In the previous installment of my refutation of PSA (click here for part one), I pointed out some of the problems inherent in this doctrine. In this article and the next, I’m going to be considering more specific passages of scripture that proponents of PSA believe support their position. Before doing so, however, I think it would be helpful to first consider the subject of Israel’s sacrificial system (to which proponents of PSA will often appeal in support of their view that Christ was sacrificed as a penal substitute).
The significance and purpose of divinely sanctioned sacrifices
The practice of offering animal sacrifices to God has been around for as long as the first generation of humans lived on the earth. The first recorded instances of animals being sacrificed/offered to God are found in Genesis 4:4 and 8:20-21.[1] In the latter verses we read the following:
Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And Yahweh smelled the soothing aroma; and Yahweh said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done.”
The clear implication of what we read here is that Noah’s offering was an expression of faith, devotion and thankfulness to God, and that God was pleased with Noah’s offering.
Later, this practice was incorporated into the Mosaic Law. As part of this law given to Israel, regularly-occurring animal sacrifices could be categorized as follows:
1. Voluntary offerings (the burnt offering and the peace/fellowship offering)
2. Mandatory offerings (the sin offering and the trespass/guilt offering)
It’s the regular mandatory offerings (especially the sin offering) that are most commonly appealed to in support of the doctrine of penal substitution. However, although each of these offerings had certain important differences (the burnt offering, for example, was a sign of thanksgiving and devotion to God, while the peace/fellowship offering expressed a desire for communion with God, and involved much of the animal being cooked and eaten by the community), they all involved the burning of the animal that was sacrificed/offered (or part of the animal). For example, in Lev. 4:31, we read the following concerning the sin offering:
“…and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to Yahweh. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.”
The burning of the sacrifice – which was essential to the completion of the sacrificial ritual (and the making of “atonement”) – represented the giving of the sacrifice to God (whose acceptance of it resulted in the forgiveness that the sacrifice was intended to secure). Although all of the sacrifices offered in obedience to God were intended to please God (hence the frequently-used words, “for a soothing aroma to Yahweh”), the efficacy of the sin offering was, evidently, due to the fact that it was more pleasing to God than the sin for which the sacrifice was offered was displeasing to him.
At this point, it must be emphasized that God had (and has) no need for sacrificed animals. And it wasn’t the death or subsequent rituals involving the blood and body of the animal itself that pleased God; rather, what pleased God was the inward faith, devotion and reverence of which the sacrifice offered to him was a visible, tangible expression. In other words, it wasn’t the sacrificed animal itself that pleased God, but rather what the sacrifice represented.
Now, among those who hold to PSA, it’s believed that, since the one offering up the animal placed their hand upon the animal before slaughtering it and giving it to the priest to pour out the blood, animal sacrifices were understood as both substitutionary and penal (in the sense that the animal “took the place of” the one offering it, and was penalized with death instead of the sinner himself). However, the placement of the hand on the animal can be understood as expressing ownership of the animal and/or solemnizing the act of dedicating it to God. This is supported by the fact that the fellowship offering – which was not intended to “deal with sin” – included the same instructions to lay one’s hand on the head of the animal when slaughtering it (Lev. 3:1-2). Moreover, the only place in Scripture where it’s explicitly said that an animal had hands placed on it and sins confessed over it is in Leviticus 16:21-22. But unlike the goat on which the lot fell for Yahweh (which was sacrificed as a sin-offering), the goat over which the sins of Israel were confessed (i.e., “the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel”) was kept alive rather than slain. It was sent away to represent the sins of the people being forgiven (or sent away) by God rather than reckoned to/held against the people. In light of these considerations, there’s no good reason to think that the placing of hands on an animal symbolized substitution.
Some argue that animal sacrifices represented the death of covenant-breakers (who deserved to die for their covenant-breaking sins), and that the animals sacrificed were essentially “taking the place” of those for whom the sacrifices were offered. In support of this understanding, appeal is made to the covenant ritual performed by God as described in Genesis 15. In verses 7-11 and 17-21 we read the following:
And [Yahweh] said to [Abram], “I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it.” And he said, “O Lord Yahweh, how may I know that I will possess it?” So He said to him, “Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
Then he brought all these to Him and split them into parts down the middle and laid each part opposite the other; but he did not split apart the birds. Then the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.
Now it happened that the sun had set, and it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day Yahweh cut a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”
Notice that Abraham isn’t said to have offered any of the slain animals to God. They weren’t burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, etc. The slain animals were just cut in half. And then the covenant ritual was completed by walking between the pieces. The covenant-making ritual of which we read in these verses likely expressed the following divine vow: “May I become like these slain animals if I break the covenant I’m making with Abraham.” But of course, the animals that were killed (and then cut up) weren’t being punished – whether literally or symbolically – in God’s place. They simply represented what God was implicitly saying should happen to him if he were to break his covenant with Abraham (which, of course, was – and is – impossible).
Moreover, we know that animal sacrifices were being offered to (and accepted by) God before God made a covenant with Israel (as is clear from Gen. 8:20-21). Animal sacrifices made at this time didn’t (and couldn’t) represent the death of covenant breakers at that time. And there’s no indication that they represented this later, either. Besides, we know that God was pleased by the sacrifices because of what they represented. However, we know that God is not pleased by the death of sinners (Ezekiel 18:23), and that this includes the death of covenant-breakers.
Another point that can be made here involves the major differences between the symbolism involved in the ritual that we find described in Genesis 15 and the symbolism involved in the dedication/confirming of the Sinai covenant. In Exodus 24:1-8 we read the following:
Then He said to Moses, “Come up to Yahweh, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you all shall worship at a distance. Moses alone, however, shall come near to Yahweh, but they shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him.”
Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of Yahweh and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which Yahweh has spoken we will do!” And Moses wrote down all the words of Yahweh. Then he arose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to Yahweh. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that Yahweh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has cut with you in accordance with all these words.”
This is entirely different symbolism than we find in the events described in Genesis 15. In these verses we read that certain Israelites offered burnt/ascent offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to Yahweh. But as we’ve seen, burnt/ascent offerings and peace offerings don’t represent the same thing as that which was being signified by the covenant ritual initiated by Abraham (and completed by God). For example, we’re told in Genesis 8:20-21 that Noah offered a burnt offering to God after the flood. But there’s no good reason to think that, when Noah offered this sacrifice to God, he was thinking, “These animals were killed in the place of me and my family, because we broke a blood covenant with God and that makes us deserving of death.” There’s nothing in scripture to indicate that Noah had broken a blood covenant, or that he understood himself to have broken such a covenant.
Even if one were to try and argue that God’s command to Adam in Gen. 2:16-17 was a “covenant” (despite the fact that a provision and a command with a threat doesn’t constitute a covenant), Noah himself didn’t “break” this “covenant.” Noah was simply offering a sacrifice to God as an expression of faith in, and gratitude/thanksgiving to, God. And when we’re told that God smelled the pleasing aroma and promised to never flood the world again, there’s no reason to think that the sacrifice was pleasing to God because he regarded the slain and burned animals as representing Noah and his family. Instead, it’s far more likely that God regarded the burnt offering as an expression of Noah’s gratitude for the deliverance of he and his family, and of his devotion to God for having saved them.
Now, we need not believe that the burnt offerings and peace offerings referred to in Exodus 24 had the same exact meaning and significance as, for example, Noah’s burnt offering in Gen. 8. However, they did share a common element, and were both intended to be an expression of faith in devotion to God. We also know that, in addition to burnt/ascent offerings, the men of Israel sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to Yahweh. The purpose of peace offerings apparently varied, but they, too, expressed devotion to God (with an emphasis being on one’s desire to enjoy fellowship/communion with God).
In addition to these differences between what we read in Genesis 15 and what we read in Exodus 24:1-8, another important difference concerns Moses’ ceremonial use of the blood of the sacrificed animals when dedicating/confirming the Sinai covenant. In Hebrews 9:18-22 (ESV), we read the following:
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded 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.
Notice that the emphasis is not being placed on the slain animals themselves (which should’ve been the case if their death represented what ought to happen to covenant-breakers). Rather, the emphasis is placed on the blood derived from the sacrificed animals, and which was sprinkled for the purpose of cleansing/purification. Significantly, the blood was not only sprinkled on the people with whom God entered into the Sinai covenant, but also on the book, the tent and “all the vessels used in worship.” This would make no sense if the sprinkling of the blood signified being liable to death for covenant-breaking. But it makes perfect sense if the sprinkling of the blood (blood that was derived from animals sacrificed and offered to God as an expression of devotion to God, and a desire for fellowship with God) represented purification/cleansing.
Keeping these points in mind, let’s now consider the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, as recorded in Genesis 22. It’s clear that this near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham and the meaning of the covenant-making ritual described earlier in Genesis 15 (which involved the animals being slain and halved, etc.) are quite different. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only-begotten son, Isaac, he wasn’t commanding him to do something that would express the same idea as that which the earlier event recorded in Genesis 15 represented. When God commanded Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering, Abraham would’ve understood the sacrificing of Isaac to be a test of his faith in, and devotion to, God.
When Abraham and Isaac walked to the top of the mountain, Abraham would not have been thinking that he was about to punish Isaac for his (Abraham’s) sins, or that Isaac was going to have to die for the sins of his father so that he (Abraham) wouldn’t have to. Instead, Abraham knew that burnt offerings were about expressing reverence for, and devotion to, God. In accord with this fact, Abraham also would’ve known that God was asking him to demonstrate his faith in God (who had previously promised that his descendants would come through Isaac).
That the sacrifice of Isaac was intended to test and prove Abraham’s faith is evident from what we read in Hebrews 11:17-19:
By faith Abraham, when undergoing trial, has offered Isaac, and he who receives the promises offered the only-begotten, he to whom it was spoken that “In Isaac shall your seed be called,” reckoning that God is able to be rousing him from among the dead also; whence he recovers him in a parable also.
The Passover sacrifice
Although the Passover sacrifice was mandatory for Israel, it has more in common with the voluntary peace offering than with the other mandatory sacrifices. As noted earlier, the peace offering expressed a desire for communion with God, and involved much of the animal being cooked and eaten by the community (which was true of the Passover sacrifice). But regardless of how, exactly, we categorize the Passover sacrifice, the animal that was sacrificed – and which, depending on what was chosen by each family, could’ve been a lamb or a goat – wasn’t in any way a “penal substitute” for the Israelites. For we know that the Israelites were instructed to roast and then eat the lamb or goat after it was slain. If the animal was meant to be their representative and/or substitute (and, by being killed, was penalized in their place), eating it would not make sense. And if the Israelites understood the slain animal to have had their sins or guilt “imputed” to it, then the animal would’ve been understood to be unclean (and thus unsuitable for eating).
Just as we have no good reason to believe that the animals slain on the night of the Passover were “penal substitutes” for the Israelites, so we have no good reason to believe that the blood that was spread on the doorposts and lintel of each Hebrew house represented a penal substitutionary sacrifice. For God’s indignation was against Egypt rather than Israel (Exodus 11:1, 4-7; 12:12-13). The only way an Israelite family could’ve been harmed by the exterminating messenger sent by God is if they disobeyed God’s clear instructions (in which case they’d essentially be aligning themselves with Egypt).
A similar example is that of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. God’s indignation wasn’t against Lot and his family. It was against “the cities of the plain.” However, Lot and his family had to obey God in order to avoid being swept away in this judgment (Gen. 19:15). Similarly, we read in Revelation 18:4-8 that God will call to his people to “come out” of the city of Babylon before it’s judged, so that they don’t become “joint participants in her sins” and suffer “her calamities.” As was the case with Sodom and Gomorrah, God’s indignation will be against Babylon and its citizens (and not against his people). Thus, those among his people who heed God’s call to flee the city will be spared.
It was God’s will that Israel be protected from the judgments because the judgments weren’t meant for them. They were meant for Egypt. Several times we’re told that, during the time of the judgments, God made a distinction between his covenant people and the Egyptians. For example, in Exodus 8:22, 9:4 and 11:6-7 we read the following:
“But on that day I will make a distinction for the land of Goshen, where My people are living, so that no swarms of flies will be there, that you may know that I, Yahweh, am in the midst of the land.”
“But Yahweh will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing will die of all that belongs to the sons of Israel.”
“Moreover, there shall be a great cry in all the land of Egypt, such as there has not been before and such as shall never be again. But for any of the sons of Israel a dog will not even bark, whether against man or beast, that you may know how Yahweh makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.”
In accord with this point, the blood of the slain animal on the doorposts was a sign that identified the Israelites as God’s covenant people (and thus as the people for whom the judgment wasn’t intended). In Exodus 12:13, 23 we read the following:
“And the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and I will see the blood, and I will pass over you, and there shall be no plague among you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
“And Yahweh will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and Yahweh will pass over the doorway and will not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.”
The blood essentially signified faith in Yahweh and loyalty to him, and thereby distinguished God’s covenant people, Israel, from the Egyptians.
One verse that’s essential for understanding the rationale behind the divine judgment associated with the Passover is Exodus 4:22. In this verse we read that God declared the following to Moses:
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.’’”
God wasn’t threatening the children of Israel with judgment. Nor was he threatening both Pharaoh and Israel. Rather, it was the people of Egypt (represented by Pharaoh) who were being threatened with judgment (i.e., the death of each family’s firstborn son) for their mistreatment of Israel (whom God referred to as his “firstborn son”).
In light of these considerations, we can conclude that the animals sacrificed on the night of the Passover were not “penal substitutes” that were penalized for the sins of the Israelites. The blood from the slain animal was used as a sign of faith in Yahweh and loyalty to him. By putting the blood of the animal on their doorposts, the Israelites identified themselves as God’s chosen people (i.e., as belonging to the chosen nation that God regarded as his “son” and his “firstborn”).
With these points in mind, let’s now consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:
“Clean out, then, the old leaven, that you may be a fresh kneading, according as you are unleavened. For our Passover also, Christ, was sacrificed for our sakes so that we may be keeping the festival, not with old leaven, nor yet with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with unleavened sincerity and truth.”
Just as God ransomed Israel from Egypt through a Passover lamb (which secured the protection of the firstborn of Israel from death), so Christ’s sacrifice of himself results in our salvation from death. But just as the Passover lamb wasn’t sacrificed as a “penal substitute” for Israel, so Christ didn’t die as a “penal substitute” for us. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb (and the subsequent application of its blood on the doorposts of the Israelite’s homes) was an act of faith-based obedience to Yahweh. And this is precisely what Christ’s sacrifice was. And because Christ’s sacrifice was so exceedingly pleasing to God, God is able to justly forgive the sins of all, and thus deliver us from death (starting with believers).
For part three of this study, click here: A refutation of the doctrine of “penal substitutionary atonement” (part three)
[1] I include the words “to God” here, since it’s a commonly-held belief among Christians that the first example of an “animal sacrifice” is recorded in Gen. 3:21. However, even if this verse reveals the first time that an animal was killed by someone (in this case, by God himself), this isn’t an example of an animal being sacrificed/offered to God. Moreover, the implied death of the animal(s) of which we read in this verse had a completely different purpose than that for which Abel or Noah (for example) sacrificed the animals of which we read in Gen. 4:4 and 8:20.
No comments:
Post a Comment