Did Christ’s Blood Atone for Sins?
I studied that the word “atonement” as found in Lev. 17:11, and specifically the original Hebrew word (Strong’s #3722) found there is defined as (1) to cover, (2) to conceal or (3) to hide. That makes sense as the blood of animals ONLY concealed, hid or covered the sins of the people UNTIL Christ could come. Then through His blood were their sins “actually removed” as found in Heb. 9:15? My question, then, is “Why do writers so often speak of Christ’s atoning blood?” I have often wondered, based upon the specific meaning of the word “atonement.” Christ’s blood “did not atone” in the sense of just covering or hiding; rather His blood REMOVED COMPLETELY our sins, did it not? Christ’s blood did not ATONE as the word meaning covers as far as I understand; it actually REMOVED, did it not? I would like your thoughts. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR EFFORTS, SO GREAT OF A WEBSITE. I ENCOURAGE SO MANY TO GO “HERE” IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS. ~ Jack Phillips The Hebrew word for “atonement” that appears in Leviticus 17:11 means “to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel” (Strong). It is variously translated throughout the KJV Old Testament as “appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation)” (Strong). Regarding the summary of teaching in both testaments of the Bible, it is true that absolute forgiveness of sin was not generally available to …