Was the Atonement completed before Christ's physical death?

[Littlejoe]

The main reason for the link that it was included was to show this is not any teaching unique to myself.

Sorry, I missed the article link the first time.

And I did answer the question as asked. Not assuming the link will be read

.Bull! You made a point to say...

If you had take the time to read the article that is explained...

You seem to obviously be chiding me for not taking the time to read the article, yet your not assuming it would be read?

Now had one choose to read the one page article, then one would also had known the answers I gave here, in my own words.

Dude! One page article my eye! It's 26 pages including the footnotes! And the part your referencing is on page 18!!!! I pulled it up to print it hard copy...

So you think. But Christ's death of His soul, is a death while in the flesh in His body, and is the death by which we have the blood atonement

Ok...we agree on this, still don't see the issue...

Colossians 2:22-23,

. . . In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; . . . .

Hebrews 9:15,

. . . And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

You see Christ's death for sin in His body is not being denied, rather it is being affirmed it was done and completed,

I think that's what I said isn't it?

I think you are picking at nits here....Christ utters this as He dies...He can't say it right after He dies...He knows He will have to wait until His resurrection...so, He wants to be clear what His death is accomplishing....

paid in full, while Christ was conscious on the cross.

Paid in full is the very last thing Christ says...Tetelestai...usually translated it is finished.

[One Bad Pig]

But Christ's death of His soul, is a death while in the flesh in His body, and is the death by which we have the blood atonement.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you saying that Christ's soul died? If so, I'd like to see some backup for that.

[37818]

I understand that you're making an astute observation of this particular text and deducing a doctrine based on what you have perceived, but I think this may be a case of thinking too much and surmising beyond what was likely intended. Somebody already made a point about the practical barrier of death that would inhibit someone from making a verbal proclamation. I think Jesus was preempting that by stating it just prior to giving up His spirit. Concerning what exactly Christ meant by "it is finished" isn't altogether clear, but I don't think it really needs to be. It's enough to understand that whatever work Jesus came fulfill on earth has been accomplished. Technically speaking, He wasn't finished with everything. He still preached to the spirits in prison and had to physically rise from the dead and ascend into heaven.

I did not discover the teaching that the atonement was completed on the cross before Christ death (John 19:28, 30.) I learned it from C. S. Lovett of Personal Christianity (in the 1980s). And it is also taught by Christian Research Institute against word faith gosple heresy. My belief in conditional immortality of the soul [the belief the soul is mortal] and the eternal suffering of the lost, I came to those combined views on my own. [I have always believed in the eternal suffering of the lost. And still do.] Christ's atonement being completed on the cross is in agreement with the mortality of the soul, and demonstrated by Christ's suffering on the cross for sin, the eternal suffering of the lost in the second death, where both body and soul will die, yet the lost being conscious for all eternity, being forsake of God, even as Christ was forsaken of the cross on our behalf.

In terms of the Levitical priesthood, the atonement was not completed until the animal was first killed, drained of blood, then sprinkled or poured into various places on the altar and in the sanctuary. See Leviticus 4 and 16. For example:

Lev. 16:15-16

...he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood...sprinkling it over the mercy seat...thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins.

We know that Jesus is our sacrificial lamb. Hebrews 10 uses the language and duties of the priesthood to explain the purpose and significance of His death. Christ's atonement parallels the sacrificial process already in place. In part, that's exactly what Jesus did by fulfilling the law (Matt. 5:17). The law, especially the sacrificial laws and regulations, were a "shadow" of what is to come. Hence, we know that death was a necessary part of the atonement process along with the shedding of blood and its application to the mercy seat.

There is no doubt that Christ's death for sin fulfilled the Law.

Hebrews 10:1,

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

I would go so far as to wager that the atonement wasn't completed until Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father. I think Jesus was stating that His work, or His labor, you might say, is done (toil, suffering, hardship, etc). It's the best explanation I have that aligns with what Scripture reveals to us about the atonement process. Whatever the case may be, if you argue that the atonement was accomplished prior to His death, I think the burden of proof lies more with you than it does with me simply because every picture we have of atonement sacrifice always requires that the object of sacrifice be put to death. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but that's my view as it stands now.

That would be a counterfeit gospel on account it was finished [paid in full] on the cross before Jesus said, "it is finished." The holy scripture is explicit on this.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I did not discover the teaching that the atonement was completed on the cross before Christ death (John 19:28, 30.) I learned it from C. S. Lovett of Personal Christianity (in the 1980s). And it is also taught by Christian Research Institute against word faith gosple heresy. My belief in conditional immortality of the soul [the belief the soul is mortal] and the eternal suffering of the lost, I came to those combined views on my own. [I have always believed in the eternal suffering of the lost. And still do.] Christ's atonement being completed on the cross is in agreement with the mortality of the soul, and demonstrated by Christ's suffering on the cross for sin, the eternal suffering of the lost in the second death, where both body and soul will die, yet the lost being conscious for all eternity, being forsake of God, even as Christ was forsaken of the cross on our behalf.

If I recall, the problem that CRI (Hank Hanegraaff, right?) was addressing with the word-faith preachers was the doctrine they conjured up about Christ descending into hell to further suffer as one of the damned in our place, effectively continuing His work on the cross and finishing it in hell. It was misled "teachers" propagating this doctrine such as Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and particularly Joyce Meyer who some years ago who openly stated that a Christian is not saved if they did not believe that Christ suffered in hell on their account . I'm very familiar with the doctrine war between CRI and the word-faith movement as I used to listen to their radio broadcast consitently throughout the week, and I've always supported them.

There is no doubt that Christ's death for sin fulfilled the Law.

Hebrews 10:1,

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Not sure if this was meant to address my argument or to simply agree with me at a basic level.

That would be a counterfeit gospel on account it was finished [paid in full] on the cross before Jesus said, "it is finished." The holy scripture is explicit on this.

First, I think you're being a little too quick to lump me in with a category of heretics. If you understand the contention between CRI and the word-faith movement then you should know full well that what I have argued here is very different than what CRI was addressing.

Second, you are correct that the Scriptures are explicit about the work of Christ being completed at the cross. However, whether or not they align with your interpretation of what exactly that entails is another question. You've offered some support for your views about His soul dying or what have you, but I think you've constructed something that isn't entirely accurate. You have a lot of work ahead of you in order to explain why you believe the Scriptures you cited support your theory. The words used for "life", "death", "soul", and all the rest, can have a broad range of meanings in the original languages, and there is a lot of context surrounding the verses you mentioned. It's going to take a lot more work to make a sound defense of your views. Case in point, the context surrounding CRI's position changes the meaning entirely, since what they had in view when making their argument was a false teaching that extended the work (or price of the atonement) of Christ past his death on the cross and into the torments of Hades. What they were arguing against sheds a great deal of light on what exactly they were teaching, which I would assert had more to do with the price of the atonement as opposed to the process.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I was thinking about this last night and I think that we are talking about the same thing but on slightly different terms, which is where some of the disagreement might come into play. If what you really have in mind while engaging in this subject is the heresy of adding to the work of the cross, then I can see where there is going to be some misunderstandings among the contributors of this thread because we have the entire process in mind, not just the price. Mentioning the word-faith movement triggered in my mind the concepts that you may be working with while taking part in this discussion and seeing where we might be commenting past each other. I don't think anyone here will disagree that Christ paid the full cost of sin on the cross. You have to be very careful with your terms and how you define them. When you present your argument in a way that relegates the death, and by extension the resurrection, of Christ as unnecessary in the atonement process, then it's going to raise some flags with a lot people. I suppose you could say that Jesus did fully atoned for sins on the cross, but you cannot say that it was complete until He ascended into heaven. If Jesus neither died, nor rose, nor ascended, there would be not atonement. Much in the same way, if the priests did not apply the blood of the sacrifice onto the mercy seat, the sacrifice would be in vain and there would be no atonement. The process is important.

[37818]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you saying that Christ's soul died? If so, I'd like to see some backup for that.

<The following is from this post[>

The only book I have against annihilationism is our Bible. (And not traditional but explicitly biblical.)

Here is the evidence from the crucifixion of Christ. His death for sin (Romans 5;8) was in giving His blood in the death of His soul on the cross (Isaiah 53:10, 12).

Jesus knowingly finished this atonement (John 19:28) on the cross before He physically died (John 19:30.).

[See Ezekiel 18:4.]
Jesus taught, the death of the body is not the death of the soul (Matthew 10:28.)

But the souls of men will die in the judgement. (Revelation 14:10, 11. Revelation 20:15. Revelation 21:8.).

Death is separation from life, whether this world or the next. God in their presence forsakes the lost for all eternity. What lives on of the dead souls is called their "worm." (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:48.). Even as Jesus was forsaken on the cross (Mark 15:34, Psalm 22:1, 6.).

<The following is from this post

Well, a couple things here. Jesus shed blood, not the physical death of the body atoned for our sins. (See: 1 Peter 1:18, 19, 1 John 1:7. Hebrews 9:12-14. Hebrews 10:19.). The Watchtower Bible Tract Society teaches Jesus paid the ransom price with his whole body. They therefore hold, if Jesus was risen bodily, the ransom price would have been taken back.

Isaiah 53:10, 12,

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . .

John 19:28,

. . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . .

Jesus finished the atonement on the cross, before His physical death. To deny this is to deny the finished work on the cross. That then becomes another gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:3, 4.)

[One Bad Pig]

The only book I have against annihilationism is our Bible. (And not traditional but explicitly biblical.)

Here is the evidence from the crucifixion of Christ. His death for sin (Romans 5;8) was in giving His blood in the death of His soul on the cross (Isaiah 53:10, 12).

Oh really?

Isaiah 53:10,12 NRSV

¹⁰Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.
¹²Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus knowingly finished this atonement (John 19:28) on the cross before He physically died (John 19:30.).

This is a woodenly literal understanding of the text. As has already been pointed out, he could hardly have spoken the words after death.

[See Ezekiel 18:4.]

Ez 18:4 NRSV

Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine; it is only the person who sins that shall die.

Jesus taught, the death of the body is not the death of the soul (Matthew 10:28.)

Good, we agree on something.

But the souls of men will die in the judgement. (Revelation 14:10, 11. Revelation 20:15. Revelation 21:8.).

You seem to be misreading Matthew 10:28 (it says "can destroy" not "will destroy").

Death is separation from life, whether this world or the next. God in their presence forsakes the lost for all eternity.

Yes, but the two statements are not equivalent.

What lives on of the dead souls is called their "worm." (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:48.).

Again, this seems to be a woodenly literal understanding not warranted by the context.

Even as Jesus was forsaken on the cross (Mark 15:34, Psalm 22:1, 6.).

So you're saying that God killed Jesus' soul?

Well, a couple things here. Jesus shed blood, not the physical death of the body atoned for our sins. (See: 1 Peter 1:18, 19, 1 John 1:7. Hebrews 9:12-14. Hebrews 10:19.).

If you'd only kept reading in Hebrews 9, you'd realize that the new covenant required the death of the testator (Jesus).

Isaiah 53:10, 12,

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . .

This is another woodenly literal reading that's dependent on a particular translation (see above).

John 19:28,

. . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . .

Jesus finished the atonement on the cross, before His physical death. To deny this is to deny the finished work on the cross. That then becomes another gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:3, 4.)

So if we don't follow your idiosyncratic reading, we're apostate? Nice.

[37818]

So if we don't follow your idiosyncratic reading, we're apostate? Nice.

So the atonement was NOT finished on the cross? Is that what you mean? [I will address your other comments later. In the mean time, why don't you present the correct view?]

John 18:28, BTW, Jesus knew then, it was finished. Before He says "I thirst" and the word translated "It is finished."

[bling]

I do not agree with either option since I do not see Christ's death "paying" for our sins.

[37818]

I do not agree with either option since I do not see Christ's death "paying" for our sins.

So how do you understand "propitiation for our sins?" (see also Romans 3:23-26]

1 John 2:2,

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Given that the sin earns death, which includes physical death BTW?

Romans 6:23,

The wages of sin is death . . . .

The Greek word translated, "accomplished" and "It is finished" also has the meaning "paid in full." So how do you understand John 19:28?

[One Bad Pig]

So the atonement was NOT finished on the cross? Is that what you mean? [I will address your other comments later. In the mean time, why don't you present the correct view?]

No, that's not what I meant. Are you being deliberately obtuse? A covenant (will) requires the death of the testator in order to take effect (Heb 9:15-17).

John 18:28, BTW, Jesus knew then, it was finished. Before He says "I thirst" and the word translated "It is finished."

Yes, you mentioned that before. Repeating it won't make your interpretation any better.

[37818]

No, that's not what I meant. Are you being deliberately obtuse? A covenant (will) requires the death of the testator in order to take effect (Heb 9:15-17).

The necessity of Christ's physical death after paying for sins is not at issue, except where the completed atonement is being denied being completed before His physical death.

Hebrews 9:14-18,

. . . 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? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.

Yes, you mentioned that before. Repeating it won't make your interpretation any better.

Only because you are making claims and not explaining what was meant, by "now" in John 19:28, which explicitly was before His physical death. I've no where denied Jesus' physical death was because of sin, or that it was required. I have only affirmed that the "it is finished"(v.30) was in fact fininished before His physical death, being the sacrifice of Him shedding His blood paying in full for our sins on our behalf.

[bling]

So how do you understand "propitiation for our sins?" (see also Romans 3:23-26]

1 John 2:2,

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Given that the sin earns death, which includes physical death BTW?

Romans 6:23,

The wages of sin is death . . . .

The Greek word translated, "accomplished" and "It is finished" also has the meaning "paid in full." So how do you understand John 19:28?

I will be happy to discuss this with you:

What is the relationship between:

Propitiation and God’s forgiveness?

Propitiation and God’s justice?

Propitiation and God’s wrath?

Propitiation and our sins?

As far as John 19:28 Jesus is addressing “whatever all He did on the cross” and not specifically “paying some debt in full” that would be taking a minor use of the word teleō and saying that is what it means. I am not saying it could not have that meaning just that it does not have to have that meaning.

If propitiation does mean “Paid in full” who is being paid?

If my sins have been “paid in full” by Christ why would God have to forgive them?


If Christ is paying off my sins, then how is that different from the “Whipping Boy” scenario and who considers penal substitution fair and “Just”? Does that makes God look unjust?

[One Bad Pig]

Only because you are making claims and not explaining what was meant, by "now" in John 19:28, which explicitly was before His physical death. I've no where denied Jesus' physical death was because of sin, or that it was required. I have only affirmed that the "it is finished"(v.30) was in fact fininished before His physical death, being the sacrifice of Him shedding His blood paying in full for our sins on our behalf.

"Now" can be taken to mean at His dying. Since, as you admit, Jesus' death was required, the Atonement cannot have been completed before then. Besides, if you want to get technical, in the Old Testament sacrifices (which are a type of Jesus' sacrifice), the blood was not merely shed, but sprinkled. When did Jesus' blood pour forth from His side?

[37818]

I will be happy to discuss this with you:

Fine. You want to hear my understanding before you'll answer my question.

What is the relationship between:

Propitiation and God’s forgiveness?

Christ's suffering and shed blood was the means of the propitiation so we can freely be forgiven.

Propitiation and God’s justice?

It satisfied God's justice, so we who believe can freely and without merit our part be justified in believing in God through Jesus Christ the Lord.

Romans 3:25-26,

Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Propitiation and God’s wrath?

Jesus on the cross being forsaken in our place.

Romans 5:9,

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The future wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 1:10,

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

And those who do not accept the propitiation are under God's wrath even now:

John 3:36,

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Propitiation and our sins?

1 John 4:10,

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

As far as John 19:28 Jesus is addressing “whatever all He did on the cross” and not specifically “paying some debt in full” that would be taking a minor use of the word teleō and saying that is what it means. I am not saying it could not have that meaning just that it does not have to have that meaning.

That usage of the Greek teleo is used in this way only twice in the NT found here in John 19:28 and 30. Literally meaning "has been finished."

If propitiation does mean “Paid in full” who is being paid?

Not who, but what. "The wages of sin is death," "The soul that sins shall die." Yet Christ had to physically die. Even, we after being forgiven will physically die. Unless we are still living when Christ returns. In which case we who believe will not die at all.

If my sins have been “paid in full” by Christ why would God have to forgive them?

Salvation does not yet give us sinless perfection, not until the resurrection. The propitiation is what allows God to both be just and to forgive our sins.

Only in genuine Christianity is God both fully just and fully merciful. You see, if God forgave without justice, God would not be just in forgiving. If God did not provide a propitiation, then God could not be both just and merciful at the same time. Justice is what is to be deserved. Grace is what is not deserved.

If Christ is paying off my sins, then how is that different from the “Whipping Boy” scenario and who considers penal substitution fair and “Just”? Does that makes God look unjust?

So did Isaiah and the Apostle Paul lie?

Romans 5:8,

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 53:6, . . ,10,

. . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . .

"Now" can be taken to mean at His dying. Since, as you admit, Jesus' death was required, the Atonement cannot have been completed before then. Besides, if you want to get technical, in the Old Testament sacrifices (which are a type of Jesus' sacrifice), the blood was not merely shed, but sprinkled. When did Jesus' blood pour forth from His side?

The OT Law was not an exact image of what was to be done (Hebrews 10;1.)


So you are wrong here. Since the "now" and the word translated "accomplished" referred to what was already done. And after Jesus' physical death, He yet shed more blood with water, and as testified by the Holy Spirit, as evidencing Jesus really did physically die.

John 19:33, 34,

But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1 John 5:6-9,

This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

What I have presented what I understand to be explicitly biblical, totally correct. I have not denied any biblical truth. Stop your false accusations. Support your argument. Don''t just make an assertion. Explain your argument. I'm not adverse to changing my mind for the truth. But I'm not going do deny any truth I know either.

[I have been a believer in Christ as my Savior 49 years. I'm not interested in being wrong about my faith, so I want to only believe in what is true to the best of my knowledge. And yes, how long one has been a professing Christian matter little. But my point being I'm not a novice.]

[You accused me of "wooden literalism." Add to that the fact you choose to use a translation which denies the Isaiah prophecy of the virgin birth. There is huge difference between translating "virgin" or "chaste young woman" and simply translating "young woman."]