No, it means the money was wasted.
Is the blood of Christ wasted?
Please read the following link. Here are just a few lines...
The man who sees nothing particular in the design of the Atonement can't see or preach Sovereign Election very clearly or strongly. How can he teach that God has 'chosen a people' unto Himself in special electing love and at the same time deny that He appointed Christ to act as the substitute for that specific and particular people? Will a man who rejects the belief that Christ, on the cross, acted as the Great Shepherd in a particular way for His own sheep be able to declare with clarity that there even is a specific and particular flock chosen by the Father and given to the Son? I have yet to meet the preacher who could successfully perform the mental gymnastics and verbal double talk necessary to believe and preach such opposite doctrines. In preaching, they start and finish with Universal Atonement as the foundation and are forced to build a superstructure without ever mentioning electing love. The Doctrine of Election is acknowledged to be in the Bible and, therefore, true, but since it is completely unrelated to the death of Christ on the cross (which was for all men), it is at best not very important and at worst a possible cause of great controversy. We are therefore admonished to 'simply preach Christ' and forget about sovereign election. However, let a man see that election by the Father is just as essential to salvation as atonement by the Son, and it becomes impossible to preach one without the other. If I am accused of preaching Limited Atonement only by first reading it into texts because of logical necessity, what shall be said of those who refuse to declare the truth of sovereign election and effectual calling because they think these doctrines logically conflict with universal atonement? And worse, they do this even while admitting that election and effectual calling are Bible truths... I think the words of Peter apply here, "We cannot refrain from telling what we have seen and heard." A man cannot really believe that salvation is of the Lord and also preach that salvation is entirely up to free will. He cannot have seen and felt that electing love by the Father and quickening in regeneration by the Holy Spirit was just as essential to his salvation and conversion as was the atoning death of Christ, without extolling and magnifying that work by the Father and the Holy Spirit. I personally have yet to meet the man, in either the pew or the pulpit, who gladly owned and testified that his personal salvation was the result of a special love by the Father and the irresistible power of the Holy Ghost who did not very shortly thereafter also see, believe, and preach that it was also a result of the particular purchase by the Blessed Redeemer." "About fifteen years ago God started to teach me the Doctrines of Grace. A lawyer friend was learning them at the same time. We would sometimes stay up all night discussing texts of Scripture, books, and the arguments people were giving us against our 'new' doctrine. I distinctly remember how both of us balked at the doctrine of Limited Atonement. One of our favorite expressions was, "Limited Atonement is not at all necessary to Calvinistic theology." We were convinced it was only a 'logical necessity' to the system and not a doctrine that could be established exegetically. Of course, neither one of us had really studied the doctrine very carefully, we 'just knew' it was nothing but logical deduction. Since that time both of us have not only become convinced it is a biblical doctrine, we now agree with Dr. J. I. Packer when he calls Limited Atonement the "central affirmation of the gospel..."
Dr. E: No, it means the money was wasted
God gives in abundance. We waste His blessings daily. We show ingratitude to Him daily. And He only gives us more. Thank God, He is not like us!
Is the blood of Christ wasted?
His blood saves or condmens. Those who accept His sacrifice live; those who reject it die. His blood is not wasted.
The fact remains, DrE, that the sacrifice of the incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity was so precious, so valuable that none can argue that it would not have covered all sin for all time by virtue of having not been precious or valuable enough.
If God is all in all, then any sacrifice by God is already an ultimate price that cannot be surpassed by anything.
It is not possible for Christ’s blood to be wasted. It is sufficient for ALL, YET it applies only to the elect, those who come to Him.
Those who argue against this cannot argue: “Well, Christ’s blood simply isn’t that valuable. It’s valued on the market at only 5 decazillion, and it would need to be 6 decazillion to cover everything.”
They can only argue what it was INTENDED to cover; never its actual value. It is the one thing in all creation that truly was priceless.