Atonement Requires More than the Death of Jesus

I understand that this can become a charged issue for many Christians and that various Christian traditions over the ages have taught that Jesus’s death by itself was sufficient for atonement. Indeed, I believed similarly until I came across a scholarly work by David Moffitt. When we interact with various biblical data points, we will see that the Bible says something different about our topic. The belief that Jesus’ death was all needed for atonement has much biblical data for it. Here are a few:

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The idea here is that of the sacrificial lamb in Jewish temple rituals. Of course, John would further clarify that this lamb was slain in Revelation 5:6. Together, the verses imply that the slaying of the Lamb equals the taking away of sins.

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. [15] He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Paul says the “record of debt” opposing the Colossians before God was canceled by nailing it to the cross. The idea is substitutionary. God took care of sins by the cross.

Romans 5:6, 8 ESV
[6] For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
[8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Again, Paul reiterates the same message that Jesus’ death has much to do with addressing humanity’s status as “sinners.”

There are other examples one could point to in defence of the traditional understanding that the death of Jesus by itself takes care of the human sin problem. However, a few other passages provide more details that must be accounted for along with the verses above. Consider the following:

1 Corinthians 15:16-17 ESV
[16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

This is a fantastic passage that is often overlooked. 1 Corinthians 15 is believed to be the earliest piece of Christian writing – before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul here defends the resurrection of Jesus and tells his audience, if they were in doubt, to investigate the over 500 people still alive then and who saw the risen Jesus. In the quoted verses above, Paul says the Corinthians (and all of us) are still in our sins and retain the “sinners” status if Jesus did not resurrect. Contrasted with the traditional understanding of atonement, this is a staggering claim. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then he remains forever dead. But if the death of Jesus per se was sufficient for atonement, then the resurrection should not matter. In other words, we should not remain in our sins if Jesus did not rise! Yet, the same Paul who makes the statements to the Colossians and the Romans now tells the Corinthians that there is more to the story.

Furthermore, Paul is not alone on this point. Indeed, one of the central themes of the book of Hebrews has to do with this subject. Consider the following:

Hebrews 7:25 ESV
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

This text says the resurrected Jesus lives to intercede for believers to save them “to the uttermost” or completely. Again, if his death took care of sin, why did he rise only to continuously make intercession for the people who already believed? The implication is that, contrary to a popular claim, the death of Jesus does not cover all sins – past, present, and future.

The penetrating insight Moffitt, a specialist in the book of Hebrews, offers is that we should understand Jesus’s sacrifice in light of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system. When we do, we realize that atonement sacrifices in ancient Judaism were not an event but a process. When a sinner approached the temple for propitiation, he came with an animal (a bull is required for the sin offering, a ram for a burnt offering, and two additional goats for Yom Kippur. See Leviticus 4 and 16). The sinner seeking to be cleansed then lays his hands on the head of the animal in a substitutionary move; his sins are transferred to the animal. Then, the animal is killed in the courtyard/entrance to the tent of the meeting. Here is an important point: the sinner is NOT yet cleansed because the animal was killed. There are yet more critical steps in the process.

The instructions differ a bit depending on whether the sinner is a priest, an ordinary Israelite, or an elder. But they invariably involve bringing some of the blood of the slain animal inside the Tent of Meeting. The priest would sprinkle some of the blood on the altar and pour the rest at the base of the burnt offering altar. The animal’s fat will be removed and burnt on the altar of the burnt offering. Then, the remaining parts of the slain animal – the head, legs, entrails, and dung – will be carried outside the camp to be burnt on a fire of wood. Only after the process is complete is a sinner assured of forgiveness.

Remarkably, the author of Hebrews sees the sacrifice of Jesus in the same way and declares the sacrificial system of Judaism as “copies of the true things” (9:24). Here is a relevant quote:

Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV
[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) [12] he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Jesus entered the holy places not in his death but through the ascension that followed his resurrection. This is why the resurrection is essential. If Jesus remained dead, he would have failed to complete the atonement process. This is not to trivialize his death – after all, there can be no resurrection without his death. So, all the New Testament passages suggesting that Jesus’s death achieved atonement took the resurrection (and ascension) for granted. The authors were aware of the process but focused on portions of the process as they saw fit. But when a church like the Corinthians started twisting truths, Paul had to set them straight by emphasizing the criticality of the resurrection in the atonement process.

Here is the key takeaway: Whereas the death of Jesus is by itself insufficient for atonement, Jesus is! The cross is vital, but it is not all there is. We don’t fix our gaze on the cross. We fix our gaze on the one who was on the cross and rose again!

Referenced Work

Moffitt, David M. Rethinking Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Baker Academic, 2022.

Continue Reading

The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus is NOT the Gospel Per Se

The Gospel of Jesus is like the proverbial elephant. Àjànàkú sì kọjáa mo rí ǹkan fìrí. Generations of severing the gospel from Jesus’s Jewish roots have generated much misunderstanding among believers today. We need to reappraise the elephant for what it is. So, what exactly is the euangelion, the Gospel?

It may help to start by saying the term predated the Jesus event. Everyone in the Roman Empire knew of the imperial euangelion that promised prosperity and peace. It was a gospel maintained with brutal force that crushed opposition triumphantly. In fact, ironically, it was for reasons of upholding the imperial gospel, the Pax Romana, that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus was not a unique event. Rome impaled thousands more before and after.

Continue Reading

On John 3:5: Understanding Being Born of Water and Spirit

The Synoptics and John

The Gospel of John is different. It is so different that it is often not considered along with the other three canonical Gospels. In scholarly circles, the term “Synoptic Gospels” excludes John, but not without good reasons. John is believed to be the last written Gospel account. Given the evidence of material dependence among the other Gospels, we may assume that John had access to the other Gospels. Yet, John did not produce a similar work as the authors of the other Gospels. Indeed, John did not seem to care as much about chronology as he did about theology. Hence, he would often move pieces of stories around as he saw fit for his purposes. For instance, whereas the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) focus on Jesus’ ministry near Galilee with one recorded trip to Jerusalem towards the end of his earthly ministry, John records Jesus’ multiple trips to Jerusalem. Indeed, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus clearing the Jerusalem temple towards the end of his ministry, while John brings the event forward in telling Jesus’ story. Besides, John omits many of the parables, instances of exorcism, and even the famous Sermon on the Mount while including unique materials like the resurrection of Lazarus in his account. So, if the authors of the Synoptics were interested in historical writings, John was interested in theological writing instead.

Continue Reading

On 1 Peter 3:1-6: Navigating Ancient Norms with Christ-Centered Wisdom

Background

We previously discussed the Household Code passages found in Colossians and Ephesians. These passages outline how Greco-Roman Christian households were expected to behave in a manner that honors Christ. We argued that these texts do not prescribe a uniform way for all Christian homes throughout history to operate. If they did, it might imply that every Christian household must own slaves. Instead, these passages illustrate Paul’s efforts to engage with a Gentile issue that even Jesus did not confront in his Jewish context.

The Greco-Roman family consisted of a husband and father who held legally granted absolute power over everyone who lived under his roof – a wife, children, and slaves. How he handled his home was tied to his public reputation and dignity. Women typically were married off by age 15, generally to much older men. Usually, love had very little to do with the marriage. Indeed, the Greco-Roman man was not required to love his wife. Paul found himself in this cultural context, and the options were few. He could have demonized the practice, as the European missionaries to sub-Sahara Africa did, and required the Christians to do marriages the “Christian way,” whatever that might have meant. But that move would be somewhat naive, impractical, and even foolish. First, cultural norms do not change overnight; expecting otherwise is embracing inevitable failure. Second, Christians were a minority, accounting for less than 10 % of the Roman empire at the time, and were despised for their culture-inverting beliefs and claims. An Emperor would later actively persecute them. So, Paul seemed to have taken a “slowly but surely” path to winning the Greco-Roman family structure for Jesus. He sowed the seeds and trusted God to enable germination.

Continue Reading

Genesis 2 and Paul: Women’s Equality Unveiled

The Undifferentiated Adam

No other literature has shaped our world quite like Genesis 2 and 3. These two chapters have generated extensive analysis, and people approach them from diverse perspectives. Some assert that the story underpins the idea of women’s ontological inferiority, arguing that “God made the woman for the man.” In contrast, many readers draw entirely different conclusions from the same text. In this piece, I will demonstrate why I believe Genesis 2 does not teach the inferiority or subordination of women.

These chapters tell the famous story of the creation of Adam and Eve, the first human parents in the narrative world of Genesis. It will benefit readers to keep a few things in mind as we proceed. The word adam is borrowed from the Hebrew language. In the passages we will explore, adam has multiple roles. Sometimes, it refers to the male human in the passage. Other times, it refers to the couple, the man and the woman. It also can refer to the undifferentiated, genderless human – the being from whom Eve was formed. In this entry, I shall use the pronoun “it” to describe the adam, except where gender is implied. The other thing to watch out for is this passage’s narrator’s use of wordplay, significantly contributing to the message. Two instances of paronomasia would prove critical to understanding the narrative. Let’s begin where the actions start in Genesis 2:

Continue Reading

Abraham and the Aqedah in the “Hall of Faith” (Series Part 4, Finale)

One of the clear, overarching lessons in the Bible is that there are no true heroes among humans. The best of humanity is merely human at best. Yet, the Bible demonstrates that some individuals can display admirable qualities, even in a fallen state. Alongside these examples, we also encounter characters who are hopelessly self-absorbed. Later writers tend to praise earlier Scriptural figures but often do so selectively, focusing on specific attributes while neglecting the fullness of their characters. These figures become literary constructs where certain aspects of their lives are highlighted, but the reader must remember the whole story and context.

My examination of the Aqedah would be incomplete without delving into the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. This chapter underscores individuals who exemplified faith in God’s promises, contributing to the unfolding of God’s plans for humanity. These figures should not be elevated to the status of ideal humans to model our lives after in every respect; nevertheless, they serve as examples of faithfulness to God’s promises. Let’s first consider some straightforward examples:

Continue Reading

Still on the Aqedah: A Friendly Exchange with a Pastor Friend (Series Part 3)

While discussing my last writing with a very dear pastor friend, something I think is worth writing about came up. In my previous blog entry, I had zeroed in on the following passage where God spoke to Abraham:

Genesis 22:2 ESV
[2] He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

I argued that two elements in this statement are inaccurate: Isaac is not Abraham’s only son, and we have no clear evidence that Abraham loved Isaac. My friend disagrees with this claim on the grounds that God himself makes the claim, and we may not challenge God’s statement. Now, this is a critical pushback. But if we argue that the statement MUST be correct because God says so, then we have to wrestle with the fact that God earlier (Genesis 17:20) acknowledged Ishmael as Abraham’s son and even promised to bless Ishmael for that reason. The argument would imply a contradiction or divine amnesia. That’s one reason I think the divine statement is not meant to be taken at face value but invites readers to look deeper.

Continue Reading

Did Abraham Pass the Aqedah Test? (Series Part 2)

Pre-Abraham State of the World

Scholars have established that the first 11 chapters of Genesis serve as an extended prologue, providing essential context and foundational insights for the narratives that follow. These chapters effectively recount the story of creation and delineate how the nation of Israel emerged as a privileged people within this overarching narrative. Genesis opens with God’s profound intention to create beings that can reflect His image, leading Him to craft a suitable environment for this endeavor. He then forms humanity and imparts clear instructions for their living—guidelines that they are fully capable of following. Yet, it becomes evident that other forces interfere with God’s plan. Before long, the trajectory of this project is disrupted, even with just two humans involved. The situation escalates—by the time there were four named individuals, there was a tragic murder. From that point, the narrative continues its descent into chaos.

Continue Reading

Abraham and the Aqedah: Child Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible (Series Part 1)

Fewer biblical passages elicit intense visceral reactions than the Aqedah, the story of Abraham binding his long-awaited son Isaac for sacrifice as God commanded. This enteric rejection is not unique to modern readers, as some ancient readers, such as the prophet Jeremiah, felt just as strongly against child sacrifice. Traditionally, the account is often read as an instance of Abraham finally demonstrating complete reliance on God. This reading is not without merit. After all, Genesis chronicles Abraham’s sinusoidal faith in his journey with God. When called to leave his home country, Abraham obeyed without any questions (Genesis 12). God promised Abraham that he would become the father of many nations and that his descendant would inherit the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:7). Yet when there was a famine in the land, and he journeyed to Egypt for relief, Abraham had no troubles offering up his wife for potential sexual exploitation (Genesis 12:11-15). He did not even seek God for help – whether to go to Egypt in the first place or how to survive in Egypt. So, in one chapter, we see the man go from exercising enviable faith and departing his homeland to prioritizing self-preservation over the well-being of his wife. This wife was to enable him to become the father of many nations, as God promised. This pattern of highs and lows continues in Abraham’s life, as we shall see shortly. So, the traditional reading of the Aqedah is sensible, though not without problems.

Continue Reading

Seeing the Unseen: The Face of God in the Bible

The “face of God” is a theme from Genesis to Revelation. Not surprisingly, the subject has also piqued the interest of amateur apologists for Islam and atheism. I have, over the years, seen several memes alleging the existence of a contradiction in that Christians both affirm that no one has ever seen God and that Jesus is God. As is often the case, there is a legitimate question behind it.

Recently, I had a friendly exchange with a Patristic scholar who studied the writings of the post-Apostolic Church Fathers some months ago. This individual made a claim that got my attention. He posits that God the Father will remain hidden from glorified believers even in the coming age. He got my attention and motioned the cogs and gears in my head. As it turns out, this is a rather fascinating and rich biblical theme. Below is my exploration of the subject.

In the Beginning in the Garden

The very first page of the Bible introduces a reader to a creator who molded humans and breathed into his nostrils. If this description is taken literally, we may reasonably surmise that the creator has a face – after all, the animated clay is supposed to have been made as an image of the creator, and it has a face. Also, as far as we can tell on Earth, breathing typically requires a face.

Continue Reading
1 2 3 6