Recently, David Moffitt, formerly of Duke and Campbell university divinity schools in the States and now a Senior Lecturer at St Andrews university Scotland, published a book entitled ‘Rethinking the Atonement: ‘New perspectives on the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ’. It expands a previous book he published , ‘Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, itself an expansion of his doctrinal dissertation.
Moffitt is an evangelical and his recent book carries the commendation of some influential names in and around the evangelical Christian world. N T Wright considers its arguments eye-opening. Richard Hays believes Moffitt’s arguments are ‘a game changer’. While Kevin Vanhoozer believes they represent a ‘Copernican revolution’ in atonement theology. The view expressed , however, is not so new since it is has long been part of Adventist theology though Moffitt perhaps pushes it to new extremes. Moffitt’s book, however, seems destined to be influential; I am already dismayed by evidence of younger evangelicals buying into its thesis.
There seems to be a number of strands to his argument. Firstly, he argues resurrection has not been given sufficient weight in Hebrews and insists a resurrected embodied man is central to the theology of Hebrews. Why becomes clear when we discover for Moffitt atonement is the embodied living Christ in heaven. Secondly, Christ’s priesthood begins upon his resurrection and rests on the power of an indestructible life. On earth he is not a priest. This further bolsters his contention that the priestly work of atonement takes place in heaven but pulls the rug from under any priestly atonement on earth. Thirdly, while the cross is atoning it is so only in an initial or preparatory sense (like the slaughter of the sacrificial animal on the Day of Atonement) and real or proper atonement takes place in heaven in a life-released Christ. The biblical picture of a death-based atonement is sidelined.
I have read neither of Moffitt’s book and regrettably I am unlikely to do so. I have, however, read a few reviews (mainly of the earlier book) and from these it is clear that the book is indeed revolutionary for it challenges the traditional evangelical (one may say Christian belief) belief that atonement is essentially achieved on earth and at the cross.
Moffitt’s focus, as the title of his recent book makes clear, is atonement in Hebrews. He (rightly) understands atonement in Hebrews to be based on an OT background, the Day of Atonement. Though it would be wrong to limit the writer’s atonement sources to the Day of Atonement Hebrews also draws on other OT models of atonement (Ch 10), including Isaiah 53 (9:28). From Lev 16 and Hebrews 9 he contends atonement in Hebrews is accomplished exclusively in the heavenly sanctuary. This contention, if correct, shifts the atonement tectonic plates by relocating primary atonement from a crucified Christ on earth to a resurrected Christ in heaven. It also brings the writer of Hebrews and other NT writers into conflict.
Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven, Moffitt argues, is the acme of atonement. In heaven, Jesus presents his resurrection life (new life released) as atonement corresponding to the OT high priest sprinkling blood on the mercy seat in the holiest. Blood, Moffitt argues, following some current academy views probably influenced by the C19 theologian Westcott, symbolises life not death and so Christ’s exalted heavenly life is the atoning fulfilment of Lev 16. Since his life is now indestructible he never ceases to atone.
This Day of Atonement rite persuades Moffitt that heaven is the true location of atonement. While he upholds the death of Christ as the commencement of atonement, it is only the beginning; true atonement in Lev 16 happens in heaven not earth. Atonement is ultimately a glorified man not a slaughtered corpse. He regards traditional atonement views that limit atonement to the cross as reductionistic.
Moffitt writes in a blog post about his recent book,
But does Jesus solve all the problems that separate God and humanity at the same time and in the same way? Was all the atoning work of Christ done when he died on the cross? Unlike cross-centred theories of atonement, the author of Hebrews and some other New Testament writers assume a narrative of the Son’s incarnation that reveals that the atonement involves much more than just the cross.
The expression ‘just the cross’ is chilling. To slight the cross is hazardous.
Part of the problem for Moffitt may lie in a confusion of terms. Moffitt writes as if atonement and salvation are synonyms. He writes,
Jesus’s death is essential for atonement, but so also are his resurrection, ascension, ongoing intercession, and hoped-for return. Each of these aspects of the narrative of the incarnation of the eternal Son contribute in distinct ways to the salvation Jesus makes possible for those who come to God through him.
Most would agree that the death and resurrection contribute to salvation. However, most conservative theologians would distinguish between atonement and salvation. Atonement they would understand as a specific aspect of salvation, the foundational aspect; salvation they would view as a broader word encompassing every aspect of God’s trinitarian saving activity. Atonement, conservative evangelicals would argue, is presented in the Bible as the achievement of the cross.
Biblically and traditionally atonement, refers to Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice to glorify God, remove sin and defeat Satan. It involves ransom, propitiation and expiation. Atonement’s effect is to redeem, purify from sin and provide a basis for forgiveness, justification and reconciliation. Atonement appeases God’s wrath, satisfies God’s justice, expresses God’s love and glorifies God’s name. It propitiates God, expiates sin and overthrows Satan, sin and death by rendering them powerless through Christ the sin-bearer. Atonement is the foundational reconciling event from which all salvation blessings flow. To equate atonement and salvation is to obfuscate terms.
Moffitt wants to shift primary atonement from earth to heaven.
But what if early Christians really believed that Jesus rose bodily and ascended as a human being through the heavens into a heavenly tabernacle to offer himself to his Father and now serve there as his people’s great high priest? Such an account of the Son’s ongoing incarnate work would require a rethink about how Jesus atones for his people.
Moffitt’s position is plain,
I conclude that Jesus’ crucifixion is neither the place nor the moment of atonement for the author of Hebrews. Rather, in keeping with the equation in the Levitical sacrificial system of the presentation of blood to God with the presentation of life, Jesus obtained atonement where and when the writer says–when he presented himself in his ever-living, resurrected humanity before God in heaven. Jesus’ bodily resurrection is, therefore, the hinge around which the high-priestly Christology and soteriology of Hebrews turns.
I find very troubling Moffitt’s thesis that atonement merely begins at the cross and its main location is in heaven. Indeed, he believes, in Hebrews there is no cross atonement. There are, of course, outcomes from the atonement that are perpetual, and yes, we must ask how Lev 16 is fulfilled in Hebrews. But to allow this one typological event to completely shift the orientation of atonement from earth to heaven reinterpreting many Scriptures in Hebrews (and elsewhere) that traditionally are believed to locate atonement at the cross foolhardy. To muddle atonement and salvation in such a way that atonement is both located in heaven and is perpetual is a distortion of truth from one who should know better.
Moffitt says,
Jesus is the one who died as the sacrifice, rose as the sacrifice, and ascended into the heavenly tabernacle to offer himself to God as the sacrifice.
Again, if Moffitt merely means that the effects of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross are lasting and that he is forever identified with his sacrifice on the cross (Rev 5) that is true but if he means, as he seems to do, that Christ’s life is a perpetual atoning sacrifice then that is altogether wrong. It sounds more like Roman Catholicism than Protestant evangelical Christianity. I would ask where in Scripture Christ’s resurrection or present heavenly session is presented as atoning sacrifice? Yet Moffitt places atonement in Hebrews entirely in heaven and not at the cross.
I repeat, I have not read the book. My comments are based on Moffitt’s own online writing and a few reviews, mainly of his first book. I hope I have understood him rightly. My limited knowledge of his position means that I am limited in what I can fairly say.
I think my best approach is to allow Scripture to speak largely for itself. I’ve no doubt Moffitt has grappled with the texts I cite and found they support his contention. However, to minds less committed to an alien perspective, I trust they will be more persuasive.
Types and antitypes
Moffitt looks to the OT Day of Atonement for his main support of a heavenly atonement. He understands Hebrews to be built on Lev 16. Certainly, Hebrews 9, which is Hebrews foundation atonement text, draws comparisons and contrasts between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s atonement. And this is the point to grasp; Hebrews draws comparisons and contrasts. Types and antitypes are not necessarily in strict correspondence (think of Adam and Christ in Roms 5). Hebrews itself teaches that ‘the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things… ‘Because events happen in a certain way in Lev 16 does not mean that the fulfilment must be in exactly the same way. There are lots of levitical sacrifices which were ritually different from the Day of Atonement that also are types feeding into the antitype and some appear in Hebrews (Ch 10). All ritual variations cannot be accommodated to the letter in the fulfilment; if they did there would be conflict. Admittedly the Day of Atonement is foundational. However, even here we shall see that the antitype dictates to the type and not vice versa. The Christ event determines whether the type is at any given point a comparison or a contrast.
Atonement is really an OT word. Lev 16 mentions atonement a lot. Around 19 times. Atonement is undoubtedly its focus. The two burnt offerings are atoning. Seven male lambs are also offered for atonement whose blood was not sprinkled in the holiest (Num 29:8). The scapegoat for Azazel is atoning. The bullock (for the Priesthood) and the second goat (for the people) atone. The common feature in OT ritual is that the death of an animal is integral to atonement. Alive, these animals could not atone. They required to be slain by the offerer. In Hebs 9:14 we read,
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God (Hebs 9:14)
Christ is the offering high priest and the offering. I take it this text parallels the slaying of the bullock and goat on the Day of Atonement. The slaying of an unblemished animal offered on the altar of burnt offering is normally where atonement takes place (11:17, 10:8-10). Only on the Day of Atonement was the blood of the dead animal taken into the holiest and placed on the mercy seat (the seat of the throne from which divine judgements flowed). The blood atoned for sin that would have necessitated God acting in judgement. The blood made the throne what it desired to be – a mercy seat (Hebs 4:16). Hebrews tells us almost everything in the law is purified by blood and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebs 9:22). Blood sacrifices atone with the blood indicating a life sacrificially (violently) given not life released (Lev 17:11).
As we read the strange and alien rituals of the OT law it soon becomes clear that a number of rituals are necessary to encompass the one sacrifice of Christ and these don’t always straightforwardly correspond. For starters, Christ is both the High Priest and the sacrificial victim. This is an immediate discontinuity. Also two goats are necessary to prefigure the one atoning sacrifice of Christ. Atonement, of course is not possible by a dumb animal but requires a volitional human being (Ch 10). Furthermore, the many sacrifices of many Days of Atonement and many more daily atoning sacrifices contrast with the once-and-for all sacrifice of Christ. Discontinuity and continuity between type and antitype is inevitable and obvious and should caution us as we interpret the type.
Most importantly, the NT identifies and conflates the sacrificial victim and the sacrificial place. Christ is both the propitiation and the place of propitiation – he is both the sacrifice and the mercy seat. This identification of Christ with the mercy seat is important. On the Day of Atonement the mercy seat is inside the holiest and it is there atonement is made. In the fulfilment, the mercy seat is Christ and it is his blood shed on the cross that atones (Roms 3:25). Fulfilment does not, in location, correspond with the type. Romans says,
… are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation (mercy seat) by his blood, to be received by faith.
The placarding and the redemption point strongly to a cross location. Indeed, unless many NT verses, traditionally believed to refer to the cross, are relocated to heaven, it’s hard to see how anywhere other than the cross is intended. I am unaware of any NT text outside of Hebrews that locates atonement in heaven; and Hebrews, despite Moffitt, is by no means clearly committed to heavenly atonement.
Paul observes that Christ’s redemptive death on the cross is where God deals with divine wrath and human sins. It is the cross that is the place of atonement… the mercy seat. Christ is the ‘hilasterion’ the place of propitiation, of atonement. It is on the cross that he is ‘placarded’ to draw all men to himself. It is there he is seen by his followers (he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him).
Hebrews speaks of him ‘bearing the sins of many’ (9:28). It is an allusion to Isa 53:12,
yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah, identifies Messiah’s two priestly tasks; atoning for sin and interceding for the people. This text places atonement in the past and looks with the remnant to the place where.
‘He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him. the iniquity of us all. stricken for the transgression of my people? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked. and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes a guilt offering ’.
In Isaiah atonement is a guilt offering which takes place entirely on earth. The servant is observed suffering, suffering that is later realised by the redeemed remnant to be vicarious. The observation that the made his grave with the wicked and he was with the rich man in his death locates atonement on earth and at the cross. He is a guilt offering not dissimilar to a sin offering. No heavenly atoning is mentioned.
It was on the cross he was delivered for our trespasses before being raised for our justification (Roms 4:25). The ‘hilasterion’ or mercy seat is not in heaven but is located in a crucified Christ. Like the two goats, the two locations integral to atonement in Lev 16 (the slaying of the animal at the entrance to the tent of meeting and the application of the blood on the mercy seat in the holiest) become one as the shadow gives way to the reality.
I think that Romans 3:25 powerfully reveals how types are transmogrified in the antitype while retaining the essential truths of the type.
Hebrews
Hebrews is the NT book upon which Moffitt builds his case. References to atonement in Hebrews have traditionally been understood to refer, at least in the main, to the cross. The cross is the most natural location for a number of reasons. The first is the suffering/glory motif evident in Hebrews.
Suffering/Glory motif
Hebrews is written to believers suffering for their faith and reminds them that suffering and then glory is the Christian patten of sonship modelled in Christ. In this present world we expect suffering and in the world to come we will receive glory. This suffering/glory motif comes to something of a climax in Ch 12 where we read,
Let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
The juxtaposing of the cross suffering of Christ and subsequent glory is significant. Suffering for Christ in Hebrews is normally located at the cross which serves as the example for the suffering of believers and their hope of consequent glory. As a result of enduring the cross he is enthroned in glory. In other Hebrews references this same contrast and sequence is retained.
It is introduced almost immediately, in Ch 1, where atonement and glory are sequenced and contrasted.
After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Moffitt presumably believes purification for sin is made in heaven, however, since no mention has been at this early point in Hebrews of a supposed heavenly atonement, the natural assumption must be the reference is to the cross; the cross is soteriological suffering. This interpretation is consistent with the suffering and glory motif that runs through Hebrews.
In Ch 2, we read,
But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every man (2:9)
Again atoning suffering both contrasts with and results in glory. Jesus is crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death. Atonement suffering was the means to glory. Death clearly locates suffering at the cross and contrasts with the glory and honour. Death is often linked to atonement in Hebrews. Substitution is not far from the writer’s mind at this point .
The text continues,
It was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (2:10)
Again the suffering-glory motif is plain. Christ our leader has suffered that he may be perfected (fully mature/complete in his faith-experience). He is fitted by suffering to be God’s filial Priest-King and suffering is the way he leads his people to maturity in a new exodus to glory (cf. 10:10-12,14).
Notice the reference to the suffering of death. We see atonement in the tasting of death for everyone (2:9). Through death he is God’s warrior destroying the devil (2:14). Death locates atonement firmly at the cross. In this context of death and suffering we read that Jesus acts as ‘a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people’ The reference to propitiation again as previously noted is located at the cross; Christ is the place of propitiation (Roms 3:25) The cross in Hebrews seems to be the primary location of Christ suffering under trial pointing once more to the suffering/glory motif which locates atonement at the cross.
The same theology is evident in Ch 9. Blood is a sign death has taken place (9:15-22, 26-28). In Ch 12, the blood of Jesus and Abel is an indication they are dead; theirs is life violently taken (12:24). I submit, death is not a preparation for atonement it is the atonement. There is no further atonement (Ex 32:30-32; Num 25:13; 35:33; Deut 21:1–9; 2 Sam 21:3) for further atonement is unnecessary… that is the implication of a seated priest (1:3). Death gives way to leading the praise in the midst of the congregation (2:12. Ps 22). Death, not life, is the foundation of the eternal covenant (Hebs 9:15-22).
Briefly, an aside.
I understand Moffitt doesn’t believe wrath is involved in the atonement. How then are we to understand blood sacrifice? Why then is blood, violently shed, necessary for the remission of sins (9:22)? Death implies judicial sentence – it is the penalty for sin. The soul that sins shall die.(Ezek 18:20). Judgement is intrinsic to blood-sacrifice. The point of sacrifice is a life for a life. The death/judgement that belonged to the sinner is borne by the sacrifice. Sins consequence is transferred from the individual/nation to the animal (Lev 16:20-22). Are we to imagine that when God judges he does so dispassionately. An emotionless and disinterested divine judge would be monstrous. God cares passionately about right and wrong. He loves righteousness and hates evil. We need only read of Israel’s exile to find out whether God acts in righteous wrath or otherwise. Indeed Hebrews in the warning passages makes plain that divine fury is active in judgement (Chs 2, 6, 10)
if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 10:20-29
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (10:31)
Our God is a consuming fire (12:29).
God’s emotional engagement in judgement is not in doubt to the writer to the Hebrews. He is the God who will once more shake both the earth and heavens. In a sense the atonement was one such earth-shaking event. It was accompanied by darkness and earthquakes. Jesus as the representative man, the sacrificial lamb, bore the cup of divine wrath… wrath that will overtake all sinners (Jer 25:17-19; Isa 51:17; Rev 14:9-11). He entered into the exile, like Israel, as the one who bore the sins of many. His death, like that of Israel in exile, was an act of judicial wrath.
Moffitt apparently believes Jesus bore the covenant curses. What of those who have been under no covenant? In any case, what are the covenant curses but judicial wrath. They are not in some way detached from God; the curses are his stipulations and an expression of his wrath. What is a propitiatory sacrifice other than the appeasement of judicial wrath I recognise propitiation is often rejected. In Roms 3, however, Christ’s sacrifice is in response to divine wrath (Roms 1:18); propitiation is God’s solution to his own wrath (his righteous and just outrage and hatred of rebels). Wrath is not unworthy of God; it is the absence of wrath that would be unworthy.
A heavenly Priesthood
Moffitt rightly points out that Christ’s priesthood does not properly belong to earth: ‘if he were on earth he were not a priest’ because he belonged to the tribe of Judah not Levi (Hebs 8:4). His priesthood is essentially heavenly (Hebs 7:26). Yet, we have to avoid being too prescriptive and wooden in interpretation. Firstly, we have the verse, cited above, which most naturally locates propitiation at the cross. ‘he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people’ (2:17). Propitiation, I have contended takes place at the cross. Jesus is acting as a high priest when he offers himself to God on the cross. Indeed, if he is not, then how could his life yielded in death as a sin offering atone – only priests sacrificed? Secondly, in the Day of Atonement only Aaron offers blood atonement. Aaron was as much a high priest as he killed the sacrificial goat before the door of the outer tent as he was when he sprinkled its blood on the mercy seat. By the typological ritual of the Day of Atonement Christ acted as a priest on earth.
Moreover, we have to take into account the earthly and heavenly realities of Christ’s offices in Hebrews. Christ is declared to be Son in ascension but he was a son on earth (1:2, 5:8). He is a Priest-King (Cf 1:4; 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 6:12-15; Ps 110); that which he was morally on earth he becomes formally in heaven.
But what of Hebrews claim that his priesthood is not earthly but heavenly: I wonder if the Day of Atonement can shed any light on this dilemma. Remember that although Aaron was a high priest while slaughtering the sin offering and delivering the blood into the holiest he was not dressed as high priest. He was dressed in simple white linen suggesting humility and purity. It is only after he has made atonement that he dresses in his formal high priest’s clothing. In white linen he was morally the high priest, before God he was the high priest, but it wasn’t until atonement was complete he dresses in the high priest’s clothes and becomes once more officially the high priest. Perhaps we can draw from this that Christ functioned as high Priest while making atonement on the cross but his formal priesthood began with resurrection and ascension (Hebs 6:20, 7:16).
Once-and-for-all
Moffitt sees Christ’s sacrifice as continuous. This is in perplexing contrast to Hebrews where the plain emphasis is on a once-and-for-all sacrifice.
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 7:27
And again
he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, having obtained an eternal redemption (9:12)
And again
But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebs 9:26).
The word ‘appeared’ or in this final text points to incarnation and sin bearing sacrifice on the cross. The text refers to his first advent.
Indeed these verses at the end of Hebs 9 merit a little unpacking.
But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
The clear stress on once-and-for-all atonement militates against an ongoing atonement. Once-and-for-all atonement takes place at his first appearing (v21); it happens on earth not in heaven. This is clear by the juxtaposing of the two appearings; the first is a this world appearing to deal with sin while the second is a this world appearing with sin now dealt with. ‘Appointed once to die’ and ‘Christ offered once’ are parallels; Both are appointments with death. To be ‘offered’ is to ‘die’. The contrast of course is that normal deaths are followed by judgement while Christ’s death results in salvation.
Death is integral to atonement.
a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (9:15).
Death (not life) is the means of redemption and covenant relationship. Indeed a will or covenant relationship requires death to be inaugurated (9:16). I submit it is impossible to miss the importance of death and blood in atonement. Blood does not speak of a life now released but of a life laid down. Blood symbolises life violently taken in death not life received in resurrection. In blood sacrifice, the life of the innocent (the animal) is forfeit for the life of the guilty. In fact, however, on the Day of Atonement the sacrificed animals could not take away sin. The death of Christ was what redeemed those under the first covenant (9:15). As Paul says in Colossians, ‘But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight’.
Of course, Christ’s sacrifice supersedes all animal sacrifices which were ineffectual and could not remove sins. They were dumb animals without intelligent volition. God was only glorified and atoned in a sacrifice that flowed from a human being fully and perfectly obeying God out of love for him and concern for his glory; commitment whatever the cost – even to death upon a cross. So we read,
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).
Christ offered his body? When? Where? Peter says he ‘bore our sins on his own body on the tree’ (1 Pet 2:24). Jesus says, ‘This is my body given for you” (1 Cor 11:24). Again the evidence points to the cross as the place of sacrifice and cleansing. ‘Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God… he loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Eph 5:2, 25). Love is expressed in sacrifice not in resurrected life. The new covenant meal expressing the inaugurated covenant is a commemoration of his death; his body given for us… his blood poured out (1 Cor 11:24; Jn 6:51-58). It is a proclamation of his death (announcing the Lord’s death until he come).
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified (10:13,14).
And so we have two further ‘once-for-all’ texts. There is no hint here that the sacrifice takes place in heaven. Instead the suffering-glory trajectory places the sacrifice at the cross as the NT so frequently testifies it belongs (Roms 5:5-8; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 5:2; Eph 5:2; Col 1:21,22). These and many other texts point to a once-for-all cross atonement. Notice the single sacrifice/one offering has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Nothing more than this once-for-all cross sacrifice is necessary… no further heavenly atonement is envisaged.
A couple of other pointers to cross atonement should be weighed. Firstly, there is the cry, ‘It is finished’. This strongly suggests the work of atonement is complete, especially as it is immediately followed by Christ’s death. Further, at the point of Christ’s death the veil of the curtain was ripped from top to bottom and access to the holiest was now available. No further atonement was needed in heaven to provide access. As Hebrews says, ‘he appeared once-for-all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’, a text that I will argue points to the cross not to heaven.
Hebrews again says,
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh (10:19,20).
What gives access to the presence of God? His blood… his flesh. Here his blood and flesh are closely identified. Flesh is a particularly this-worldly word. It is associated with weakness, with trials and distress (5:7). The curtain that gives access to the holiest is the sacrificed Christ… his flesh, that is, his sacrificed body.. In the OT, the carcass of the dead animal for sacrifice is its flesh. Again, the reference to blood, is a reference to his death which opened up the way into the holiest. There is no need to demand a literal fulfilment of the Day of Atonement ritual. Indeed, it would be monstrous to suppose Christ literally entered heaven with his sacrificial blood. Even Moffitt does not suggest this. He thinks the modification between type and antitype is by the supposed principle that blood speaks of life; a resurrected man in heaven is equivalent to blood. This is mistaken. Blood we have argued represents life violently taken. Christ’s life does not atone whether on earth or in heaven. It is his death that atones; it is the shedding of blood that brings remission. His life on earth provided value to his death; it was unblemished but it is his vicarious suffering and death upon the cross that atones… Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:1) The curtain was the spatial means into the holiest but his sacrificed body was the instrumental means (ZSB). What Christ took into heaven was the virtue of his death and by virtue of that same death, that same blood, we enter heaven too.
Almost the last word in Hebrews about atonement is 13:11
For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.
Here atonement is located firmly on earth. Notice that it is on the cross (outside the gate of Jerusalem) that Jesus suffered to sanctify the people through his own blood. It is on the cross that Jesus achieved purification for his people through his blood. The final component of the Day of Atonement sacrifices, the burning of the bodies, is located in the death of Christ at the cross. Again, it is not an exact parallel and that is to be expected as type is eclipsed by the antitype.
Hebs 9
It is time now to consider the one NT text which Moffitt unfortunately uses to make the tail wag the dog.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God…
…Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
The background is Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement. The typological significance is being unpacked; comparisons and also contrasts are being made. Christ ‘appeared/being come’ (v11) refers to his incarnation.This ‘appearing’ of Christ the high priest is equivalent to Christ’s ‘appearance at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (v26) ‘Appeared’ locates the action in human history. It refers to this world rather than the world to come; his appearing is to people on earth rather than to the inhabitants of heaven. Earth is obviously in view firstly because, having appeared/being come, he then enters heaven. Vv11,12 document his journey into the Most Holy Place. Secondly the sequence paralleling the High priest in Lev 16 seems to be: he appeared on earth at first advent to put away sin (9:11); he appears in the presence of God for us (9:24); he appears a second time at second advent (9:28). This final appearance is his ‘second’ appearance to the world underlining the first appearance was also to the world (his first advent).
If this is so, then it locates his appearing (in history) at the end of the age to put away sin at the cross; it is at the cross the sacrifice is made not in heaven. The parallel of death between ‘once to die’(v27) and Christ being ‘offered once’ (v28) also locates the offered to bear the sin of many at the cross. Throughout the chapter, the only clear location of the offering is at the cross: ‘so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time…’ (9:28). As observed earlier, his two appearings on earth are paralleled. His appearance in heaven is not in the frame. My point is we should be careful how much we stress a heavenly offering since the writer wants to locate his offering at the cross.
Having atoned for sin, his journey into God’s presence is ‘by means of his own blood’. He had other authority for entering heaven, he is a divine person, but here he enters the heavenly sanctuary as a man, the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Yet, he does not enter ‘with’ his blood but ‘by’ his blood; that is ‘by virtue of his blood’. A element of discontinuity with Lev 16 is evident. In Lev 16 he enters ‘with’ blood here he enters ‘by’ blood. The most natural reading is that his blood shed on the cross was his right of access. It is certainly this blood sacrifice that gives human beings the moral authority to enter God’s presence. The blood on the cross atoned but the value of that atonement is eternally efficacious. This is quite different from an ongoing atonement; it is the eternal benefits of the atonement not eternal atonement that best expresses the biblical truth of atonement.
Translations differ as to whether v12 should read ‘and thus securing eternal redemption’ or ‘having obtained eternal redemption’. Clearly the first translation sees his entrance to heaven as vital to redemption which of course it is. There is, however, a difference between ascension to secure redemption and ascension to achieve redemption. ‘Securing redemption does not deny atonement is accomplished on earth. It sees his ascension as confirming or vindicating and establishing what has taken place on earth. The second translation ‘having obtained eternal redemption’ unambiguously locates redemption at the cross; redemption is an accomplished fact. V15 associates redemption with death (v15).
The Hebrew writer sees the Day of Atonement fulfilled in Christ. However, as I have argued, he does not insist on complete continuity. It is significant that the writer when speaking in the context of the high priest entering the holiest to sprinkle blood does not use the language of sprinkling(aspersion) but instead speaks of ‘offering himself to God’. It is a remarkable change in ritual vocabulary. It seems to deliberately shift the focus to the cross. Indeed, when speaking of his offering in the holiest he shifts from heaven to earth. He did not have to ‘suffer repeatedly’; suffering takes place at the cross not in the throne room. Also, as noted above, he locates the offering at his appearance on earth (9:25-29). It seems to me to be much more in keeping with the testimony of Scripture to understand blood applied to the mercy seat as fulfilled in Christ entering heaven by virtue of his blood shed on the cross rather than positing the heavenly atonement of an indestructible life.
According to Lane the use of the word ‘offering’ in Hebs 9 is without parallel. He writes.
The writer’s departure from the language of the LXX to describe the action of the high priest is striking. The singular use of the verb προσφέρειν, “to offer,” in reference to the application of blood in the Most Holy Place is without parallel in the biblical cultic material. The translators of the LXX used the verbs ῥαίνειν, “to sprinkle,” and ἐπιτιθέναι, “to apply,” to denote the act of aspersion. The subsequent use of προσφέρειν in reference to Christ’s death (9:14, 25, 28; 10:12) suggests that the writer has described the annual sprinkling of blood in the inner sanctuary in this way in order to prepare his readers to recognise the typological parallel between the high point of the atonement ritual under the old covenant and the self-offering of Christ on the cross. This inference finds support when the writer applies the Day of Atonement ritual to Christ in 9:25–28. The annual entrance of the high priest for blood aspersion in the Most Holy Place finds its eschatological fulfilment in Christ’s death (προσφορά, “offering”; 10:10, 14)… The creative use of unusual terminology to describe the atonement ritual in v 7 is indicative that the writer’s interpretation of the Levitical rite is controlled by the Christ-event.
These signals are important. We look in vain in the NT for teaching that Christ’s resurrected and glorified body is propitiatory. Moffitt, it seems, places too much weight on a contrived parallel pushing him to a heterodox theology. It is his undermining of the cross that is beyond the pale. Atonement is more to do with heaven than earth in this misguided theology and this is a serious error. As we argued previously, where alternative interpretations are possible in any given passage we should choose that which best articulates with the rest of Scripture.
Although, admittedly, Hebrews’ focus is mainly the Day of Atonement (hence bulls and goats) it is not the sole focus. In Ch 10, the contrast is between all levitical blood sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ. They take place on earth (10:5). The language of offering is stressed; one offering replaces many offerings. His people are perfected by this one offering; ‘we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’. There is no need for a perpetual atonement only perpetual effects.
‘And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified’ (10:10-14)
Isn’t it amazing how everywhere Christianity has held sway in a culture pagan sacrifices have died out. As Christianity ebbs I wonder if sacrifices will resurface. The Lord of the Flies may be prescient. The danger is if the church loses the focus on blood sacrifice at the cross we will contribute to the revival of pagan sacrifice. Moffat, to be fair, is not rejecting blood sacrifice but he is putting the emphasis on a risen exalted embodied Christ as the true focus of atonement which undermines the cross.
The final reference to blood, in Hebrews, is in the closing verses of the book
Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant…
This is not only the last mention of blood it is the first explicit mention of the resurrection of Jesus in Hebrews. Resurrection is only possible (and necessary) because of his new covenant inaugurating death. In death, Jesus so glorified God in accomplishing a costly atonement that resurrection is his due; the one who glorifies God, God will glorify, and immediately (Jn 13:32). This text reveals that resurrection and ascension are not part of his glorifying God but refer to God glorifying him. The cross is the vindication of God; resurrection and ascension is the vindication of Christ,
His blood/death was the foundation of the eternal covenant. Eternal realities are associated with his sacrifice. He offers himself by the ‘eternal Spirit’ (9:14); inaugurates an eternal covenant; is the source of eternal salvation (5:9) and by means of his own blood obtains an eternal redemption (9:12). Death and blood have different connotations but both are part of the same sacrificial act.
In summary
Moffitt’s contention for a heavenly and living atonement in Hebrews seems to me to flounder on the various points discussed above: type and antitype have contrasts as well as comparisons and Moffitt’s modifying of the blood on the mercy seat in the antitype is not the only possible nor the best understanding; the suffering/ glory motif in Hebrews identifies suffering with atonement and locates both at the cross. The motif creates a strong prior assumption that atonement/glory texts refer to the cross; the repeated requirement of death in atonement places atonement decisively at the cross; the once-for-all emphasis militates against ongoing atonement; the unusual language of ‘offering’ in Hebs 9 points to the cross.
This post is already far too long, however, it would have been worthwhile to cite a host of other biblical texts that place atonement firmly at the cross.
I do not know the details of Moffitt’s position but I think his fundamental contention of a heavenly atonement is in error. I hope, he recognises his error and abandons his position that, I fear, is quite seriously wrong.
Cave Adullam 