Tag Archives: Atonement

Why Are Old Testament Sacrifices Incapable of Completely Dealing with Sin? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Although virtually no Christians advocate a return to the sacrifices enumerated in the Law, especially in the Book of Leviticus, we should still ask ourselves why this system was not sufficient to completely deal with the sins of mankind.

Duane Lindsey provides a very helpful explanation of the issues in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Lindsey first notes that the sacrifices did accomplish something. Atonement for sins is mentioned several times in Leviticus. According to Lindsey,

[S]acrificial atonement involved the actual removal of the guilt and punishment for the particular sin(s) involved. The broad scope of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement . . . extended this principle to include “all the people” (Lev 16:33) and “all their sins” (v. 22), that is, “all the sins of the Israelites” (v. 34). The complete forgiveness of the Israelites’ sins for the past year is further described in terms of cleansing from sin in verse 30.

But Lindsey notes that there were several limitations of these sacrifices that made them unable to finally and completely deal with mankind’s sin problem.

First, the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy. Since empty ritualism was never an acceptable option to God, a truly acceptable sacrifice must have been prompted by genuine faith and moral obedience to the revealed will of God (26:14–45, esp. v. 31; Pss. 40:6–8; 51:16–17; Prov. 21:27; Amos 5:21–24; Heb. 10:5–10; 11:4, 6).

Sacrifices that were not brought in faith were perhaps sufficient at times for restoring ceremonial cleanness and meeting civil requirements (e.g., the restitution connected with the guilt offering), but did not really please God because they were empty formality. . . .

Second, with the possible exception of the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins. Theologically they did not atone for the sin nature, or for the imputed sin of Adam. Nor did they even include willful acts of sin which were committed in defiance of God (cf. Num. 15:30–31, and comments on Lev. 4:1–2). Therefore Levitical sacrifice was not a complete and final scheme whereby all forms of sin could be removed.

It was mainly concerned with sins of ignorance, accident, carelessness, and omission, including sins of ritual defilement and misdemeanors that violated property rights. Sins for which there was no individual sacrifice were those done in defiance of the Lord and His commands—willful violations of the Ten Commandments (except minor violations of the eighth and ninth commands), willful disregard for ceremonial regulations, and any other violations of covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord. Such sins could be immediately forgiven only on the basis of unqualified grace in response to faith and repentance (cf. Pss. 32; 51). Otherwise they awaited the cleansing of the Day of Atonement ritual.

We’ll look at three more limitations of the Levitical sacrifices in part 2.

What Is the Eastern Orthodox View of the Atonement?

Post Author: Darrell

Many of those in the Protestant and Catholic traditions are familiar with the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement (hereafter referred to as Substitutionary Atonement).  However, I have found many to be unfamiliar with the predominant atonement view held by those in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is commonly called The Recapitulation Theory.

The Recapitulation Theory dates to very early in the Church.  Many believe it had its beginnings with Saint Irenaeus in the second century.  We find it throughout the writings of the early Church Fathers.   Saint Athanasius, the giant of the Nicaean Council, wrote a wonderful book in AD 318 which explains the overall view very well.  It is titled On The Incarnation and was originally written as a letter to one of his disciples.

Substitutionary Atonement focuses on Christ’s suffering and death as the price for man’s sin.  In many ways, the model for Substitutionary Atonement is a courtroom.  Due to his sin, man needed to be made right with a perfect and just God.  Therefore, Christ came to suffer and pay the price in our place, i.e., He substituted Himself for us.  Now, in the courtroom of God, those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior are judged innocent.  They have a forensic righteousness imputed upon them.

The Recapitulation Theory agrees that God needed to deal with man’s sin.  Man was separated from God as a result of the fall and, left to his own devices, was incapable of returning to God.  However, Recapitulation sees the model through which God dealt with man’s sin as a hospital rather than a courtroom.  Instead of viewing the atonement as Christ paying the price for sin in order to satisfy a wrathful God, Recapitulation teaches that Christ became human to heal mankind by perfectly uniting the human nature to the Divine Nature in His person.  Through the Incarnation, Christ took on human nature, becoming the Second Adam, and entered into every stage of humanity, from infancy to adulthood, uniting it to God.  He then suffered death to enter Hades and destroy it.  After three days, He resurrected and completed His task by destroying death.

By entering each of these stages and remaining perfectly obedient to the Father, Christ recapitulated every aspect of human nature.  He said “Yes” where Adam said “No” and healed what Adam’s actions had damaged.  This enables all of those who are willing to say yes to God to be perfectly united with the Holy Trinity through Christ’s person.  In addition, by destroying death, Christ reversed the consequence of the fall.  Now, all can be resurrected.  Those who choose to live their life in Christ can be perfectly united to the Holy Trinity, receiving the full love of God as Heavenly bliss.  However, those who reject Christ and choose to live their lives chasing after their passions will receive the love of God as hell.

Because of its focus on unification between God and man in the person of Christ, Recapitulation places great importance on the teaching that Christ is both fully man and fully God.  If Christ did not have both natures, He would have been incapable of uniting humanity to divinity, which was the entire purpose of the Incarnation.  As Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said in the fourth century, “That which is not assumed is not healed, but that which is united to God is saved.”  The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ came to the forefront with the third Ecumenical Council in AD 431.  During this council, the Church answered the Nestorian heresy and affirmed Christ’s humanity and divinity and upheld the title of Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary.  By giving Mary this title, the Church believed we would preserve the teaching of the dual nature of Christ.  If Mary is the Mother of God, then, by necessity, Christ truly is God.  In addition, since Mary is both human and Christ’s mother, Christ is also fully human.

Why Do Mormons Hide the Cross? Part 2

In the previous post I spoke about the LDS Church’s aversion to the use of the cross.  Their explanation for this decision is, in my opinion, rather lacking.  I have often wondered if their view of the atonement has any effect upon their decision.  One of the primary differences between LDS and Christian theology surrounds exactly where Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins.  As Christians, we believe the cross played a central role in the atonement.  We approach it with wonder and reverence for it was the instrument by which God chose to redeem mankind.  However, in LDS theology the atonement has been partially removed from the cross and placed in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Some LDS leaders have even gone so far as to assert the Garden of Gethsemane was the principal place of suffering in the atonement.  Here are some quotes by LDS leaders.

“We speak of the passion of Jesus Christ. A great many people have an idea that when he was on the cross, and nails were driven into his hands and feet, that was his great suffering. His great suffering was before he ever was placed upon the cross. It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that the blood oozed from the pores of his body.”  – President Joseph Fielding Smith

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.”  – The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 14)

“His [deep] suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He took upon Himself all the sins of all other mortals…” – James E. Foust, Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice

“…that he suffer the pains of all men, which he did, principally, in Gethsemane, the scene of his great agony.” – Marion G. Romney, The Resurrection of Jesus, Ensign May 1982, 6

Could the LDS aversion to the cross be tied to their view of the atonement?  Why the focus so much on the Garden of Gethsemane?  Nowhere in The Bible does it say the atonement took place principally in Gethsemane.  In fact, when The Bible talks about the atonement it almost always speaks directly of the cross.  In my opinion, the overt focus on the Garden is not only unbiblical it also diverts one’s attention away from the most important part of Christ’s gift to mankind… His work on the cross.  May we always approach it with awe, reverence and wonder!

All praise be to our Savior, God and King Jesus Christ!!

Darrell

Why Do Mormons Hide the Cross? Part 1

In LDS chapels you will typically find paintings commissioned of Mormon artists and in their Temples you will find different symbols, from sunstones to inverted stars.  However, one of the items you will never find displayed is a cross.  On the LDS Church website they provide the following explanation for the absence of the cross.

“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.”

While I respect this explanation, I find it in stark contrast to what The Bible has to say about the cross.  As Christians we rejoice in the cross of our Savior.  For upon it He paid the price for our sins, provided a path to God and made all things new.  Through it He became the mediator of a New Covenant.  The cross represents new life and is the tool by which Christ closed the gap between God and man.  Without His sacrifice upon the cross mankind would be doomed.  The New Testament speaks repeatedly about the wonder and redemptive power of the cross.  Here are few passages which speak of the cross.

 1 Cor 1:18  “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Galations 6:14 “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

Ephesians 2:16  “…and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.”

Colossians 1:20  “…and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Colossians 2:14  “…having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”

Colossians 2:15  “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”

Given the way The Bible speaks of the cross, one can see why Christians display it as a symbol of our faith.  We turn to it with awe and reverence realizing the magnificent sacrifice of our Lord, God and Savior.  I continually marvel at the love of Christ displayed upon the cross as expressed in Romans 5:8.

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

I cannot understand why the LDS Church shys away from the cross yet readily displays pagan symbols upon their Temples… the sun, moon, beehive, hand grip, and inverted stars.  Most of these symbols were carried over into Mormonism from the masons and have occultic significance.  Many amateur Mormon apologists make the argument some of these symbols were adopted into occultic worship after they were placed on the temple.  That is a debatable point but has nothing to do with my argument.  I am simply asking why it is alright to place a symbol which is not even mentioned in scripture upon the temple but it is not okay to place the cross?  The cross is spoken of repeatedly in scripture with awe and reverence yet the pagan symbols are strangely absent from scripture.  There seems to be some disconnect here and their explanation is rather lacking.

Further to my point, some of the past LDS leaders have spoken rather disparagingly about the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity.  Past LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith had this to say.

“We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.”  Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, pp. 17-18.

The problem with Mr. Smith’s criticism…  the cross is spoken of repeatedly by the apostles of Jesus Christ with awe and reverence.  It is the means by which God Himself chose to redeem mankind.  Personally, I am fine with using it as a symbol of my faith and will choose to stay away from the sunstone, moon and inverted star.

In my next post I will talk about how the LDS Church takes the emphasis off of the cross and places it in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Darrell