Did Christ's death atone or did Christ's life atone?

[Yahshua]

Did Christ's death atone (i.e. cover) us or did Christ's life cover us in heaven?

Paul writes that Christ's death paid for sins...while Christ's resurrection was for our justification (Romans 4:23-25). Unless Christ resurrection there would not be any justification for the believer.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

[The following response is posted here to continue the debate starting in "Letter to the Romans" thread, so as to not detract from the purpose there, as I would prefer debate is move off that thread.]

Thanks Karraster. I see this thread is getting a lot of readers but not many chiming in for explanation. So I'm going to take the liberty to elaborate on this point for the reader's edification.

Reference: The word "atonement" comes from the Hebrew word "Kappur" and means "to cover".

It was the name for the cover of the Ark in the Holy of Holies.

Incorrect. The Hebrew word for the cover of the ark is "Kapporet", derived from the root word "Kappur" which means "to cover".

The animal sacrifices of the OT only covered sin (Ro 4:7), they did not take away sin (Heb 10:4).

The sins of the OT saints were only covered, they were not remitted (taken away) until Christ
shed his blood on the cross (Ro 3:25).

Irrelevant to the point being made by my post because as my quote below said the ritual of "Day of Atonement" (i.e. "Yom Kappur") was "symbolic foreshadowing" of Christ's act.

There were two things needed for the symbolic foreshadowing ritual of Atonement: Blood and a pure High Priest.

I'm not sure where you get that the High Priest who offered sacrifice was pure.

The High Priest who offered the great sin sacrifice on the Day of Atonement was not pure
(Heb 5:1-3, 7:27-28).
His sins were only covered (Heb 10:4) by the special sin offering (Lev 16:4, 11-14,)
which he made before the great sin offering (Lev 16:15-16) on the Day of Atonement,
for defilement of the tabernacle by being in the midst of a sinful people (Lev 16:16).

Symbolic foreshadowing ritual. Atonement required Blood and a pure High Priest.

1. Blood shed (received from the death of the pure animal)
2. A High Priest takes the blood in the Most Holy Place to sprinkle it

But that occurred only once a year, on the Day of Atonement.

The frequency of the ritual is irrelevant to the point being made. The ritual was a symbolic foreshadowing of Christ's act.

Sacrifices were offered every day, but their blood was not taken in the Most Holy Place,
it was sprinkled on, and poured out at the base of, the altar.

Irrelevant to point being made. The point was Symbolic foreshadowing of the Ritual of Atonement...not any other ritual.

3. The Most Holy Place was in the Temple on Earth


...and in fulfillment of this...


1. Christ was the fulfillment of the animal whose blood would be shed
2. Christ was High Priest tasked to take his blood and sprinkling it in the Most Holy Place
3. The Most Holy Place was in the Temple in Heaven

And Hebrews shows us the meaning of this physical picture depicting an immaterial heaven.

"For it was necessary, then. . .for the heavenly things to be purified with better sacrifices than these.
For Christ. . .entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence (Heb 9:23-24)
where he ever lives to make intercession (Ro 8:34; Heb 7:25).

Christ's sacrifice (blood) is presented in heaven in his daily intercession in the presence of God
for us, where Christ applies the benefits of (sprinkles) his blood; e.g.,
guaranteeing our redemption,
working out everything for us in accordance with God's will,
preparing a place for us.

Irrelevant to the point being made. A "dead" Christ on the cross was NOT in heaven to do any of this you reference, UNTIL he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Rhetorical: If Christ is both Lamb AND High Priest, how can he take his blood into heaven if (a) it was not yet shed out of his body after crucifixion

I'm not sure where you get this.

Christ's blood was poured out at the base of the cross (Jn 19:34, 36-37; Lk 22:20) just as
the blood of the sacrificial animal was poured out at the base of the altar (Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).

The altar is in heaven like you've JUST referenced from Hebrew above. The ground is not heaven nor it's altar.

and (b) he was not yet resurrected back to life to ascend to heaven and actually sprinkle it? The answer is "he can't". This is why Paul specifically says what he says in Romans 4:23-25.

Christ's death on the cross *provided* the pure blood FOR atonement/covering...but it did not atone; not yet. It's only in resurrection that our High Priest is alive to ascend to heaven to *perform* the atonement/covering on the heavenly altar.

That assumes physical meaning of an immaterial heavenly reality, which Hebrews indicates (above)
is not a physical sprinkling of it, but the application of its benefits through Christ's ever-living
intercession for us.

The sprinkling of the blood on the horns of the altars on the Day of Atonement
was the application of the blood's benefits; i.e., cleansing of the holy things from defilement.

You're still missing the point. A *dead* Christ wasn't in heaven to do any of this, whether atonement/kappur is "physical" or "immaterial". He did not ascend to heaven UNTIL AFTER his resurrection.

Notice when Christ was finally resurrected that he told Mary not to touch him because he hadn't yet ascended to his Father.

The Greek word translated "touch" here is haptomai, which means "to hold on, to embrace."

Jesus is telling her that she can no longer have him in the physically human way as before,
but can have him now only through the Holy Spirit, whom he will send after he returns to heaven.

You're sidestepping the point. He had not yet ascended to his father. His father is in heaven. Christ had not yet ascended to heaven.

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"​

This means when he was dead for 3 days and 3 nights he wasn't yet in the Most Holy Place in heaven to cover believers with his blood.

It means he had not yet ascended to the presence of his Father where he would apply
the benefits of (sprinkle) his blood in ever-living intercession for us.

...so again, there was no blood in heaven while Christ was dead.

It's his resurrection from the grave that's for the believer's justification, not his death on the cross. Christ's death on the cross was another work; it was the payment (i.e. "end") for our sin penalty on our behalf (one of multiple tasks he had to complete per Daniel 9:24)...but Christ's resurrection into heaven was for our reconciliation to God.

Christ's death on the cross paid the penalty for the sin of those who believe in him.

Christ's resurrection acquitted us of guilt (justified) in that it showed the Father
did regard our debt as paid, his justice as satisfied and we did, indeed,
have a guiltless right standing before him, reconciling us.

This is what I said: Christ death = the payment; Christ's resurrection = Justification...

However, keep in mind that Paul more often refers to Christ's death on the cross without
the resurrection, assuming its inclusion rather than as a separate work, in reconciling us
to God (e.g., Col 1:20; Eph 2:16; 2Co 5:20-21).

Irrelevant to Paul's letter to Romans. In Romans 4:23-25 - the specific point of my explanation - Paul distinguishes between the death of Christ as for sin payment, and the resurrection of Christ for justification.

The sprinkling of Christ's blood in heaven is the application of his blood's benefits
through his ever-living intercession for us in the presence of God (Heb 9:23-24).

Which still leaves the point that was being made...Christ is not in heaven to do any of this UNTIL AFTER his resurrection

 

[crossnote]

Does it have to be an either/or proposition? I take Christ's incarnational work as a whole from conception to His present session in heaven in that if you remove any of the pieces, including His active obedience as well as His passive obedience, then there is no atonement.

 

[Vernon]

As I understand the gospel we enter into union with Christ's death through baptism, so that we might share in his resurrection. We can not enter his life without entering into his death. Denying our own lives we die with Christ and by doing this we are assured of being raised from the dead in the same manner and by the same power that raised Christ. So to answer you question both the life and death of Christ is necessary for our reconciliation to God.
May we all be found worthy through and only through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[timberdoodle]

Did Christ's death atone (i.e. cover) us or did Christ's life cover us in heaven?

Paul writes that Christ's death paid for sins...while Christ's resurrection was for our justification (Romans 4:23-25). Unless Christ resurrection there would not be any justification for the believer.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

[The following response is posted here to continue the debate starting in "Letter to the Romans" thread, so as to not detract from the purpose there, as I would prefer debate is move off that thread.]



Incorrect. The Hebrew word for the cover of the ark is "Kapporet", derived from the root word "Kappur" which means "to cover".




Irrelevant to the point being made by my post because as my quote below said the ritual of "Day of Atonement" (i.e. "Yom Kappur") was "symbolic foreshadowing" of Christ's act.




Symbolic foreshadowing ritual. Atonement required Blood and a pure High Priest.




The frequency of the ritual is irrelevant to the point being made. The ritual was a symbolic foreshadowing of Christ's act.




Irrelevant to point being made. The point was Symbolic foreshadowing of the Ritual of Atonement...not any other ritual.




Irrelevant to the point being made. A "dead" Christ on the cross was NOT in heaven to do any of this you reference, UNTIL he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.




The altar is in heaven like you've JUST referenced from Hebrew above. The ground is not heaven nor it's altar.




You're still missing the point. A *dead* Christ wasn't in heaven to do any of this, whether atonement/kappur is "physical" or "immaterial". He did not ascend to heaven UNTIL AFTER his resurrection.




You're sidestepping the point. He had not yet ascended to his father. His father is in heaven. Christ had not yet ascended to heaven.

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"​

...so again, there was no blood in heaven while Christ was dead.




This is what I said: Christ death = the payment; Christ's resurrection = Justification...




Irrelevant to Paul's letter to Romans. In Romans 4:23-25 - the specific point of my explanation - Paul distinguishes between the death of Christ as for sin payment, and the resurrection of Christ for justification.




Which still leaves the point that was being made...Christ is not in heaven to do any of this UNTIL AFTER his resurrection

The atonement was through the shedding of His blood.

Blessings

Timber

 

[Yahshua]

Does it have to be an either/or proposition? I take Christ's incarnational work as a whole from conception to His present session in heaven in that if you remove any of the pieces, including His active obedience as well as His passive obedience, then there is no atonement.

No that's fair if you look at it from that perspective I guess...

I guess I felt it was an important distinction to point out because Paul made the specific distinction in the passage we were addressing at the time, during our read of the Romans's letter.

But then if we think about it; sure if Christ wasn't conceived there would be no atonement. But then one could go further and say, "And if Adam didn't sin, there's no atonement either because it necessitated Christ performing his atoning work, so Adam's sin is the source of our atonement too" ...and even further "if satan didn't deceive then Adam wouldn't have been tempted to sin, which wouldn't have necessitated Christ performing his atoning work...so Satan is the source of atonement too". You see what I'm getting at?

So for me I think the distinction matters else it leaves room for any loopy argument.

 

[phil112]

Atone for what? Our sins? His death, very obviously. Until His death, the law wasn't fulfilled. His blood shed was what enabled the cessation of sin sacrifice. The lamb of God is now our blood sacrifice. The argument is specious, as one cannot/did not occur without the other. The death of Christ was the crowning achievement of His life. That was the whole reason for His being made flesh.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [SUP] [/SUP]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

 

[Yahshua]

Atone for what? Our sins? His death, very obviously. Until His death, the law wasn't fulfilled. His blood shed was what enabled the cessation of sin sacrifice. The lamb of God is now our blood sacrifice. The argument is specious, as one cannot/did not occur without the other. The death of Christ was the crowning achievement of His life. That was the whole reason for His being made flesh.

Well I'll respectfully differ in opinion. I say Christ's resurrection was the crowing achievement of his life...literally. He was crowned when he was resurrected. If Christ never resurrected there would be no hope for any of us.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

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.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Notice the passage didn't say "if Christ didn't die...then our preaching is in vain." He had to resurrect or none of this matters.

 

[phil112]

Well I'll respectfully differ in opinion. I say Christ's resurrection was the crowing achievement of his life...literally. He was crowned when he was resurrected. If Christ never resurrected there would be no hope for any of us.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19


Notice the passage didn't say "if Christ didn't die...then our preaching is in vain." He had to resurrect or none of this matters.

As I said the argument is specious to start with. You can't separate them.

 

[Yahshua]

I guess I should give proper context of this thread, the Romans passage. I thought it would be a chance to continue something elsewhere out of that thread...

Romans 4:23-25

23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was {delivered up for our trespasses} and {raised for our justification}.​

1. Christ was *deliver (to death) for our trespasses/sins*

2. Christ was *raised (to life) for our justification*

Our reconciliation to God (i.e. making us right with God) is through Justification...and Paul says Christ was raised (not crucified) for our justification. He died for our sin payment.

 

[Vernon]

I guess I should give proper context of this thread, the Romans passage. I thought it would be a chance to continue something elsewhere out of that thread...

Romans 4:23-25

23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was {delivered up for our trespasses} and {raised for our justification}.​

1. Christ was *deliver (to death) for our trespasses/sins*

2. Christ was *raised (to life) for our justification*

Our reconciliation to God (i.e. making us right with God) is through Justification...and Paul says Christ was raised (not crucified) for our justification. He died for our sin payment.

I would agree with St Paul

 

[Nick01]

It has to be both, right?

If Christ did not live the life that he did, if he did not fulfill the prophecy that he did, if he was not the spotless Lamb, then he was not a fit atonement - he was not any better than any of the sacrificial animals, of any of us who would otherwise have to die to justly pay for our sins.

If Christ did not die (and then rise again), there was no actual payment made, and then no vindication of Christ's blameless life before God.

Indeed, I think Revelation's designation of Jesus as 'The Lamb that was slain' sums this up - both elements are required, and both elements result in Jesus being the Praiseworthy One.

"Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive praise and honour, and glory and power, for ever and ever."

 

[Yahshua]

I can't go and change the title now...but in reading the posts I should've maybe titled the thread...

"Did Christ's death (at the cross) atone for our unrighteousness or did Christ's resurrected life (after the cross) atone?"

Does this change anyone's answers or would the answers pretty much be the same?

 

[Nick01]

I think it's still both. You can't have one without the other.

If you're willing to dig deep into the issue, read this thesis by Mike Baird, who is a solid theologian from Australia currently teaching at an Evangelical Anglican college in Melbourne. Might be helpful.

Here is his concluding paragraph. Read the rest of the article for the argument that supports the conclusion:

Rom 4:25 represents a key turning point in the argument of the epistle. It summarises the argument of Romans 1- 4 by locating the righteousness of God in the death and resurrection of Christ which provides the basis justification. In Christ, God’'s verdict against the ungodly and his vindication for them coalesce.

It is in the handing over and raising of Christ that the sphere of God’'s righteousness becomes operative for the believer. Although the parallelism of Rom 4:25 should not be doggedly maintained the rhetoric is strong enough to imply that Christ’'s resurrection has a function which his death does not, viz., imparting justifying life into the believer and unite them to the justified Messiah. A concept which is largely explicated in 5:1-8:39.

The foregoing arguments, if correct, should lead us to believe that the overall point being made by the Apostle is that Christ’'s death and resurrection are both basic to the believer’s justification. In addition, if coupled with other verses in the Pauline corpus, one could even conjecture that it is the resurrection of Christ, more so than the cross, that is the ultimate basis for justification at the eschatological judgment. Indeed, following E. P. Sanders, we could say that the future justification at the end of the age is secured by Christ’'s resurrection.61

 

[Vernon]

I can't go and change the title now...but in reading the posts I should've maybe titled the thread...

"Did Christ's death (at the cross) atone for our unrighteousness or did Christ's resurrected life (after the cross) atone?"

Does this change anyone's answers or would the answers pretty much be the same?

My answer would be the same.

 

[crossnote]

No that's fair if you look at it from that perspective I guess...

I guess I felt it was an important distinction to point out because Paul made the specific distinction in the passage we were addressing at the time, during our read of the Romans's letter.

But then if we think about it; sure if Christ wasn't conceived there would be no atonement. But then one could go further and say, "And if Adam didn't sin, there's no atonement either because it necessitated Christ performing his atoning work, so Adam's sin is the source of our atonement too" ...and even further "if satan didn't deceive then Adam wouldn't have been tempted to sin, which wouldn't have necessitated Christ performing his atoning work...so Satan is the source of atonement too". You see what I'm getting at?

So for me I think the distinction matters else it leaves room for any loopy argument.

Well, I would have to kindly disagree with your 'further' example involving Adam and satans actions ''necessitating'' the atonement. Adam's sin did not necessitate the atonement because God was under no obligation to save man; the same holds true with satan's deception.

 

[phil112]

I can't go and change the title now...but in reading the posts I should've maybe titled the thread...

"Did Christ's death (at the cross) atone for our unrighteousness or did Christ's resurrected life (after the cross) atone?"

Does this change anyone's answers or would the answers pretty much be the same?

Moot point. Can't separate them. Where is the profit in debating something with no resolution?

 

[RedTent]

I don't think that anyone who is living is the body on this earth understands what Christ did those three days between the crucifiction and the resurrection. There are many things that God knows that we don't, we take it on faith. It is when we decide we must know everything so we start putting our own reasoning in that we get in trouble.

We know that through Christ's blood we are saved, and that is by grace not by our own works. We know this is a covenant between us and God. We know our part of this covenant is that we repent of our sins and live for Christ.

 

[timberdoodle]

I can't go and change the title now...but in reading the posts I should've maybe titled the thread...

"Did Christ's death (at the cross) atone for our unrighteousness or did Christ's resurrected life (after the cross) atone?"

Does this change anyone's answers or would the answers pretty much be the same?

Christs death did not atone for our sins. It was the shedding of his blood.

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unclean person. The blood cleanses us. The Holy Spirit fills us and we alk in newness of life.

Timber

 

[timberdoodle]

I can't go and change the title now...but in reading the posts I should've maybe titled the thread...

"Did Christ's death (at the cross) atone for our unrighteousness or did Christ's resurrected life (after the cross) atone?"

Does this change anyone's answers or would the answers pretty much be the same?

Forgivness has nothing to do with the Death. It has to do with the Blood. The ressurection has nothing to do with forgivness but it has to do with hope .

Timber

 

[svedbygrace]

Yah

Did Christ's death atone or did Christ's life atone?

His Death atoned and His Life did as well. His death atone in regards to taking away the penalty of sin for those He died for, His death abolished death for them, and His Life gives them Life which is owed them for His deaths sake. Since His death paid for the wages of their sins, which wages was death Rom 6:23, then Life must be given to evidence that the penalty of death has been eliminated for them, and so in His Life He becomes a quickening Spirit for them He died for 1 Cor 15:45

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

That word quickening actually means life giving !

45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.ASV

45 Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being (an individual personality); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit [restoring the dead to life].AMP

45 So it is also written, The first human, Adam, became a living person, and the last Adam became a spirit that gives life.CEB

You see what I am saying ?