by one sacrifice He perfected forever those that are sanctified
10:17–God will not remember sins and iniquities any more
10:18–where remission of sins is there is no more sacrifice

Christ’s death is not an atonement, it is a removal of sin, which is completely different and, in fact, the whole point of Hebrews 10! We are placed in Christ, sanctified to Him, and are thus free from sin as He is.

The fact that we go on calling His death “Substitutionary Atonement” is merely one more example of theology gone bad. Words mean things. Why do we use a word to describe Christ’s death that the Bible does not use in that context and goes to great lengths to prove is way better than that word?!

We need to think rightly. To understand God, we must understand Him according to what He has revealed of Himself. Don’t mess with what has been revealed.

4 thoughts on “Christ’s Death is Better Than Atonement”

  1. We know that Christ died for those who would repent and believe but he also died for God. The blood of animals could not satisfy the wrath of God, the blood of man could not satisfy the wrath of God, only the blood of the Son could please the Father.
    “Jesus’ blood “propitiated” or satisfied God’s wrath (1:18), so that his holiness was not compromised in forgiving sinners. Some scholars have argued that the word propitiation should be translated expiation (the wiping away of sin), but the word cannot be restricted to the wiping away of sins as it also refers to the satisfaction or appeasement of God’s wrath, turning it to favor (cf. note on John 18:11). God’s righteous anger needed to be appeased before sin could be forgiven, and God in his love sent his Son (who offered himself willingly) to satisfy God’s holy anger against sin. In this way God demonstrated his righteousness, which here refers particularly to his holiness and justice. God’s justice was called into question because in his patience he had overlooked former sins. In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners. In the OT, propitiation (or the complete satisfaction of the wrath of God) is symbolically foreshadowed in several incidents: e.g., Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 25:8, 11; Josh. 7:25–26.” Taken from the ESV study Bible

  2. Question: where is it stated that Christ appeased God’s wrath/anger? AS i understand it, that idea is that GOd is angry over sin and wants to kill humans, but Christ stepped in, an innocent man, and God was so full of anger He’d beat anyone to release His anger, even an innocent man. Is that the idea, because that’s what it sounds like to me.

    Christ obviously did not take all of God’s wrath because there’s still hell. Even if it’s stated that the cup he drank was God’s wrath, there’s still wrath being poured out of a cup in Revelation, so he didn’t take all of it. Furthermore, Jesus also told the disciples they’d drink the same cup (Matthew 20:22,23), so that casts doubt as to wrath being in the cup anyway.

    Anyway, I’ve got questions about that oft stated idea.

  3. Christ took all of Gods wrath for those who would be saved,,. John 3:18. He did not die for the ones who would not believe, would you agree?1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

    If there is some wrath left for believers then they have no hope and Christ did not complete his work. He drank the WHOLE cup of Gods wrath and it pleased the Father to crush him on that cross.Isaiah 53:5-6 Because it was our sins being crushed upon that cross.Christ satisfied God’s wrath for all those who would be born again. God was satisfied. Christ pleased the Father completely.
    As far as Mathew 20:22,23 goes, Matt. You. The plural pronoun indicates that Jesus addressed the mother and the brothers directly. The cup in Scripture is symbolic of one’s divinely determined destiny, whether blessing (Ps. 16:5) or disaster (Jer. 25:15), salvation (Ps. 116:13) or wrath (Isa. 51:17). Here it refers to Jesus’ forthcoming suffering (Matt. 26:39).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: