Question…But isn’t “Penal Substitution” actually illegal (if not immoral)??


[Rewritten: January 2005; Mods in the Conclusion, Feb 1/2005] | Intro/OT Sacrifice | Isaiah 53 | Excursus for the Forgiven | The Case of little glenn | Concluding Analysis of Objection ]




In the discussion on “Why does God have to be just and punish?” we mentioned that this requirement on/by God is “not unrelieved”, that God had a few variables with which to work with to help us find life and freedom under just ‘legal requirements’, one option of which was substitution. But some have raised (over the years) the issue of the legality and/or morality of God allowing a substitute for our crimes, arguing that it is not legal in our human societies to transfer penal guilt from one party to another.


[Note: (1) This piece is not about ‘why punishment’, but assumes that some version of ‘earned punishment’ obtains. This position was argued extensively from multiple perspectives in “Why must God be Just?” (whyjust.html), and this discussion here will presuppose the conclusions reached there. The reader is strongly urged to be familiar with that piece BEFORE working through this one—otherwise, this discussion might seem to be making 'convenient' assumptions. Keep that in mind as we go through this—it’s not about whether we should have been punished by God for evil, but whether or not it is actually evil to transfer that (personally deserved) punishment to some other party. (2) This piece is not about whether Jesus' sacrificial death for humans was illegal as a human sacrifice (see sacra.html), but several of the topics we will mention here are discussed and documented somewhat in that piece. ]


Penal Substitution has been historically thought to be clearly taught in the Scripture, but some voices have called for an abandonment of that model (is it really just a ‘model’?), asserting that it is no longer useful, and might now even be seen as being morally or legally culpable. We will note a couple of statements about this, and interact with them during the discussion below.


One ecclesiastical statement from the UK in the late 1800’s gives the core of this:


[Statement One] "It is no longer believed that personal merit and demerit can be transferred from one to another...It is not believed that the consequences of sin can be removed from the transgressor by passing them on to another. Conduct, character, and condition are inseparable. The results of sin are part of the ethical personality, and cannot be detached, nor borne by another"



Most agree that substitution is most obvious, and most easily defended in the “pecuniary” and “debt” models of guilt (e.g., fines, fees, reparations—punishments which are obligations placed upon the perp), but some have complained that debt is no longer a relevant category under which to subsume penal/personal guilt. Sometimes the complaint is leveled against this model of the crime-transaction (and resultant punishment transaction). The typical way this is worded is as ‘pecuniary versus penal’ or ‘economic versus juridical’. The objection is against seeing guilt as a debt owed (to God, to others, to society, to history, to self, to the universe). Since debts are “semi-detachable”, such an economic model would provide a firm ground for substitution (i.e., someone paying my debt in my stead, even if that debt were to take the form of bodily punishment). So, one modern writer can express the problem thus:


[Statement 2] “Quinn is most troubled, though, by Aquinas’s belief that Christ’s death can be viewed as an acceptable payment for our debt. In Aquinas’s day, Quinn points out, monetary compensation was common for crimes, sometimes even for crimes as serious as murder. Given such a model of compensation, the idea of someone paying the debt for someone else’s crime makes good sense. But we no longer view things this way, we are reminded. We might, for example, allow that a mother can pay her son’s fine. But if her son has been sentenced to spend time in jail, she cannot pay his debt for him. Even if she volunteers to spend the required time in jail for him, his debt will not have been paid. Of course, it is possible that he will not be asked to serve his sentence because of ill health or a pardon. But even then, his debt will not have been paid. We are simply allowing the debt to remain unpaid. In other words, as Quinn sees it, our moral intuitions clearly tell us that the idea of one person actually absolving another person of his moral duty to pay for his crimes by volunteering to take his place no longer makes much sense … a just punishment for a serious crime cannot be totally transferred to an innocent person.” [RRB2:308]


Or, from a Christian systematic theology: (Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Eerdmans:1939/41):


[Statement 3] “The possibility of vicarious atonement. All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable objection to the idea of vicarious atonement. They consider it unthinkable that a just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. There is undoubtedly a real difficulty here, especially in view of the fact that this seems to be contrary to all human analogy. We cannot conclude from the possibility of the transfer of a pecuniary debt to that of the transfer of a penal debt. If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver.



This piece will explore this issue…

...................................................................................


As we look at this issue, we will need to keep in mind the distinctions between "what/that" and "how/why".


We will start with the “What/That” (what exactly is 'penal substitution' and what is it not, plus what was it FOR, and 'that' the biblical record teaches it); weaving in the “How” (how does this actually work, and how does it solve the problem it was supposed to solve”), and the “Why” (why was it done this way, rather than some other).


We may not have enough data to get all the way through these questions, but we can at least surface as many of the issues and perspectives as we can. And we can assess the various objections along the way. We will, also, confine our discussion to perps who are seeking forgiveness from God. That is, they are not continuing criminals, persistently perp-ing, or steadfastly self-divinized. Our test case will match the pattern of the individual in the Old Testament/Tanaach who approached Yahweh for the forgiveness of sins.


The What.


The basic points of this can be laid out fairly simply:




  1. In the area of Law, these are punishments/privations for specific acts done (or left undone), both criminal (as Judge) and civil (as Owner).

  2. In the area of contracts/covenants, these are penalties owed under breach-of-contract, for failure to keep one's commitments (both civil and criminal--as in embezzlement).

  3. In the area of moral reciprocity, there are proportionate responses due from God to the perp, for any action (in this case, for anti-good action).


Since the objection to P-S is primarily a 'legal' one, let's start with that:


Law. In our case, we are focused exclusively on God's Law, since the perp—once forgiven by God—will be instructed by God to then submit himself to human law (for reasons of community health). The substitute of Jesus on the Cross was about satisfying the wrath of God—not of exempting forgiven criminals from human punishment. But in the realm of God's own law (“the soul that sinneth, it shall die”) this issue is rather straightforward. If God-as-Legislator sets up the legal code to explicitly allow substitution (which He did with the sacrificial system), then ipso facto substitution cannot be 'illegal' in His system! Whether or not it has parallels in Western Law, ancient tribal law, the rules of secret clubhouses or of Greek sororities has no bearing on the subject of its legality whatsoever. Legality is measured from within a legal code—and God's code explicitly allowed sacrificial substitution, and penal sacrificial substitution at that. Guilt was something that God could legally (under His revealed Law) transfer to another, given such a request by a repentant forgiveness-seeker. It was not automatic (magical), but a process God set up in his Law (like a bankruptcy law?) for specific cases like this. Let's sketch out the Mosaic procedure first, and then see how the New Testament applies it.


Most readers will already be familiar with this material, but let me go over the basics:


  1. When an Old Testament Israelite broke one of the Mosaic laws, it was always against God, and sometimes against God's people.

  2. When it involved damage to people, the perp had to 'make it up' to the other community member (often with what we would call 'punitive damages', some 'extra' tacked on to the restitution), before or while approaching God for His forgiveness. Never, however, was there a crime only against humans—there was always an offense against God and His law involved too, creating a complicated web of consequences.

  3. Under the general principle of 'the soul that sinneth, it shall die', the perp—if he elected not to pursue forgiveness with God-- should have voluntarily surrendered his/her life to the human penal authorities to be 'cut off' (i.e., either death or banishment from Israel), as punishment (as per the legal statute) for the impurity contracted by sin/trespass, even after having resolved the community damage issues. [The human government had the authority to use force to do this, of course, if the perp were non-compliant.]

  4. However, God had provided an alternate method of satisfying that requirement for certain types of crimes/impurities, by creating the legal procedure of sacrifice.

  5. [Some crimes, however, were not forgivable—the 'presumptuous' crimes were too radically evil to allow the perp to live, and were not followed by repentance or forgiveness-seeking anyway.]

  6. The contrite Israelite who came seeking forgiveness from God brought a live animal (with economic value), as a bloodshed substitute(?) for the person.

  7. The supplicant typically placed his hands on the animal, to somehow 'unite' with it, so that its life/death was somehow shared(?) with the offender.

  8. [In the Day of Atonement ritual, this 'uniting' of the High Priest with the animal is described as the transfer of “ownership” of the guilt of Israel onto the animal.]

  9. The impurity of the Israelite's sin was removed by the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial animal in the act of sacrifice. The offender was then forgiven by God, and allowed to continue living in the community and under God's blessing.

  10. This accomplished two goals: expiation (removal of sin from the offender) and propitiation (a balancing of God's moral outrage/wrath, with satisfaction of His sense/claims of justice).

  11. Consequences of the sin-act, however, were typically not “immediately” remedied: community damage to trust, reputation, vitality was still compromised, and the effects of the sin on the supplicant's moral faculty was still real.


Okay, let me make some quick explanatory remarks on a couple of these basics.


Point 1: Most of the sacrifice laws are about re-establishing a 'peaceful' relationship between the offender and God, regardless of human victims. Violations of God's Law was a crime against God, first. The many other laws given in the Law concern human relations and justice.


“In the world view of the OT, any person who does something wrong becomes obligated both to God and to society (cf. 2 Chr 19:10; Num 5:6; cf. Jer 51:5)” [WBC, Leviticus]



Point 2: The sacrificial system included several types of sacrifices, a couple of which were focused on forgiveness and remediation. The 'sin offering' (the main one under discussion here) was intended for sins primarily against God, and the 'guilt' (or 'reparation') offering involved restitution to others:


“The guilt offering is described in Lev. 5:14-6:7 (MT 5:14-26); 7:1-7. It is different from the sin offering chiefly in the restitution requirement. The offerer has to make good on any loss that he has made in the holy things of the Lord and pay an additional fifth of its cost to the priest (5:16). Damages against another person are also dealt with in 6:1-7 (MT 5:20-26), where the one-fifth restitution clause is also in effect. This offering also atones for the sacrificer and he is forgiven. The sin offering deals with sins against God that also threaten the community. The guilt offering deals more with sins that require restitution to God or man.” [ISBE, s.v. “Sacrifices and Offerings”]



Examples of these 'punitive damages' can be found in Lev 6 (“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: When any of you sin and commit a trespass against the Lord by deceiving a neighbor in a matter of a deposit or a pledge, or by robbery, or if you have defrauded a neighbor, or have found something lost and lied about it. if you swear falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby, when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.”) and Exodus 22 ("If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.")


“In light of the preceding, committing a sin produces a complex pattern of consequences. Because it is disobedience of a law given by God, a sin places a person's relationship with Yahweh in jeopardy. If a sin is committed against another, it, of course, damages the relationship between the parties involved. Any sin is thus detrimental to the community's welfare and solidarity. Another factor is that every sin carries its own penalty. This idea is twofold. On the one hand, a defined penalty attends a specific violation of a law (e.g., the laws in chap. 20). On the other hand, there is the principle of retribution, i.e., every sin is pregnant with its own consequences (e.g., Job 20:12-18). From either perspective, a sinful deed causes an obligation to hang over the head of the sinner. The doer is responsible for his act. The idiom 'one carries an iniquity' (cf. 5:1, 17), bears witness to the burden that accompanies every sin. That burden is either the penalty or the retributive punishment that attends a sinful act. The person experiences that burden as guilt. After a person has sinned, that person does not have any inner power to escape the harm due (cf. von Rad, OT Theology, 1:268). A sinful act, in addition, unleashes impurity, which is attracted to the sanctuary (...). Thus a sin committed produces a web of complications, personal, social, and spiritual.


“The offering of the appropriate sacrifice was the way Israelites addressed these multiple consequences resulting from a sin. When the person who had sinned presented the animal at the altar, that one laid a hand on the animal's head, identifying the animal as his and making sure that the achievement of the sacrifice accrued to his favor. In making an offering, no surrogates [tn: the offender had to make the offering himself—no 'proxy' was allowed] were possible. It is assumed that at this step the offerer made a confession of sin or a word of praise or a statement of intent concerning the offering. The prophets, selected psalms, and the rabbinic tradition forcefully teach that personal remorse and contrition were essential for an expiating sacrifice to be effectual. Whenever the sin was against property, in addition to offering a sacrifice the guilty person had to restore that property or make compensation for it and pay a penalty of 20 percent. Restitution particularly aided the restoration of strained relationships on the human level. Furthermore, the achievement of expiation mended the relationships between the sinner and God and between the sinner and the community... God forgave that sinner, restoring the relationship between the two of them. Forgiveness also meant that the person became free from the guilt attending the sin. Indeed expiation broke 'the nexus of sin and calamity' (von Rad, OT Theology, 1:271). No longer did the guilty person have to fear retribution on any level, for all the harm released by a sin was addressed by making the appropriate sacrifice.


“Another aspect of sin involves the status of the one who sins. The higher the spiritual leadership of the one who sinned, the greater the damaging force of that sin. A high priest and the entire congregation had to offer a high purification offering because their sins were more polluting (4:1-21). The political leader and a citizen offered a lesser purification offering, for their sins had less impact on the community's relationship with God (4:22-35). Because of the greater pollution released by a sin committed by those in the first group, blood rites from the sacrifice had to be done within the sanctuary (4:5-7a, 16-18a), and none of the animal's meat could be eaten (4:11-12, 21). In the case of a sin committed by a prince or an individual, the blood rites were done at the main altar, since miasma from a sin committed by one of them did not penetrate into the sanctuary (4:25a, 30a, 34a), and the meat became the priests' (6:19, 22[26, 29]). In eating this meat, the priests expressed God's acceptance of the sacrifice on behalf of the offerer.” [Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxx). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]


Point 3: This comes from the frequent stipulations in the Mosaic Law that if someone did not comply with the legal code (which included the sacrifices), then they were to be 'cut off from Israel'. It would do no good (under this legal system) to only 'right the wrong' to the human party; the offense against God and His law had to be addressed as well.


The way this is envisioned in the OT/Tanaach is through the notion of 'impurity' or 'uncleanness'. Sin, trespass, crime, and transgression against the Law was an impurity, 'attached' to the perp while the crime was being committed. After the crime, the person was 'impure' and this impurity had to be 'removed' (often with the images of cleansing, purging, purifying). Impurity was a contagion—it was on the altar, the tabernacle, houses, people, etc. This impurity had to be constantly remedied/removed by ritual/legal means—to allow God to continue to operate from within the community of Israel. [Remember, God had told Moses that it was better for Israel if He did NOT travel in their midst—lest He have to destroy them for their constant rebellion—Ex 33:3-5.] If impurity came into the presence of God (near the Tabernacle, where a special 'instance' of His presence was, the Shekinah Glory)--apart from within a legally defined 'approach process'--then the impurity-bearer must be destroyed (or the whole camp was in danger). The invariable punishment for un-resolved and/or 'stubborn' impurity was death or banishment (which, as being 'cut off', was considered a death, actually). Purification required either the death/removal of the impure party (the perp) or the death/removal of an “impurity-absorbing”(?) animal sacrifice—there were no other options under the Mosaic law.


“Normally in the Old Testament, atonement is mentioned in connection with sacrifices, such as the sin offering. But in twenty-two passages, atonement was effected by means other than ceremonial offerings (for example, Ex 32:30-32; Deut 21:1-9; 2 Sam 21:3-9) [tanknote: almost all non-ceremonial cases involved the judicial death of the offending party—and it was called 'atonement' for the nation]. Therefore, just as the life of the animal was a substitute, the means of ransoming the life of the guilty party, so the holiness of God was defended in this case through the substitution of the lives of the sinning couple. With atonement made, God could pardon his people and halt the spread of the plague. [Hard sayings of the Bible, at Num 25]



Point 4: Sacrifice was actually prescribed by God in the law to address the purity issue—there was nothing illegal about it, by definition. The animals were actually 'given' by God for this process, as was the blood of the animal :


For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. [Lev 17.11, NRSV]


“The physiological facts that blood carries life to all parts of the animate body and that death quickly follows serious loss of blood is here raised to a matter of moral and spiritual principle as well. The shed blood of an animal meant its life had been given up in death and thus, in the context of sacrifice, its life had ransomed and cleansed (made atonement for) the life of the sinful human being on whose behalf it had been slain. [Carson, D., & Guthrie, D. (1997, c1994). New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition (electronic ed. of the 4th ed.) (Lev 18:1). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.]


The extremely detailed prescriptions for the various sacrifices show that these are legal procedures used to deal with punishment/purity issues—in such a way as to legally avoid the inevitability of decimating the population, or driving God away from their midst.


Atonement in the OT/Tanaach is closer in content to 'purification' than 'salvation' (in the general sense we use it today):


“The function of this sacrifice as well as others is to 'make atonement' (NIV). Many scholars now agree, however, that 'atonement' is not the best translation for the concept on either the ritual or the theological level. Perhaps most convincing is the fact that in the ritual texts the object of atonement is neither the sin nor the person [tanknote: this is not strictly the case, since often the word is said to be atonement 'for your souls', but 'upon the altar'], but a holy object connected with God's presence, such as the ark or the altar. A second important observation is that in a number of cases this atonement is necessary even though no sin has been committed (for instance, the ritual impurity of women each month). For these and other reasons recent scholars have preferred 'purification' or, more technically, 'purgation,' as the translation. So the altar would be purged on behalf of the offerer whose sin or impurity had ritually tarnished it. The purpose was to maintain the sanctity of God's presence in their midst. The ritual, like a disinfectant, is normally remedial, but it can be preventative. The agent is usually blood, but not always. This decontamination of the sanctuary renders the offerer clean and paves the way for his reconciliation with God.” [Matthews, V. h., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Lev 1:4). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]


The Book of Hebrews comments on this procedure: “Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.' And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” [Heb 9.18ff, NRSV]



Point 5: The 'high handed' sins [from the root word for 'boil up/over', 'seethe'!] are essentially repudiations of God's rule—a tacit admission of anti-citizenship in Israel. These individuals were 'given what they wanted'--exile from under God's Law (via death or banishment). Cf. Deut 17.12 ['And the man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.', NAS] and Num 15:27ff ['An individual who sins unintentionally shall present a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the one who commits an error, when it is unintentional, to make atonement for the person, who then shall be forgiven. For both the native among the Israelites and the alien residing among them?you shall have the same law for anyone who acts in error. But whoever acts high-handedly, whether a native or an alien, affronts the Lord, and shall be cut off from among the people. Because of having despised the word of the Lord and broken his commandment, such a person shall be utterly cut off and bear the guilt.', NRSV].



Point 6: The sacrifice was specifically called a 'sin-offering', and was generally a live animal (Lev 4.1-5.13; Lev 6.24-30), although in cases of extreme destitution a grain offering could be used. Since the value of the sacrifice scaled with the means of the sinner, its value to the sinner was somewhat 'constant'.


“The cost of sacrificing an animal, which for an ancient family was the basis of its livelihood, certainly bears witness to that family's recognition of Yahweh's lordship. Animals permitted as a sacrifice were even more valuable in that they normally had to be males without defect. Thus whenever an Israelite presented an offering, the family felt the cost.” [WBC, Leviticus]


But even though the animal/offering had to be perfect, it was the procedure that counted, not the (economic) value of the offering:


“Atonement is secured, not by any value inherent in the sacrificial victim, but because sacrifice is the divinely appointed way of securing atonement. The sacrifices point us to certain truths concerning atonement. Thus the victim must always be unblemished, which indicates the necessity for perfection. The victims cost something, for atonement is not cheap, and sin is never to be taken lightly. The death of the victim was the important thing. This is brought out partly in the allusions to blood, partly in the general character of the rite itself and partly in other references to atonement. There are several allusions to atonement, either effected or contemplated by means other than the cultus, and where these bear on the problem they point to death as the way. Thus in Ex. 32:30-32 Moses seeks to make an atonement for the sin of the people, and he does so by asking God to blot him out of the book [tanknote: an appeal for penal substitution] which he has written. Phinehas made an atonement by slaying certain transgressors (Nu. 25:6-8, 13). Other passages might be cited. It is clear that in the OT it was recognized that death was the penalty for sin (Ezk. 18:20), but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner.” [New Bible Dictionary. s.v. “Atonement”]


It was the shed blood of the sacrifice that was accepted by God in lieu of shed blood from the guilty:


“Blood has a very important role in OT rituals, not because of any inherent quality, but because the Lord has ordained that it be used for cleansing (Lev. 14) and as a means of atonement (Lev. 17:11). Just as shed blood marks the transition from life to death, so blood is used ritually to effect a transition from the realm of death to the realm of life...In rituals of atonement, the blood recalls the fact that an animal has given is life and proclaims that therefore no further bloodshed is required (*cf. Exod. 12:13, 23). The precise ways in which the blood is used, especially on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), are beyond the scope of this article, but in general terms the blood serves as a substitute, being able to ransom the life of the one who brought the animal....In rituals of cleansing, blood is the means of removing impurities that compromise the holiness of the sanctuary and altar. It has been called a 'ritual detergent' by Milgrom, who argues that blood absorbs sin and becomes unclean itself. However, Kiuchi argues persuasively that it is rather the priest who bears the guilt associated with uncleanness. The blood draws attention to the transition from the realm of death (uncleanness) to the realm of life (holiness), which takes place not in the sprinkling of the blood as such, but in the ritual act as a whole.” [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology , s.v. 'Blood']


For the awake-n-aware Israelite, the implications of this for substitution would have been obvious:


“Given that God commanded sacrifice as a means of avoiding the punishment of death (*e.g. Num. 18:32), and that wrongful sacrifice occasionally caused death by God's direct act (e.g. Num. 16:35), it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when intelligent worshippers in OT times presented animals for atoning ritual slaughter they understood their sacrifices to involve an element of substitution. 'The ritual retains the note of an objective guilt which can only be removed through sacrifice or substitution' (Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, p. 507). And while the sacrifice did result in life for the worshipper, this was not because poured out blood opened a fount of poured out life. If it did, we should expect a ritual in which the victim gave up only a cup, or perhaps a litre, of blood, not its very life. Rather it was because the shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death: 'The soul who sins ... will die' (Ezek. 18:4; cf. Gen. 2:17). Shedding the blood ('extinguishing the life'; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23) of the animal was required in exchange for sparing the life of the worshipper. The death (not only symbolized but actually experienced in the fatal shedding of blood) of a sacrificial victim was necessary for the benefit of the guilty. Such OT convictions are only intensified under the new covenant (Heb. 10:28-31).” [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology , s.v. 'Sacrifice']



But it is interesting that none of the passages describing this sacrifice actually require the sacrificial animal to be the property of the offerer. In most cases, the economic-scaling factor would certainly suggest that, but it would certainly not preclude an individual (in special circumstances) from using an animal obtained through loan or gift. One can imagine a fellow Israelite loaning or even donating an animal from his own flock, to a less-fortunate friend for use in such a situation (or even some grain for the low-end offering, to someone without any resources—a picture of us humans, perhaps?--smile). There would be nothing illegal about this, from the standpoint of the legal stipulations. There are several interesting cases of such non-owned sacrifices—albeit none termed as pure 'sin' or 'guilt' offerings: the famous one where (1) God provides the ram in the thicket for Abraham—at not cost to him [Gen 22.14]; (2) Araunah offers to give the animals to David for the burnt offering to avert/stop the plague in 2 Sam 24—which David refuses on the grounds that it would not reflect a 'cost' to him; (3) 1 Sam 6.14, where the cattle pulling the cart are sacrificed; and (4) the community sin cases in Leviticus requiring a bull from the flock (since there were no 'community flocks', some specific individual had to 'donate' one of his—at no cost to the other members of the congregation). These cases would suggest that the 'ownership' of the sacrifice was not a core component in the efficacy of the sacrifice.]


Point 7. The offender in these cases 'laid hands on' the sacrifice, before killing it and giving it to the priest. There is no explanation given in the OT/Tanaach as to why this was important (since this aspect of the ritual shows up in non-sin related events as well), or what transpired therein. Scholarly opinion is rampant on what this was all about (ranging from transfer of sin to transfer of purity, etc.), but the only sure thing we can say is that the offerer is somehow 'linked with' the sacrifice.


Point 8. The Day of Atonement ritual is sometimes used to interpret this sin and guilt removal process, but the rituals are not close enough to do this with much confidence. In the DoA ritual, the transfer of sins from Israel (via confession) onto a substitute involved the un-slaughtered animal, not the sin-offering. That is, the sins were 'placed upon' the live animal, which was driven away into the wilderness:


“When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.” [NRSV (Le 16:20).]


This is clearly 'substitution' and clearly 'penal' and clearly an 'innocent victim' and clearly 'transfer of guilt', but we are given no explanation as to how it works (apart from the general explanation of sin as 'removable impurity').


Point 9. However, it is clear that God honored the process He instituted for this. Sin and guilt/reparation sacrifices 'worked' (when done legally) to accomplish their main practical tasks: (a) expiation--removal of sin-caused impurity from the camp; (b) forgiveness--restoration of a right relationship between the sinner and Yahweh; and (c) remediation of some community-damage aspects—in the case of the guilt/reparation offering. But again, we simply do not know (from the OT texts) how this actually worked, in God's 'ontology':


“The rationale of the Jewish sacrificial system has been much discussed, though with no very conclusive results. Judaism provided no explicit rationale for sacrifice: it was simply the God-given way of dealing with sin, and as such was to be accepted gratefully and humbly....The precise way in which an expiatory sacrifice was thought to work is never clarified.” “ [ABD, s.v. 'atonement']


So too, in the NT: "The NT seems to give greatest direct support to the penal substitution and sacrifice theories. It is obvious throughout Scripture that God atones for sin via sacrifice. The problem with the theory lies in explaining how sacrifice saves. No universally accepted answer has been advanced, despite the impressive range of biblical texts using sacrificial terminology. Among these are passages referring to Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant, a covenant sealed with his blood (e.g. Matt. 26:28 par.). This implies (self-) sacrifice. So do numerous other, often overlooked, references to Jesus' blood denoting his (sacrificial) death for sin (e.g. Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 12:11). The prominence of sacrificial language or imagery elsewhere in the NT, whether in the Gospels (Jesus' passion predictions and the passion narrative itself), in Paul (e.g. Rom. 3:24?26; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2), or throughout Hebrews (passim), argues strongly for the centrality of sacrifice to NT atonement teaching. [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v. "Atonement"]



Now, practically speaking, it is very difficult to not see the basic outline of substitution here (as one of the above quotes indicated): the offender should have died, but was pardoned because his sacrificial animal died (given the right attitude, of course). The offender was impure when he started the process (as was the unblemished animal), and at the end of the process BOTH the offender and the animal were “pure enough, through death” (i.e., the animal was to be eaten by the priest and their families—not something allowed for impure animals). [The impurity might have 'moved' to the altar/Tabernacle, since these places had to be purified themselves at the Day of Atonement, so it's possible that God's dwelling was where 'real impurity' was 'stored' until (a) the Day of Atonement; and/or (b) the Cross truly removed the past sins (a la Romans 3).]



Point 10. Biblical scholars have argued "often and loudly" about the meaning of 'atonement' words in the Hebrew. Some argue that these refer to 'expiation' (removal of sin from the offender, as a necessary precursor to resuming covenant-community life), and others argue that these refer to 'propitiation' (a balancing of God's moral outrage/wrath, with satisfaction of His sense/claims of justice, relative to the sin of the offender). But both seem to be clearly taught in scripture, and they both seem to be obviously related, so this distinction--although helpful--seems odd to try to 'remove' (?):


"It has been argued (e.g. by C. H. Dodd) that atonement should be understood as expiation for sin. Expiation in this sense means cancellation or dismissal. God simply waives the threatened penalty for transgressions. R. Averbeck argues that there is good ground for understanding the piel Hebrew verb form of kpr, often translated as atone or atonement, as denoting to wipe away, wipe clean, purge (see e.g. Lev. 16:20, 33; Deut. 32:43; Dan. 9:24; Is. 47:11). He suggests that "the underlying rationale of OT kpr was wipe away, not ransom?" (NIDOTTE 2, p. 708). Averbeck's lengthy discussion makes little mention of either divine wrath or human sinfulness, though these are prominent in the background of OT atonement passages. ...Others point out that atonement seems rather to involve propitiation, the turning away of wrath by an offering. It does not merely expiate in the sense of dismissing sin; it propitiates in the sense of averting God's punishment. Linguistic work by L. Morris and others appears to have refuted the expiation theory as Dodd and his supporters have presented it. Recent Romans commentators like Moo, Mounce and Stott have upheld Morris' arguments, as have I. H. Marshall and others. Current Septuagint lexicography points in the same direction (J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pp. 160-161)....Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways. Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for. In the current climate of skepticism about a wrathful God, the biblical view has recently received strong support from philosopher H. Cassirer, who persuasively calls Christians away from modern sentimentalism and back to the God of whom the prophets, apostles and Jesus spoke (Grace and Law [Grand Rapids, 1988], pp. 99-107). Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity." [Alexander, T. D., & Rosner, B. S. (2001). New Dictionary of Biblical Theology]


"A word which perhaps comes even closer to the meaning of atonement is propitiation (hilasmos). J. 1. Packer sees propitiation as the nucleus and focal point of the whole New Testament idea of the saving work of Christ.' In Isaiah the Messiah figure is depicted as "an offering for sin" (53:10). In 1 John we read: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (2:2 KJ; cf 4:10; Rom. 3:25). Some scholars (e.g., C. H. Dodd and Alan Richardson) have objected to the translating of this word as propitiation; their preference is expiation. In some cases to be sure the latter may be the more appropriate translation, but both words are solidly biblical.' As A. A. Hodge puts it: "Propitiation has reference to the bearing or effect of satisfaction upon God. Expiation has reference to the bearing of the same satisfaction upon the guilt of sin."' Whereas God's wrath is propitiated or turned away, man's guilt is expiated or annulled. Both terms are organically related to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, though they both transcend the meaning of ritual sacrifice. Expiation is especially evident in Isaiah 43:25 where the prophet says that God "blots out your transgressions" and "will not remember your sins."...The integral relationship between the two terms is underlined by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "Surely the very idea of expiation in and of itself leads to propitiation! If there must be expiation, why must there be propitiation? There is only one answer -that there cannot be a true relationship between God and man until that sin has been expiated. But that is just another way of saying propitiation.'"...Propitiation can only be understood in the light of the wrath of God, the severity of the reaction of God's holiness to man's sin. God's inviolable holiness needs to be satisfied, and man's transgressions need to be removed. This is realized when God himself takes upon himself in the person of his Son our sin and guilt so that his justice might be executed and our sins might be forgiven. God is moved toward this self-sacrifice by his infinite compassion." [Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume 1:pp149f]


"Those who seek to reduce the concept of propitiation to a mere expiation do not, in general, face the questions which expiation raises, such as 'Why should sin be expiated?' 'What would be the consequences to man if there were no expiation?' 'Would the hand of God be in those consequences?' It seems evident on the scriptural view that if sin is not expiated, if men 'die in their sins', then they have the divine displeasure to face, and this is but another way of saying that the wrath of God abides upon them. It seems that expiation is necessary in order to avert the wrath of God, so that nothing seems to be gained by abandoning the concept of propitiation." [Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (3rd ed), p.211]




Point 11. Of course, these ceremonies addressed only some of the consequences of the sin (albeit very important ones). There were still many, many damage-ripples which would not have been stopped by these. Loss of trust in the community, a weakening of the moral constitution of the offender Israelite, irreparable damage to property in some cases, disgrace in the eyes of the Gentiles, etc. These aspects of sin are simply NOT transferable (as one of our opening quotes noted)--some consequences of sin are inward, but some are not. If I kill someone, the effects on them (i.e., death) do not become part of my 'character' or 'ethical personality'. The effects on their family (e.g. loss of economic viability, deep grief, change of status, etc.) do not become part of my 'character' or 'ethical personality'. But any remorse (or, for that matter, any callousness over the act) DOES become part of me—but this is not 'merit' or 'demerit' at all. Clearly, 'callousness' or 'remorse' cannot be born by a substitute—the notion is ludicrous. [But this doesn't mean that SOME aspects ARE NOT transferable-- but more on this later.]



This is a quick sketch of the Mosaic Law (re: sacrificial system), as given at the onset of Israel's national emergence and history, so, before we get into how that system was 'experienced' and understood by the OT/Tanaach prophets (and by post-Tanaach Judaism), let's just visit the legality/morality questions briefly.


If we accept that the animal sacrifice was somehow a substitute for the offender, and that its death was in lieu of, and to preclude the pragmatic requirement for, the death of the actual Israelite, how would we assess the legality and/or morality of this act?


Well, the legality aspect is really a non-issue, since such matters are usually judged from within a legal system. Since such sacrifice was prescribed in the legal code, its (correct) usage would be perfectly legal—within that system of law. For that matter, anything within an individual legal system is 'legal', since its reference framework is the law code.


That being said, however, we 'moderns' do tend to pass judgment on other cultures' law codes (tn: I was taught 35 years ago in sociology class to call that 'ethnocentrism'...smile), presumably based upon our conceptions of what 'enlightened' ethics should look like. So, for example, the West might judge an Islamic Shariah penal amputation of a hand for stealing a cabbage as 'harsh' (maybe even 'wrong'), but we couldn't really say it was 'illegal' per se. Some groups, of course, attempt to formulate universal 'rights' policies/positions (e.g., human rights groups, the Geneva Convention, the Berne Convention--smile), and on the basis of these consensus-looking proclamations denounce (“as unethical” and/or “contrary to fundamental human rights”) atrocities, torture, and other behavior in individual nations/dictatorships/etc. But there is no real 'universal legal system' known to/admitted to by humans that 'sits above' national legal codes. We might call an ancient Mesopotamia trial-by-drowning procedure 'barbaric', or a ransom-a-murderer-by-money law as being 'convenient for the rich', but our ability to judge it as being 'illegal' just doesn't exist.


In the US, for example, a Federal Court could strike down a State law, since there is an explicit legal hierarchy (assuming the law in question deals with a matter that seemingly falls under BOTH jurisdictions, of course) in our national structure. But, the United Nations could not strike down a French parking law, nor could the Screen Actors Guild nullify a building permit in Burma.


Now, morality (what these groups seem to be vocal about) might be a different matter, especially since morality seems so 'individualistic'. Everybody seems to have an opinion on the morality of the actions of others (smile), and you can generally find more than one person (i.e., enough to constitute a group) who have the same approval/disapproval perspective, relative to some act. But it normally takes a very large group and a very varied group of individuals to condemn something, before the rest of us even begin to seriously question the morality of the acts/behavior in question.


In the case of the OT/Tanaach animal sacrifices described above, I would guess there would probably be complaints from animal rights groups (?), and/or 'ethical vegetarian' groups (a la Gandhi?), but these complaints would be more about the slaughter/consumption of the animals—and NOT about 'penal substitution' itself. [For example, they would complain about using animals for the sacrifices, but NOT complain about using grain for one, in those cases of poverty. This would indicate that it was not the 'substitution' aspect that was the source of the problem for them.] Apart from these specialist groups, though, I would suspect very little 'outcry', since (1) the animals were used for 'good' community purposes, food, group cohesion, etc., and (2) there wouldn't be a large amount of such sacrifices to begin with—on economic grounds alone, given a pastoral society. And even the notion of 'transferring' the sins of a nation onto a goat and then setting the goat free from captivity in a remote location—while it might seem 'odd' to moderns—wouldn't seem 'immoral' at all to most. There's just not enough 'morality density' in a herd animal (relative to a clearly human agent) to arouse 'enough bile' over using it for ceremonial food—except perhaps in religious traditions involving wholesale reincarnation (in which the lamb MIGHT actually 'house' the soul of some ancient personage).


[We should note, just for completeness, that the animal was not subjected to any of the 'artificial' husbandry tactics complained about by some today. These animals had no growth hormones, restrictive cages, etc., and their slaughter was done in the same quick way butchering has been done for millennia.]


But of course, it could be that we don't get very upset about this because we don't perhaps take the 'system' as seriously as we will the Cross. After all, although the notion of substitution is here in this sacrificial process, it's fairly 'weak' or 'mild', and the substitute is of questionable 'innocent moral agent' standing. Plus, since the perp had to make everything right with the community/neighbor/victim BEFORE the sacrifice anyway, our 'injustice alarm' probably only hums for a brief second, instead of doing the constant car-alarm, siren-wailing thing.


........................................................................................




Now, there's a gap between the giving of this Mosaic Law and the New Testament of well over a thousand years, and during this gap, Biblical Israel learned a lot about the problem of sin...


By the time we get to the New Testament, certain groups within Judaism of the day recognized that the sacrificial system in the Law was simply 'not big enough' to REALLY deal with the sin problem—since it had become clear (to the Hebrew Prophets) over the centuries how 'big' this sin problem REALLY was:


You see, when the Mosaic law was first given to Israel, the emphasis was actually on inner motives--"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul"...Consistently, Moses told the community to pay attention to their hearts and motives, and to not 'harden them', etc. The whole system was predicated on from-the-heart obedience and interaction with God. Yet it was clear from the start, that it was the heart that was the real problem. Right in the middle of re-stating the Law in Deut, God's heart cries out (5.29):


"Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!"


And this is the problem that the prophets see over and over, in trying to get biblical Israel to 'walk with their God'...


The OT/Tanaach prophets will discover how 'deep' this sin problem in us really is, and how 'incurable' and pervasive and putrid and insidious it is, and will have to plead for/point to some cosmically-loaded, ultimacy-strength, ontologically-dense solution to the angry, malicious, arrogant, violent hatred of God/good/beauty, which we simply call 'sin'...as if it's just another 'normal' part of our world...Toward the end of the First Temple period, Jeremiah can despair in this (e.g., 11.8; 16.12; 17.1) and the famous 17.9: "The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse—who can understand it?" [NRSV]. As time goes on, the biblical writers become more and more aware of how intractable, resistant, and resilient evil is. All attempts at reform fail miserably, in the biblical record...


The OT/Tanaach prophets learn by experience how utterly futile the existing covenantal law is, in changing the hearts of the people--and so a New Covenant is pleaded for (and pre-announced) before God--the New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in which the very heart itself is re-created (with a heart for God and His law already in place!). A place where 'sin is no more', and we can 'start over' with a fresh, un-soiled and un-vandalized Universe! And, most importantly, with God in our midst...


The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament is quite candid/pragmatic about the limitations of the old system (especially since the Prophets had already explained the problem with the human heart earlier), in a number of 'bubble-bursting' ways:


In other words, the Mosaic system allowed God to dwell in their midst 'enough' for salvation-history to proceed, but the end goal of perfect/sweet fellowship and community (a la Eden, a la The New Jerusalem, a la the Rabbinic New Age/World to Come) between God and Israel/humanity was not going to be possible without something closer in “magnitude” to the unfathomably deep corrosion/decay/nullity of sin, than simply a few unblemished farm animals...



As I reflect on this now, I am so aware and disturbed by the immensity/intensity/density (?) of the tiniest act of real evil...I cannot even find words 'violent enough' to describe what that really IS—it's beyond simple destruction or impurity or dissonance...its ontology is so different than that of our universe....beyond negation, beyond privation, beyond “anti-matter” (which has structure and order to IT, at least)...a conscious, malicious, vandal-virus?...worse than 'chaos' or 'disorder'...the very opposite(?) of the reality/essence of God Himself?...what could possibly 'undo that'? Maybe nothing—maybe that's why we have to have a New Heavens and a New Earth—evil has worm-holed this one to near nothingness...? And maybe for any of us to make it to a New World, the 'purification' of ourselves has to be so immense/intense/dense that only an act at the intensity level of God Himself can remove that horror-grower, malice-maker, beauty-slasher aspect of our character...


Okay, let me calm down for a second...


One of the earliest expressions of the extreme difficulties of making a "warm and dancing peace" between our tainted lives and the pure and beautiful God comes in the important (to our discussion) passage in Isaiah 53. In this passage, we have a clear statement of 'sacrificial substitution' (which is actually broader than just 'legal/penal substitution', btw). Here is a fairly close translation (NASV) of the passage. Notice two things: (1) statements which reveal that God's servant is a gift of God to Israel to restore 'peace' between them [He is actually called a 'guilt/reparation offering' in verse 10]; and (2) statements which reveal how the 'heart of Israel' responded to this gift so inappropriately:




Now, at first glance this looks like a statement of our 'problem'--the innocent suffering in place of the guilty (who even were attacking and denigrating that very sacrifice!). But we might note a few 'odd' aspects to this before we get to the full explication of the 'theory' in the New Testament.


  1. Whatever this was, it is cast in sacrificial terminology. "Guilt offering", "bearing sin", "satisfaction" (i.e., "propitiation"), unblemished, etc.

  2. But this sacrifice was NOT offered by Israel--!--it seems to be a 'conspiracy' between only God and the Servant. Nobody else in the narrative 'gets it'.

  3. It's clearly voluntary on the part of the Servant (without any actual protestation), and fully accepted as efficacious by God.

  4. It's clearly fatal for the Servant, life-giving (or at least, purifying and death-defying) for Israel, and the noble act of the Servant is greatly blessed and honored by God.

  5. Israel's attitude toward the Servant/Sacrifice ranges from simple ignorance, to outright vilification.

  6. God's attitude toward the Servant is uniformly one of admiration, commendation, exaltation, blessing, reward--even though He is visiting extreme punishment upon Him!

  7. There is no indication in the text that Israel herself did any of the violence against the Servant [e.g., all the "damage" could have been done by non-Jews, while they simply watched. This is the general tone of the "we esteemed Him smitten" type comments--they watched the Servant, and despised Him, under the assumption that He was being 'crushed for His own iniquities' instead of for theirs.]

  8. These 'third party' violence-doers do not seem to be offering the Servant as a sacrifice either.

  9. There might be an implied resurrection in here, since the Servant is both 'cut off' and yet seems to have quite a glorious future.


But what is really odd about this is the timing element:



But unexpectedly, God and His Righteous Servant has 'gone on the offensive' and done a 'pre-emptive strike' against the future.


  1. The Righteous Servant--a pure, Yahweh-hearted, non-rebel Israelite--appears in the midst of the sinful nation, as a member.

  2. He is not a 'plug in', but is a genealogically-pure Israelite, under the Law, under the Covenant.

  3. As such, though, He "permitted himself to be listed among the rebels" (v12) ("rebels"--"God's strongest term of condemnation for his people [in Isaiah] (cf. 1.2; 46.8; 48.8; 57.4; 59.12-13; 66.24)" [NICOT, in loc]).

  4. [This would have meant--importantly--that He would have been 'vulnerable' to any of the Covenant judgments of God upon the nation. He could have died (innocently) in the plague associated with David's census, He could have been captured (innocently) on any of the Amorite slave trading raids during the period of the Judges, He could have been a slain prophet (innocent) under the evil Northern kings. He was Israelite--pure or not--and that meant that the judgments of God on the community could legitimately fall upon Him in the process. He could have been totally righteous/innocent, and still be the object of God's judgment upon the sins of the nation-as-a-whole (as undoubtedly some/many believers were). The case of Achan's tresspass--in which wrath fell on the entire nation for the sin of one man--Josh 22.18ff and 7.1ff--saw 36 innocent men killed, because of the sin of another--they were simply linked by being 'numbered together' as a unit before God. ]

  5. But what happens next is amazing (and it blows away the Apostle Paul in his day too--more on this later, below): this card-carrying Jew, in cooperation with and under the wise direction of the Covenant Yahweh, volunteers to face the future judgment NOW, as an Israelite.

  6. [Now, Yahweh has been 'storing up wrath' for this Future Judgment/ Day of God/etc. since Day One. Every time a sacrificial animal was offered for forgiveness, the mismatch between the HUGE anti-value of the sin and the limited-value of the farm animal, became another 'underpaid justice claim' in the 'wrath backlog' -- cf. Romans 3.23:"...the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed, was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous... ". This is not to mention all the countless sins people did without ANY attempt at remediation, confession, reformation, etc. And of course, His wrath had been accumulating against us gentiles too (e.g., Rom 1.18), for equally good reasons. This wrath was gonna be poured out upon the whole world--the 'list of rebels'-- as a whole.]

  7. So, in response to the request of the Only Righteous One's intercession and request, Yahweh brings the Future Judgment Day (with its storehouse of penal wrath) into the present "day" of JUST THE SERVANT. The Servant had volunteered to "step into the Future", while being still "in the present", and that's what God does.

  8. God starts Final Judgment Day for the World--but the "world in this Day" only has One Person in it--the Servant, who is 'listed among the rebels'.

  9. And so--can I stop and worship here for a minute?!--the Wrath of God, ultimately destined for the whole world of rebels, truly, justly, and exhaustively falls upon the 'whole world of rebels' (i.e., "the-world-of-rebels-as-a-whole")--which in this case contains only one 'rebel on the list'-- the Servant. [Theologians would call this the 'eschatological judgment of God, irrupting into the present".]

  10. The Servant is representative of Israel, but it might be because He is 'all Israel' who 'showed up at' this transcendent act of Judgment. [cf. "out of Egypt have I called my Son...", as applied to Israel-as-a-whole and to Jesus in the New Testament] (and later we learn He is also the 'only Adam' present in the judgment, letting us broken-down gentiles avail ourselves of His act).

  11. And in this act of bearing the future-wrath in the present, Yahweh creates a massively valued, "pre-sacrificed" guilt offering available to all His people--TOTALLY commensurate with the TRUE malignance of evil..

  12. And--precious upon precious--this Sacrificial Lamb, with the wrath-issue so settled, 'drags' us the sinners to the reconciling altar of God, instead of the reverse! Gone are the days when the sinner had to drag the animal!--"the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" brings US to be purified, to be reconciled with a loving God, and to be re-created in newness for a life of loving, serving, and enjoying God...


Now, before we proceed to the New Testament for its explication of the Atonement (and our evaluation of it), there are two other neat things to notice about this passage:


The first concerns the use of 'guilt/reparation' offering, instead of 'sin' offering. We had noticed earlier, that the sin offering was mostly for offenses against God, and the guilt offering typically involved reparations toward God and toward humanity. Under our textbook description:


“The guilt offering is described in Lev. 5:14-6:7 (MT 5:14-26); 7:1-7. It is different from the sin offering chiefly in the restitution requirement. The offerer has to make good on any loss that he has made in the holy things of the Lord and pay an additional fifth of its cost to the priest (5:16). Damages against another person are also dealt with in 6:1-7 (MT 5:20-26), where the one-fifth restitution clause is also in effect. This offering also atones for the sacrificer and he is forgiven. The sin offering deals with sins against God that also threaten the community. The guilt offering deals more with sins that require restitution to God or man.” [ISBE, s.v. “Sacrifices and Offerings”]


Now, when we ask 'why here?', do we find perhaps a hint of the New Covenant?


"The most intriguing reference to the reparation offering occurs in Isa 53:10, in which the servant's death is described as a reparation offering. ... While interpretations of Isa 53 vary widely, the traditional Christian interpretation holds that the servant suffers and dies vicariously for mankind's sin. His death is an atoning sacrifice. The choice of reparation-offering to describe his sacrificial death may be twofold. First, it communicates that the servant's death compensates God fully for the damages he has incurred by mankind's sinning. Second, the servant's sacrifice provides expiation for every kind of sin, inadvertent and intentional. That is, the servant's sacrifice provides expiation for any person who appropriates its merits to himself, no matter how grave his sin." [Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80).]


When I look at this last statement, and I ask the "now, WHERE are the reparation goods?" question, I have a hard time finding anything of that type immediately obvious. But upon 'more sober reflection' (yeah, right), two realities emerge:


(1) the passage actually changes some Israelites [they are healed, made righteous, achieve peace with God]--that could be a form of 'reparations', obviously:


"From the Servant's sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when his offering is accepted, the verse (11) moves to discuss exactly what is accomplished. The statement is startling in both its simplicity and its daring. This man, by what he has done, will make people righteous! it is not difficult to understand why he should be declared the Righteous One. He has been treated shamelessly because of the sins of others when he himself has been completely innocent. But how can he make many become righteous? The entire book has been about the persistent sin and unbelief of the chosen people, not to mention the world at large. This man will change all that in a sentence?...This man is the Deliverer who fulfills all the promises of deliverance for the people." [NICOT, in loc.]


(2) in the New Covenant, we get even greater benefits--we get 'portable Temples', which travel about, sharing reconciliation, creating newness, having festivals, displaying beauty, causing reflection, creating community, healing breaches, revealing God, and creating MORE such Temples...now this is something in the same 'order of magnitude' for good/truth/beauty, as sin/evil was in its destructive effects. In other words, the supernatural forces of reconciliation and redemption and renewal are 'procured' and 'unleashed'(?) in this Reparation Offering. [One immediately thinks of John 7.39: "...this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"--cf. Joel 2.28 and Acts 1.4.]


The second concerns an 'odd' parallel with a New Testament passage (smile). NICOT on verse 12:


"In this context...brings to mind Phil. 2:9. In faithfulness the Servant has descended to the lowest depths. He has fulfilled his Father's will to the last degree. Because of that faithful obedience, God will exalt him to the highest heights (cf. 52:13). The picture is of a victory parade with the Servant, of all people, marching in the role of conqueror, bringing home the spoils of conquest...What is the cause of the Servant's exaltation? The simple forcefulness of the statement seems designed to leave no doubt in the reader's mind: it is the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Servant whereby he became identified with the transgressors dying their death so that they could live. If one had any doubt about how to read the poem, this last verse should dispel it...strangely enough, by dying their death he was somehow interceding for them ('the rebels'). As Westerman points out, this intercession was not merely the act of praying for them; it was intervention, as 59:16 makes plain. There was no one to step into the gap between the rebels and their just destruction, so the Servant did it with his own blood (Heb 9:12-14). Thus as noted above, the writer wants to remove any doubt from the reader's mind: the Servant will be exalted to the highest heaven (52:13) not because he was humiliated (although he was), not because he suffered unjustly (although he did), not because he did it voluntarily (although he did), but because it was all in order to carry the sin of the world away to permit God's children to come home to him. He is exalted because he fulfilled God's purpose for his ministry, and that purpose was redemption."



........................................


The New Testament.


When we get to the NT, the meaning of the Cross of Christ is presented in many, many different ways. Dilling ["The Atonement and Human Sacrifice", Grace Theological Journal, 1998] gives a quick sketch of some of the major themes:


(1) Sacrificial: For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ (1 Cor 5:7).


(2) Expiatory: For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:13-14).


(3) Propitiatory: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).


(4) Redemptive: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree (Gal 3:13).


(5) Representative: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (2 Cor 5:14-15).


(6) Exemplary: For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps (1 Pet 2:21).


(7) Triumphantorial: You, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it (Col 2:15).


(8) Substitutionary: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isa 53:5-6).


To this list we might add


(9) Reconciliation: "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son..." (Rom 5.10)


(10) Priestly/Intercessory: "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself...but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption...For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’ presence...Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people..." (Heb 7.25,26; 9.11, 24, 28)


(11) New Covenant Inaugurator (and actually, Old Covenant 'salvager'?): "For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 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 worship the living God! For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant." (Heb 9.13ff)



____________________________________________________



Excursus for the Forgiven...


Now, before we get to the more technical discussion of legal "transfer" of guilt, punishment, standing, or whatever, I want us--speaking only to the Christians here (the rest of you can/should probably skip this Excursus and move down to the rest of the article)-- to be very clear on one fact: Every one of the Atonement Representations above involve either the element of 'substitution' and/or 'sacrifice' (but the 'penal' concept is not pervasive throughout, of course). There is no option here--fidelity to the message of the New Testament (and much of the OT/Tanaach, obviously) requires that this element of substitution/sacrifice be taken very, very seriously. Some Christians may not like that obviously core element of how we are reclaimed to life, but the construction of an alternative explanation for this core is a difficult, dangerous, and doubtful enterprise.


[This in NO WAY--let me hasten to add--answers our question here!!!! This article is trying to explore the why/how, not simply 'resting on' the what/that. For the purposes of our discussion HERE, the fact that Jesus, Isaiah, Paul--and GOD the Father taught it as truth, beauty, the marvelous means of free grace, and used it to reclaim our lost lives is ("epistemically") inconsequential. My remarks to the Christian here is simply to make the point clear that there is 'no exit' here--the whole 'system' rises/falls with the reality of the work of Jesus on the Cross--as presented in the only real data we have about the 'other side', our Bible.]


Let me say this another way, because it is important for Christians (obviously not the only readers of this article, of course) to understand the implications of any rejection of substitution/sacrifice, under allegations of illegality, immorality, unintelligibility, antiquarian, accommodationist, or simple ignorance by the NT authors/Jesus:


(1) To reject this as being the central "mechanism" of the work of Christ on the Cross requires one to construct an alternative explanation as to how all the problems addressed by the various 'representations' above are solved thereby--and be able to defend that biblically and theologically without the same level or greater difficulties than those incurred in the above 'traditional' views [I consider this to be nigh-on impossible, given what I know about theology at this point in my life, btw]. For example, consider just these representations by significant theologians/expositors, dealing, in this case, (primarily) with issues of God's justice/wrath and reconciliation:


"The danger of overemphasizing God's wrath does exist. But it hardly justifies the impossible programme of trying to expunge the attribute from the NT record. God's coming wrath is a persistent theme of Jesus' parables. In non-parabolic discourse Jesus spoke repeatedly of 'the fire of hell' (Matt. 5:22) and 'eternal fire' (Matt. 18:8). He urged his followers, 'Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell' (Luke 12:5). The double-edged nature of Jesus' ministry is well summarized in John 3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.' Those who reject God's righteousness become targets of his wrath (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 10:26-31; Rev. 19:11-21). God's wrath is not a minor or isolated biblical theme....Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways. Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for... Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity." [Alexander, T. D., & Rosner, B. S. (2001). New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., s.v. "Atonement"]


"If critics of God’s saving activity declare God’s method of reconciling the world to himself unworthy, or as lacking in ethical virtue, or as in some way insufficient or deficient, the fact must nonetheless stand that the Scripture speaks of the altered judicial situation now existing between God and sinners as resulting from Christ’s work, the imputation of sin upon him, and the imputation of his righteousness upon sinners. Moreover, Scripture never loses sight of the sweeping extent of Christ’s work, the atonement for the sins of all people (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2). Christ is the sinners’ shield from and before the just wrath of God. Nor was it merely by God’s accepting it as sufficient that Christ’s atonement availed; it was in fact and in truth the adequate and full payment (Mt 20:28; Rom 3:25; Heb 7:26–28; 1 Tm 2:6; 1 Jn 2:2)." [Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible.(Page 1824). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.]


"The sin of mankind produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and mankind. God holds no personal pique against a person because of his sin. The NT language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement that would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God’s holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (Jn. 3:36; Rom. 1:18). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man’s unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but also God from him. The word “enemies” (Gk echthro') of Rom. 5:10 is passive, and means the object of God’s enmity (...). It was because of this fact that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation, to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime (3:25f). God’s passing over the sins of pre-Christian times, without inflicting punishment, was liable to obscure His righteousness and expose Him to the charge of tolerating sin. God could not be true to Himself while He tolerated such an imputation, and so instead of visiting punishment upon all who sinned — which would have been one way of showing His righteousness — He set forth Christ to death (“in his blood”), and in this way placed Himself beyond the imputation of unrighteousness while enabling Him to show mercy to sinners. The effect of sin upon man was to estrange him from God, to lead him farther and farther away from his Maker. Each successive sin produced a greater barrier between the two. Now the atonement was designed to remove the cause of this estrangement and restore the former relationship between God and mankind. This too, it has been observed, is the purpose of forgiveness, so that the atonement finds its completion in forgiveness. It should be noted that the reconciliation originates with God and not with mankind (Rom. 3:25; 2 Cor. 5:19). God woos a person before the person seeks God. The effect of the atonement is the removal of God’s alienation from mankind. The recognition of the love and grace of God manifest in this reconciliation, and the experience of forgiveness flowing from it, evoke the response of love and win the hearts of people. “We love, because he first loved us.” At the same time the atonement is such a complete expression of both the love and the righteousness of God that, while on the one hand it exhibits His yearning for mankind, on the other it shows that He is not tolerant toward sin. In the atonement of Christ, therefore, is the meeting place and the reconcilement of God’s holy horror of sin and the free bestowal of forgiveness upon penitent believers." [Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 2, Page 343). Wm. B. Eerdmans]


"To Paul the estrangement which the Christian reconciliation has to overcome is indubitably two-sided; there is something in God as well as something in man which has to be dealt with before there can be peace. Nay, the something on God’s side is so incomparably more serious that in comparison with it the something on man’s side simply passes out of view. It is God’s earnest dealing with the obstacle on His own side to peace with man which prevails on man to believe in the seriousness of His love, and to lay aside distrust. It is God’s earnest dealing with the obstacle on His own side which constitutes the reconciliation; the story of it is “the word of reconciliation”; when men receive it, they receive (Rom. v. 10) the reconciliation. “Reconciliation” in the New Testament sense is not something which we accomplish when we lay aside our enmity to God; it is something which God accomplished when in the death of Christ He put away everything that on His side meant estrangement, so that He might come and preach peace. To deny this is to take St. Paul s Gospel away root and branch. He always conceives the Gospel as the revelation of God’s wisdom and love in view of a certain state of affairs as subsisting between God and man. Now, what is the really serious element in this situation? What is it that makes a Gospel necessary? What is it that the wisdom and love of God undertake to deal with, and do deal with, in that marvellous way which constitutes the Gospel? Is it man’s distrust of God? is it man’s dislike, fear, antipathy, spiritual alienation? Not if we accept the Apostle’s teaching. The serious thing which makes the Gospel necessary, and the putting away of which constitutes the Gospel, is God’s condemnation of the world and its sin; it is God’s wrath, “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. i. 16–18). The putting away of this is “reconciliation”: the preaching of this reconciliation is the preaching of the Gospel....When St. Paul says that God has given him the ministry of reconciliation, he means that he is a preacher of this peace. He ministers reconciliation to the world. His work has no doubt a hortatory side, as we shall see, but that side is secondary. It is not the main part of his vocation to tell men to make their peace with God, but to tell them that God has made peace with the world. At bottom, the Gospel is not good advice, but good news. All the good advice it gives is summed up in this—Receive the good news. But if the good news be taken away; if we cannot say, God has made peace, God has dealt seriously with His condemnation of sin, so that it no longer stands in the way of your return to Him; if we cannot say, Here is the reconciliation, receive it,—then for man’s actual state we have no Gospel at all....When Christ’s work was done, the reconciliation of the world was accomplished. When men were called to receive it, they were called to a relation to God, not in which they would no more be against Him—though that is included—but in which they would no more have Him against them. There would be no condemnation thenceforth to those who were in Christ Jesus....The very universality of