What sins did Christ atone for? Why Jesus' crucifixion is considered atonement for sin
The crucifixion of Jesus is the atonement for all our sins. But I still don't understand why he crucified our sins atoned for? and got the best answer
Answer from Acer[guru]
You are absolutely correct in pointing out the inconsistency. Such is the contradictory essence of all Christianity.
Christians not only believe that all their sins were redeemed thanks to the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, they also, in complete naivety, believe that only they (Christians) will go to heaven after death. And if so, then let them wish themselves death and perish. However, none of them will do this. There was no crucifixion of Jesus. They crucified the youngest of his apostles. And God raised the prophet Jesus to himself. His mission is not yet completed and there will be his second coming.
Source: Islam
Answer from 2 answers[guru]
Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: The crucifixion of Jesus is the atonement for all our sins. But I still don't understand why he crucified our sins atoned for?
Answer from Atheism will not pass![guru]
The priests themselves do not understand. Some were redeemed, others were not. Depends on direction. Go to the Protestants, they have tried everything there.
Answer from John of Christ[guru]
Because He took upon Himself all our sins, starting from the sin of Adam, and suffered on the cross INSTEAD OF us. . And then he went to hell. . And then he rose again on the third day, having conquered death. And therefore, if we acknowledge this Sacrifice for us, and repent for our sins, confessing Christ as our Savior and Lord, then God forgives us and grants us the righteousness of Jesus Christ and eternal life! It was a DIVINE EXCHANGE on the cross!
Better yet, read the New Testament of the Bible for yourself. And a lot of things will become clear to you ..
Answer from Alexander Ivanov[expert]
there is an opinion that the whole universe and those living on earth are subject to the same laws, one of them says ... that you have to pay for everything, every negative deed or action, like a heavy stone lies on the soul of a person and his fate, by the time Jesus appeared, humanity apparently accumulated a lot of such “stones”, and he paid off thereby revealing the greatest divine love. The act of crucifixion is a voluntary self-sacrifice, and there is that payment for the general negativity (AT THAT MOMENT) by which he seems to be saying ... I paid for you, removed all the so-called sins from you, and now you can start everything from scratch .. ..
Answer from It's not all that bad[guru]
You know, Christians call sacrifice paganism, and they themselves made Christ a sacrifice to atone for their sins. Whereas the crucifixion is the result of the sale and purchase of everything. Therefore, making purchases or sales, we constantly sin.
Answer from Marana_tha[guru]
Listen to Professor Osipov, he explains quite clearly what happened during the atonement:
link . ru/programms/lectures/lektsii-osipova/at23396?start=60 The Sacrifice of Christ. Part 1
link . ru/programms/lectures/lektsii-osipova/at23397?start=60 The Sacrifice of Christ. Part 2
(remove spaces before ru) It is advisable to watch in full to understand the meaning.
And yet, the sins of the people were not automatically atoned for by the crucifixion of Jesus. For the forgiveness of sins, a person must believe in Christ and repent of their sins.
1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Answer from Oleg Isachenko[guru]
Because from the day of the expulsion of Adam and Eve into the physical world, it has become a tradition to make a sacrifice to God so that He would have mercy on the first people. Let us remember that both Cain and Abel brought sacrificial offerings, because of which the first murder was committed. God accepted sacrificial offerings from Abel, but not from Cain. Since that ancient time, the altar has become an integral part of people's lives. That's why Jesus went up on the altar, offered Himself as a sacrifice. A sign that God would have mercy on us.
Answer from Galina A.[guru]
For our sins we deserved to die, but Jesus died in our place. He made atonement for all sins, but only those who obey God's instructions for salvation receive that atonement. which is given in the Bible. You can read or listen to learn more about how to be saved from the wrath of God and receive the forgiveness of sins.
The dogma of redemption is the heart Orthodox faith. All dogmatic statements in the field of triadology, Christology, ecclesiology and soteriology were tested by the fathers of the Church, primarily in relation to the possibility of redemption and salvation of man by Christ. It is not only a criterion for the purity of faith, but also a stumbling block for heretics and false teachers from the apostolic age to the present day.
The dogma of redemption is especially irritating to liberal theologians who, like the ancient Jews, do not want to admit that Christ redeemed and freed them from the captivity of sin and the power of the devil. They believe that they were born free and will receive paradise as their ancestral inheritance, and they look at the Gospel as a guide to self-improvement. They are alien to the dogma of redemption - this is the unshakable foundation on which the New Testament Church is based.
In other religions and in almost all denominations, the dogma of redemption is absent or fundamentally distorted. In Judaism, this dogma does not exist. According to the teachings of the Talmud, Adam's sin does not apply to his descendants. The Jew is saved by fulfilling the precepts of the Torah and the Talmud. The expected messiah delivers not people from sin, but Israel from its enemies. The most sinful of the Jews are temporarily tormented in hell, but then they will receive forgiveness through the prayers of Abraham and other righteous people. Thus, Judaism contains a kind of national “apocatastasis”.
There is no doctrine of redemption in Mohammedanism. The fulfillment of the Qur'an and Sunnah (tradition) serves as a guarantee of salvation for a Muslim. Mohammed is not a redeemer, but a messenger through whom Allah revealed his will to people. The Koran categorically denies not only the Christian teaching about the Sacrifice of Christ, but the very fact of the crucifixion. According to the teachings of the Koran, Christ was taken to heaven like the prophet Elijah, and Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Him (such an idea occurs already in the second century among the Gnostic Basilides). Muslims believe that all professing Islam, no matter what sins they have committed, will eventually be forgiven and saved through the prayers of Mohammed and his successors. Thus, in Islam we see a confessional "apocatastasis".
Buddhism also lacks the idea of any redemption. Buddhism rejects the existence of a deity as an absolute spirit. Thought about eternal life, as a continuation of being, causes horror and disgust in a Buddhist; he seeks salvation in death, in immersing himself in a certain mental vacuum, where there are no feelings, thoughts and desires. This mental self-mortification is perceived by him as the highest metaphysical state. Nirvana - a breakthrough into an imaginary emptiness and the experience of one's being as anti-being, where there is no suffering - is the cherished goal of Buddhism.
Paganism, in the highest rises of ancient and Hindu philosophy and mythologies, knew nothing about the world-wide redemptive sacrifice that God would bring for humanity. In Hinduism, salvation is the dissolution of the individual in the cosmic, the cosmic in the meonic, the meonic in the absolute; personality as such disappears; the savior is Shiva - the Indian Satan who destroys the worlds.
Only Christianity brought the joyful news to the world that mankind has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. The pagan and Jewish world responded to this message with severe persecution. The cross of Christ seemed to pagan philosophers madness, and to Jewish teachers - a humiliation of the Godhead. However, already in the time of the apostles, heretics-docets appeared among Christians who taught that Christ came to earth ghostly, in some kind of ethereal body. This heresy rejected the dogma of redemption. If Christ did not take on human flesh, then His suffering is illusory, which means that redemption is also illusory, and Golgotha itself turns into a scene where the role of an illusionist is played by the Son of God. This heretical doctrine of "divine deceit" was so pernicious and blasphemous that the apostle John forbade Christians to let preachers of Docetism into their homes and even greet them when they met.
Other Gnostics also denied the redemptive Sacrifice of Christ the Savior. The Gnostic of the first century, Simon the Magus, took with him a woman named Helen, a harlot from Tyre, and taught that his concubine was the image of the human soul, and he was the incarnation of a god or a higher aeon who took a fallen woman into his communion. This indulgence of the deity to the harlot replaces the atonement of Simon the sorcerer.
Slightly digressing from the topic, we note the following. The confusing and dark teaching of Simon the Magus looks something like this. The deity gives birth to thought - ennia; ennia creates angels; they rebel against their ancestor and imprison her in the bonds of matter. Ennia passes into the body of Helen the Beautiful, because of which Troy fell, and into Helen the harlot from Tyre, whom Simon the sorcerer makes his companion. The vicious life of women, in whom ennia is embodied, does not defile the ennia itself, and in the body of harlots it remains a pure spark of the deity. This is the secret teaching of the Gnostics that the soul does not depend on bodily affairs, just as a royal prisoner does not lose his dignity from what is not in the palace, but in a dark dungeon. This means that one can indulge in vices and still remain pure.
Another Gnostic Carpocrates developed the teachings of Simon the Magus. He considered the body a constant enemy of the soul and taught that one must indulge in debauchery in order to exhaust and mortify the body, and enable the soul to free itself from its oppression as soon as possible. Carpocrates considered the humiliation of the body through vices and depravity to be the salvation of the soul and an analogue of redemption. This vile teaching of the Syrian Gnostics was subsequently presented to his readers by the Satanist writer Anatole France in the story "Thais", where he presented prostitution as a form of atonement.
The second-century Gnostic Basilides creates a theogonic system of 360 aeons according to the number of days of the year. Aeon Sophia falls out of the pleroma - the fullness of being and gets bogged down in the swamp of matter. Here, one of the higher eons descends to her - Christ and with the brilliance of his light reveals to her the glory that she had while in the pleroma. Following Christ, Sophia returns to her heavenly abode. There is no redemption here. The noted church historian Robertson writes: “The doctrine of the atonement was incompatible with the principles of Basilides. He allowed no other justification than justification through perfection in sanctification, and declared that each one would answer for his own sins. Christian Church”, Robertson, 1 volume, 45.p.). Basilides denied original sin and the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and reduced everything to learning.
The greatest Gnostic of the second century was Valentine, who described the vicissitudes and wanderings of Sophia in the spirit of a detective-mystical novel. In contrast to Basilides, he allowed for redemption, but in such a distorted and mutilated form that it had nothing in common with the apostolic teaching about the Sacrifice of Christ.
Valentine divided people into three groups: bodily, mental and spiritual. For the salvation of spiritual people (pneumatics) it was enough to know the Gnostic teachings; they were saved independently of their own works and moral precepts. For souls, among whom Valentin attributed church Christians, Jesus was crucified; before the crucifixion, the divine eon-Christ and his own higher spirit left him. Through crucifixion, Jesus showed soul Christians (psychics) how to perfect themselves through suffering. Here was an example, not a redemptive sacrifice, and an effect similar to the catharsis of ancient tragedies. The psychic, unlike the spiritual, could be saved or perish according to their deeds.
Every heresy is connected with the rejection or distortion of the dogma of redemption. If there is no redemption, then Christological dogmas lose their meaning; they become indifferent to soteriology. Mankind could only be redeemed by the God-Man, who has the fullness of Divine being and the perfection of human nature. And Christ could give commandments and show a moral example, in the interpretation of the Gnostics, Monophysites and Nestorians.
If Christ is not a Redeemer, but a teacher, then Christology ceases to be necessary for salvation, since example and teaching are the external actions of the Divine in relation to man, and redemption is the replacement of man by the Son of God on the cross, that is, a mystical ontology.
Why did Orthodox theologians-apologists fight Arianism so uncompromisingly, considering this heresy a loss of eternal life? - Because the Son of God, not equal to God the Father and other than Him by nature, could not bring a perfect, infinite, in its dignity, the sacrifice of redemption for all mankind, and become a Mediator between the Holy Trinity and the descendants of Adam.
Why Orthodox Church for many centuries fought and fights against Monophysitism? Because Monophysitism distorts the dogma of redemption. If Christ has a single nature, then it is incomprehensible Who suffered on the cross, Who died and rose again: after all, the Divinity is impassive and unchangeable. If Christ has one Divine nature, then how did the replacement of humanity by Christ on Golgotha take place?
Nestorianism, with its doctrine of the sinful nature of Jesus and of two persons united morally in Him, perverts the dogma of redemption. If human nature is sinful, then suffering and death become the consequences of sin, and not a voluntary sacrifice.
Catholics and a significant part of Protestants believe in the redemption of man by Christ, but the ecclesiological errors of their denominations do not allow them to enjoy the fruits of redemption.
At present, forces are actively operating that want to reform Christianity in the spirit of humanism and liberalism, ridicule the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam by his descendants, remove the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ from soteriology and create another Christianity in the gnostic spirit, where Christ acts as a teacher, and only in this sense is a savior. But even an imperfect deity can set an example and preach a new doctrine, as the Arians represent Christ.
Why, then, did Orthodox apologists fight against Arianism for several centuries? Why are Christians who did not accept the Arian creed and suffered for it, are martyrs and confessors, like those who did not renounce Christ during the time of pagan persecution? Christian apologists argued that if Christ is not equal to the Father, then our redemption through the Sacrifice of Calvary has not taken place; it lost its axiological perfection, and the world remained unredeemed. One of the prominent modern reformers declared: "Christ saved me by teaching me how to overcome sin." But didn't mankind know what sin was before Christ? Was there no repentance in the Old Testament Church? In various philosophical and religious teachings antiquity, you can find analogues to the commandments of Holy Scripture, but there was no Christ the Redeemer and the Holy Spirit - the Sanctifier, so it was not possible to be saved. Why Epiphany in Old Testament did not save people, but the incarnation of the Son of God was necessary? The Lord appeared to Moses at Sinai, talked with him as if “face to face”, gave commandments and detailed instructions about worship. But theophany (theophany) without incarnation and redemption could not free humanity from the slavery of Satan and the power of sin.
The Calvary Sacrifice is assimilated by a person in the sacrament of baptism; it means that mankind has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. In baptism, a person does not receive initiation, as in pagan theurgy, but is clothed in Christ. If a person is saved only by the example of Christ - how to live, then what does he receive in the sacraments of the Church? Why before the Calvary Sacrifice, the Holy Spirit could not descend to people and form the Church of grace? Why didn't Christ come to earth immediately after the fall of Adam, but took a period of five thousand years to prepare mankind? If the matter is in examples, then the whole history of the Old Testament is full of them. But why, before the coming of Christ, people wandered in darkness and the righteous went down to hell after death? If it is only a matter of teaching and example, then why are all Christological dogmas needed, because Christ could come in a ghostly or angelic body and show an example of how and what to do.
But only the God-man - with the perfect divine and human nature in one Person - could redeem us. If Christ did not replace a person with Himself, but only showed him, as in a picture, what needs to be done, then all disputes and dogmatic debates about the Person of Jesus Christ become meaningless. If there is no redemption, then a wide road opens up for ecumenism and theosophy; Moreover, the doctrine of the unification of confessions and then religions is presented as the only Christian principle, and dogmatic differences and Cathedral Orosi are insignificant opinions that do not change the essence of Christianity, but, on the contrary, are barriers to the unity of faith and love. If Christ did not bring an atoning sacrifice for me, did not replace me with Himself, but only taught me how to fight sin, then what do I care how two natures are united in His person, or how many wills - one or two - Christ has?
I should only be interested in how I will reproduce the example of Christ in my life with my own efforts. All denominations agree that Christ taught good, that He suffered (illusory or real), and the rest, if there is no redemption, does not apply to my salvation. If there is no sacrifice for me, and the Gospel is a pedagogical manual with illustrative examples, then what do I care, Christ is the God-man or a simple man who morally perfected himself all his life and conquered his sin on the cross? If Christ is only a teacher, and not a Redeemer, then in this sense all the founders of world religions can be called "saviors", since they taught what a person should be like. Here Christ is placed on a par with Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Pythagoras and others. If there is no redemption, then what is the difference between theophany and incarnation?
After all, the Lord spoke through Moses and the prophets. If it's a matter of learning, then what is the fundamental difference for me between Christ's Sermon on the Mount and the voice emanating from the Fiery Bush? If there is no redemption, but the point is in edification and example, then the widest opportunity opens up for connecting Orthodoxy with anything and everything, then intercommunion will take the place of a common sacral meal, and theosophy, as the principle of unity in plurality, will become not only justified, but even necessary. .
There are two possible answers to this question. The formulation of the question, which contains the concept of "atonement for sins", suggests a picture of the world in which a person's sins must be "paid for", just as someone pays a fine for an offense, or people must be redeemed, just as a criminal can be released under cash deposit.
The first answer offers the so-called. "legal theory of atonement", which arose in Catholicism and penetrated into Orthodoxy. According to it, since the sins of people are committed against the Infinite God, then an infinitely large sacrifice must be made to pay for them, which no one can bring except God Himself.
Here is how Mr. Makarii Bulgakov in Dogmatic Theology: “Man committed three great evils…: he infinitely offended his infinitely good, but also infinitely great, infinitely just, Creator with sin, and through that he was subjected to eternal damnation (Gen. 3:17-9 ) ... Therefore, in order to save a person from all these evils ... it was necessary: to satisfy for the sinner the infinite truth of God, offended by his fall ... (Eph. 2: 3) ... to satisfy the truth of God for the sin of a person, the same infinitely great propitiatory sacrifice was required, how infinite is the insult caused by man to God, how infinite is the eternal truth itself ... Such a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of man, quite sufficient to satisfy the infinite truth, could be obtained and brought only by ... almighty God. (§ 124. The need for Divine help for the restoration of man, if possible to do so on the part of man).
This theory has the right to exist, but it is only part of soteriology (the science of human salvation). Eastern theology focuses not on the legal, but on the ontological side of the salvation of mankind. According to this view, man's sin separated him from God and resulted in death, since only God has life in Himself.
Here it is necessary to explain the Christian view of the nature of man and the world. Everything created by God has the property of existence. Of all creation, only living beings have life. Of these, only personal beings have the properties of existence, life and the image and likeness of God (these are angels and people). But the last two properties - life and god-likeness, created beings have not by nature, but by grace. Only God has life in Himself (“In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” John 1:4).
In modern terms, God is the source of life, which has no alternative. Therefore, in order to save a person from death, a person must enter into personal communion with God and again receive the gift of eternal life. This is impossible without the will of God Himself. And God revealed His will in taking man into fellowship and giving him His life, which Christ did:
“The Lord Christ voluntarily offered Himself as a sacrifice, offered Himself according to humanity, and Himself accepted the sacrifice as God together with the Father and the Spirit. And so, on this basis, on which we have been united before, it is fitting for the followers of the Church to continue to philosophize, as worshipers of the Trinity. The God-man the Word at the beginning during the sovereign Passion to the Father, to Himself, as God, and to the Spirit, from which man was called from non-existence to existence, whom he offended by transgressing the commandment, with which reconciliation took place through the sufferings of Christ. In the same way, even now, bloodless sacrifices are offered to the all-perfect and perfecting Trinity, and She accepts them" (Tomos of the Council of Constantinople 1157).
- Fountain of Knowledge by John of Damascus
Although many today celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, some for faith reasons, others for commercial purposes, few people know about the true purpose of His birth. For, according to God's Word, Jesus Christ had a special mission from the very beginning of His life: to pay with His life the price of atonement for our sins. As an angel told Joseph when Jesus was still in Mary's womb:
Matthew 1:21
“... [Mary] will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins».
"Jesus" in Hebrew means "The Lord (in Hebrew Yahweh) is our salvation." Indeed, it is Jesus Christ who is the One through whom the Lord, Yahweh, brought salvation to people and delivered them from sins. In the Word of God, the proposal of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, to crucify Jesus is commented as follows:
John 11:50-52
“[Caiaphas says:] ... and you will not think that it is better for us that one person should die for the people than that the whole nation should perish. And this he did not say of himself, but being the high priest for that year, he foretold, that Jesus would die for the people, and not only for the people, but that even the scattered children of God might be gathered together».
Christ was born to die for us all, and in this article we will explore the impact of His death.
1. Jesus Christ - Redeemed us from sin
Atonement is one of the oft-cited consequences of the death of Jesus.” "Redemption" is a work that implies the presence of a redeemer, i.e. the one who makes redemption possible, and also the ransom as the payment for this redemption. To understand what Jesus redeemed us from, and what kind of ransom He paid, consider Titus 2:14, where it says:
Titus 2:14
"Which [Jesus]."
Jesus Christ redeemed us from all iniquity and he did it, giving himself for us. In other words, HE has become the payment for redemption from "ALL ILLEGALITY". Matthew 20:28 says:
Matthew 20:28
“for the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many».
Jesus came to serve and give his life as a ransom for many". And how great was the payment for redemption, so great was the redemption itself, which He acquired by paying such a price. Indeed, Hebrews 9:11-12 speaks of this redemption:
Hebrews 9:11-12
“But Christ, the High Priest of the good things to come, having come with a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of such a dispensation, and not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, once entered into the sanctuary and obtained eternal redemption».
The priests of the law brought calves and goats with which they intended to obtain the remission of sins. As we will see later, these actions were not enough. Jesus brought to God Your own blood which He purchased for us eternal redemption. Also, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 say:
Ephesians 1:7
«… in whom [in Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his [God's] grace».
Colossians 1:14
«… in whom [in Jesus] we have redemption through his blood and the forgiveness of sins».
Atonement does not depend on our good works and good behavior. It does not depend on how much time we devote to God. It is not hidden in our worth or personal qualities. In contrast to all this, it is IN JESUS. And this redemption is “according to the riches of His grace,” i.e. it is abundant, complete, and, as we read, eternal redemption.
2. Jesus Christ is our Redeemer for the sins of Adam.
As we mentioned in the previous point, Jesus Christ became the atoning sacrifice for all our sins, for "ALL iniquities" as stated in Titus 2:14. However, it is necessary to indicate that the word "ALL", in addition to the sins committed by a person during life, includes the sin committed by Adam and led him to fall, which is transmitted to all people from generation to generation, making them sinners from the very moment of their birth. Indeed, Romans 5:18-19 says:
Romans 5:18-19
“Therefore, as through the transgression of one [Adam] condemnation to all men, so through the righteousness of one [Jesus Christ] to all men justification unto life. For as by the disobedience of one man [Adam] many have become sinners so by the obedience of one [Jesus] many will be made righteous.”
Adam's disobedience not only led him to his own fall, but also made all those born after him sinners, although they did not commit his sin. Thus, there is no person who could say that he does not need redemption, because even hypothetically [but only hypothetically imagining that such a person did nothing wrong], there is still Adam's sin, which makes him a sinner from birth. Thus, it is clear that our atonement would not be complete if it did not include Adam's sin. Therefore, Jesus Christ also had to redeem us from the sin of Adam, which He did. Romans 5:19 says:
Romans 5:19
"For, just as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] many will be made righteous».
Although the sin of Adam passes from generation to generation, afflicting every person, through the obedience and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, we can all be delivered not only from this sin, but from every sin that can afflict our souls. As Titus 2:14 says:
Titus 2:14
"Which [Jesus] gave himself for us to deliver us from all iniquity…»
When it says "from ALL iniquity," it means ALL iniquity, and it is obvious that Adam's sin also belongs here. Today, when someone is born, he is already born a sinner. However, there is a way out of this situation, and this way out is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, Acts 10:43 says:
Acts 10:43
“About Him [about Jesus - approx. auth.] all the prophets testify that whoever believes in him will receive the remission of sins in His name."
So simple: whoever believes in Jesus Christ, all his sins are forgiven. But how dear was this forgiveness! Its price is the precious Blood of the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ.
So, although we were all born sinners at the first birth, at the second birth - the new birth (see John 3:3-8) - which occurred at the moment of our believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and his Resurrection, we were born again, completely blameless because faith, which gives birth again, cleanses us from ALL sin.
3. Jesus Christ is the Perfect Sacrifice
Considering that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ redeemed us from all sin, one might ask, what was the role of the various sacrifices and offerings prescribed in the law and offered for the forgiveness of sins? Before we consider the value of these sacrifices, it must be clear that nothing was provided in the law to forgive Adam's sin. Nothing could help a person get rid of it. Thus, people were born sinners and remained sinners even after offering all the sacrifices according to the law for the various sins described in the law. The situation changed only with the performance of the sacrifice by Jesus, after which, although we are born sinners, we can be cleansed both from this sin and from all sins in general, by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, returning from the sin of Adam to the sacrifices and offerings for sins described in the law, we see that the Word of God speaks of them as insufficient. Indeed, Hebrews 10:1-4 says:
Hebrews 10:1-4
“The law, having a shadow of future blessings, and not the very image of things, by the same sacrifices, constantly offered every year, can never make perfect those who come [with them]. Otherwise, they would cease to offer [them], because those who offer sacrifice, having been cleansed once, would no longer have any consciousness of sins. But the sacrifices are yearly reminded of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins».
In the last verse of the above passage, it becomes clear that the offering of animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, as prescribed by the law, was not enough, for it is said: “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” And since Hebrews 9:22 says:
Hebrews 9:22
«… without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness».
Obviously, for true forgiveness, the blood of another person had to be shed. Whose blood was it? Blood of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Hebrews 10:6-12 says:
Hebrews 10:10-12
“By this will [cf. verses 5-9 for context - approx. auth.] we are sanctified by the one-time offering of the body of Jesus Christ. And every priest daily stands in service, and repeatedly brings the same sacrifices, which can NEVER eradicate sins. He [Jesus Christ], offering one sacrifice for sins forever seated at the right hand of God.
Jesus Christ solved the problem of sin once and for all single offering Himself for everyone. Unlike the priests, who repeatedly offered the same sacrifices “which can never take away sins,” His sacrifice for sins was one, and by this sacrifice He acquired “eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). Therefore, there is no need to make other sacrifices today, as Hebrews 10:18 explicitly states:
Hebrews 10:18
“Where is the forgiveness of sins, there is no need for an offering for them».
This passage does not say that there are no more sins. It says here there is no more offering for them now. And all because the offering of Jesus Christ conquered sin once and for all. Not only over the sins we committed when we were unbelievers, and over the sin of Adam, but also over the sins that we may have committed after believing. These sins are also forgiven by the atoning power of the blood of Jesus. 1 John 1:7-9 says:
1 John 1:7-9
“... but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
The blood of Jesus is the only medicine that can heal us from the disease of sin. The law required one sacrifice for one sin, another for another, and so on. And yet, none of these sacrifices could solve the problem of sin. But what the law could not do, Jesus did by sacrificing himself. Now whoever believes in Him is cleansed from ALL sins. Revelation 1:5 says:
Revelation 1:5
“…and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Him who loved us and washed us from our sins with His blood».
Jesus Christ washed us from our sins with His blood. It was He who did this work. It does not say that we washed ourselves. He washed us. He has done it completely and there is no need to do anything else now.
4. Jesus Christ is the Reconciler between us and God
Having seen that through the sacrifice of Jesus we have received the atonement for sins, let's now move on to consider what else we have received along with the forgiveness of sins. What is this? Our reconciliation with God. And indeed, if before the sacrifice of Jesus we were sinners and therefore enemies of God, after His sacrifice and our believing in Him, we became redeemed and washed from all our sins. It made us righteous and reconciled us to God. Romans 5:6-10 says:
Romans 5:6-10
“For Christ, while we were still weak, at the appointed time died for the ungodly. For hardly anyone will die for the righteous; perhaps for a benefactor, maybe someone will dare to die. But God proves His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. Therefore, even more so now being justified by His blood let us be saved by Him from wrath. For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”
Jesus Christ died for us when we were still sinners and enemies of God. By His death, He reconciled us to God, paid for all our sins, and transformed us after we believed, replacing our sinful nature with a righteous one. 1 Peter 3:18 also says:
1 Peter 3:18
“... because Christ, to lead us to God suffered once for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.”
Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, suffered for all of us, the unrighteous, and by His sacrifice brought us to God. And if Christ has led us to God, do we still need to be led to Him? No, because Christ has already done it! As Christians, we are no longer far from God and do not need to be led to Him. On the contrary, we have already been reconciled to Him. And this was made possible not because of us, but because of Jesus. As it says here: "... CHRIST, to bring us to God ... suffered." In addition, Colossians 1:19-23 says:
Colossians 1:19-23
“For it pleased [the Father] that in Him [in Jesus – approx. aut.] all fullness dwelt, and in order to reconcile everything to Himself through Him, appeasing everything through Him, by the Blood of His Cross, both earthly and heavenly. And you, who were once estranged and enemies, in disposition to evil deeds, now reconciled in the body of His Flesh, by His death, [to] present you holy and blameless and blameless before Him, if only you remain steadfast and immovable in faith and do not fall away from hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is proclaimed to all creation under heaven, of which I, Paul, have become a minister.”
Are we now alienated from God and are we enemies to Him? Are we strangers to Him now? No. We "were once alienated and enemies." But not now. For, “now [God] has reconciled in the body of His [Jesus] flesh by His [Jesus] death.” Ephesians 2:19 says:
Ephesians 2:19
« So you are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God».
5. Conclusion
In this article, we have explored to some extent the impact of Jesus' sacrifice, focusing on the atonement for sins brought about by that sacrifice. As we have seen, by His death Jesus redeemed us from all sin, including the sin of Adam, by reconciling us to God. Therefore, from now on we are no longer sinners, strangers and enemies of God. Instead, we are now saved, righteous, redeemed, and reconciled to God, not because of our works, but because of what Jesus, our Redeemer, did in giving Himself a ransom for the sins of us all. At the end of this article, I would like to say: let's remember what is written in 1 Peter 1:18-19, which says:
1 Peter 1:18-19
“…knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible silver or gold from the vain life given to you from your fathers, but the precious blood of Christ, as of a spotless and pure Lamb».
As 1 John 1:10 says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we represent Him as a liar, and His word is not in us."
See, for example: Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers.
Redemption is one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity. According to Christian ideas, Adam's sin was not forgiven and the descendants of the first man inherited his guilt, and Jesus, through the crucifixion, atoned for the sin of all mankind. Over the centuries, this teaching has been interpreted in different ways by expert theologians. Even in the first centuries, some theologians unconditionally rejected this dogma, while others, such as Tertullian, Origen, and others, believed that the death of Jesus was a kind of ransom paid to the Devil. It was a Persian idea, borrowed from Zoroastrianism, according to which God atones for the sins of mankind by submitting to the god of Evil. Some believe that this is a kind of self-sacrifice on the part of God to correct the unrighteous disposition of mankind and deliver him from punishment. Theologians such as Irenaeus put forward the theory of recapitulation, according to which Jesus Christ contributed by his crucifixion to the union of God with man, who was separated from his Creator due to the fall of Adam. Only since the time of St. Augustine has the current idea of redemption, which provides for the Divine plan for the salvation of the world, been accepted, overcoming theological contradictions (105).
This is actually a multidoctrinal moment of faith, which implies the following:
1. man is by nature vicious, inherits Adam's sin and is doomed to hell;
2. Because of His immeasurable mercy, God did not allow this state of affairs to continue, and in a certain way brought peace through a person who, as the third person of the Trinity, was equal to Him;
3. He sent His son as a Savior who died on the cross and thereby cleansed mankind from sins;
4. this sacrifice reconciled sinful man to his angry God and united him with the Lord.
Consider this multifaceted issue in all its aspects.
First, the original sin of man is emphasized, which prompted God to send his emissary, the Savior, to earth. First, let's define what sin is. This is an evil deed committed by a person in violation of the commandments of God. Everyone recognizes that the morality of people is different. Some people are righteous, others are unstable, and still others are evil and cruel; some are sinful, others are sinless. This means that a person, having come into the world, acquires the seal of sin by his actions, and does not inherit it. True, Adam made a mistake, provoked the wrath of God and was expelled from paradise. Christians believe that Adam was not forgiven and his sin was inherited by posterity. This theory is illogical and not based on biblical texts; rather, it is taken from the writings of Paul. That the burden of sin can be passed on to others seems completely absurd. Thomas Paine was very clear about this:
“If I owe money to someone and cannot pay it back, and the creditor threatens me with prison, the other person can take over the debt. But if I committed a crime, everything changes. Moral justice does not allow the innocent to be considered guilty, even if the innocent offers himself for this. To suppose that justice does so is to destroy its very principles. This will no longer be justice. It will be revenge indiscriminately” (106).
The source of Christianity was Judaism, and in the 1st century. The Old Testament was his only Bible. Old Testament prophecy was invoked to justify the mission of Jesus. And Jesus himself never claimed anything that was contrary to Jewish scripture. Meanwhile, the Old Testament nowhere mentions the so-called original sin. God has sent numerous prophets to guide lost humanity along the right path. Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Joseph and other prophets were righteous. Zechariah and John the Baptist are also recognized in the New Testament (107). How can a person who is from birth guilty before God become righteous?
The Old Testament nowhere mentions that man inherits original sin; on the contrary, God created man in his own image (108). What does the phrase "in the image" mean? The New Testament explains that being made in the image of God means by nature to love good and hate evil (109). The New Testament calls Adam the son of God (110). In the same way, the Torah mentions that God highly rewarded Abel, the son of Adam (111). It is not clear how Abel could become righteous if his father Adam was a sinner and passed on sin to him, as Christianity assures us. It was never intended that the New Testament should replace the Old Testament, and when Paul claims that Jesus abolished the Law, he deviates greatly from the true teaching of Jesus, who always rejected those who rejected the Holy Scriptures (112). Jesus himself claimed that children are pure, without sin, "for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (113). The Gospel of Luke mentions that John the Baptist "will be great in the sight of the Lord ... and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb" (114). This means that John was sinless even in the womb. But the New Testament does not consider only the prophets to be righteous. The general tenet of the Gospels is that God forgives repentant sinners (115). Only the fabrications of Paul lead to the theory of original sin. In his book Christian Ethics and Modern Problems, Rector Inge (116) noted that this "perverted" doctrine was formulated by Paul, and later theologians included it in church doctrine. Hector Houghton says:
“The orthodox doctrine of original sin… simply does not exist in the Biblical writings. Much of it is no doubt borrowed from interpretations of the writings of Paul” (117). Bishop Master was so outspoken that he stated: "We no longer believe in original sin" (118).
Christian theologians claim that God is all-merciful, and He has so much love for mankind that it cannot be expressed in words. It is for this reason that He sent His Son to wash away the stain of original sin. Such an understanding of God makes the Almighty God a pagan tribal deity, who often sacrificed his own image, son, or even incarnation to save his tribe. Pagan mythical deities sent saviors to their tribes or clans, and Christian teaching says that God sent his son only to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel (119). The mission of Jesus is thus not universal, but limited to a particular people (120).
Indeed, God has always been merciful to mankind and has repeatedly sent messengers to show people the true path. The Bible mentions that when the majority of the Israelites departed from the Divine path, the wrath of God fell upon them with such force that in a worldwide flood He destroyed the entire existing world then, with the exception of a few people; this mass destruction touched the other inhabitants of the earth much more than the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus appeared at a time when the population density was much greater than at the time of the Flood. It is much more logical to assume, rather than to think, that the Christian God should have had mercy on his unfortunate creatures at the time of the flood. Why did He finally send His Son as a savior, and even then only for the house of Israel? In general, this dogma looks completely absurd, because such a position did not fit God Almighty, about whom Jesus Christ preached, who never proclaimed his messianism and did not promise mass salvation. On the contrary, he asked his disciples to repent "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (121). In addition, it is stated that Jesus Christ, called the only begotten Son of God and the second person of the Christian Trinity, came to earth as the Messenger of God to become the Savior, and that he was crucified according to the Divine plan to atone for the sins of mankind. That Jesus was the son of God is stated in many places in the Bible. As already mentioned, the title "Son of God" was given to him for his righteousness and should be understood metaphorically, in the same way as the expression "servant of God."
The fantasy of such philosophers as Philo gave rise to the existence of an intermediary between God and people; in this case, the role of savior was assigned to Jesus. But this idea does not make sense, since the evangelical teaching contradicts this belief. If Jesus had been the savior of mankind due to the fact that he was condemned to a sacrificial death, his mission would not have been limited to the house of Israel and he would not have insisted on strict observance of the Law, he would not have asked to repent for unrighteous deeds. Doesn't it also cast a shadow on him that he was cursed by God and went to hell for three days (122)? Christians believe that Jesus was crucified according to God's plan. If so, one wonders whether Jesus knew about the impending crucifixion at the beginning of his mission, or whether this role was imposed on him after his departure by false disciples, and whether there is any promise in the Old Testament of Jehovah to send a Savior to atone for the sins of mankind (123). The crux of the matter is that he found out about his impending execution on his last day. Luke mentions (124) that in order to meet the impending threat, Jesus told his disciples to acquire swords, even if they had to sell their clothes, and when they informed him that they had two, he told them; "enough". This means that he wanted to defend himself and was ready to attack. Prof. Pfleiderer remarks about this: “If Jesus was afraid of murder on the last evening of his life and prepared to meet him with a weapon in his hands, then he could not know and predict his death on the cross; these predictions could only be put into his mouth in retrospect” (125). Luke's story refutes any claim that Jesus knew in advance that he was to be crucified as a sacrifice for salvation, allegedly according to God's plan.
It was a Jewish conspiracy and Jesus was worried about his fate. If everything had gone as he planned, and Jesus knew it, he would never have hesitated to sacrifice his life for such a noble cause and would not have asked God to pass this thicket (126). If this was the Divine plan, he would never have uttered the words: “Eloi, Eloi, lamma savakhfani? » (127).
It means that true doctrine Jesus was never meant to be the Savior. The fact is that the Mediterranean at the time of Christ was so full of myths about the Savior that any religion that arose there was influenced by them. Almost all beliefs, from Greek to Persian, carried the germs of the cult of the Savior. Several ancient deities were, according to legend, crucified in the name of saving mankind - Krishna and Indra shed their blood for this noble mission; chinese god Tien, Osiris and Horus sacrificed themselves to save the world, Adonis was put to death for this purpose. Prometheus, the greatest and most ancient benefactor of the human race, was chained to the rocks in the Caucasus (128). Mithra, according to Persian beliefs, was an intermediary between the Supreme Deity and humanity. He was believed to be a dying god whose blood saved humanity (129).
Similarly, Dionysus was called the Deliverer of mankind. Even in distant Mexico, it was believed that "the death of Quetzalcoatl on the cross" was "the atonement for the sins of mankind" (130). Edward Carpenter notes:
“These examples are enough to prove that the doctrine of the savior is as old as the world and widespread throughout the world, and Christianity only appropriated it ... and gave it a specific shade. Thus, the Christian doctrine of the Savior is an exact copy of pagan cults, which is not based on the teachings of Christ” (131).
Finally, consider whether Jesus actually died by crucifixion. The very fact of the crucifixion is highly controversial. Evangelists claimed that the Jews crucified Christ and mocked his disciples. According to Scripture, he died a shameful death on the cross. Since none of the apostles was present at the time of his death, they avoided questioning and resorted to myth-making. Thus, they not only accepted the Jewish claims about the crucifixion, but, in order to remove the stigma from themselves, they made crucifixion itself a cardinal principle of their faith. F.K. Conybeare notes:
“Since then, crucifixion has not been ashamed. Paul openly glorified him, and the author of the fourth gospel regarded him as the final proof of the glory of Jesus” (132).
Accepting without reservation that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, it cannot be argued that he was the only prophet who suffered such a fate. The list of various other prophets killed by the Jews should be viewed in the same way.
It is quite logical to conclude that the doctrine of redemption, which is foreign to Jesus and the current canonical gospels, was adopted later and in its present form is based on pre-Christian Mithraic and other pagan savior cults. Otherwise, this article of faith is completely unfounded. As church circles became more rational, they felt that this was the case. At the Lambeth Conference of British and American Bishops, the doctrine of atonement was rejected as based on an unworthy understanding of God. Bishop Masterman stated quite unequivocally at this conference:
“Once and for all, we must banish from our theology any thought of a change in the attitude of God [to people] because of the death of Christ” (133).