According to JD Walters,
“Doesn't the necessity of slaughter indicate that here indeed we have penal substitution, the infliction upon an innocent animal the punishment which should rightly have befallen the worshipper? Actually, no. In Leviticus 17 we read that what is actually atoning about the whole process is not the killing itself, but the blood of the sacrificial animal: "for the life of every living thing is in the blood. So I myself have assigned it to you on the altar to make atonement for your lives, for the blood makes atonement by means of the life." (Leviticus 17:11) Here we have a very clear statement that the blood is atoning, not because it represents the just punishment suffered for sin, but because it carries the life of that which was offered. What the worshipper is really offering here is life itself.”
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-meaning-of-old-testament-sacrifice.html
In context, we’re not dealing with blood in itself, but shed blood. Because blood represents life, shed blood represents death. Sacrificial blood signifies the death of the sacrificial victim, as in bleeding to death.
“The spotlessness of the sacrifice does NOT however mean that the sacrifice is an 'innocent' substitute which bears the punishment of the sinner. There is no sense in which animals are innocent or guilty, because they do not sin.”
That’s just inept. It fails to draw a rudimentary distinction between a symbol and what it stands for. Penal substitution doesn’t assume that the animal is literally innocent.
Of course blood has to be shed in order to get at it. But the verse is very clear: blood is atoning by means of the life i.e. that is in the blood. The blood does not become atoning because it is shed, but because it contains life.
ReplyDeleteThe significance of the death of the sacrificial animal is very clear from the context of the culture in which it was made, where such animals were so valuable. If all that was necessary was to offer up a little blood, then all that would be necessary in order to show one's commitment and repentance would be to bleed an animal a little bit, and still use it for other things. But to kill an animal signified that one is entirely forfeiting such a valuable thing, and not holding anything back. The death of the animal reinforces the costliness of the gesture.
It is interesting that I. Howard Marshall recognizes this fact, but he still tries to squeeze in a bit of penal substitution:
"Sacrifice is costly and it involves the death of a victim. It is made to God. A sacrifice can be understood in a broad sense as a penalty, although the specific language of penalty does not seem to be associated with it. This may be seen as an indication that the term penal substitution is too narrow to be applied strictly to every type of understanding of the death of Christ. It is better to think of a sacrifice as an offering made to God, but the fact remains that it is costly and involves the death of a victim that would otherwise have been spared."
(Marshall, The Theology of the Atonement)
What he overlooks here is that the Israelites would not have understood the sacrificial animals as 'victims' in the sense that they were being punishments. Animals were property, very valuable property but not creatures of the same value and significance as human beings. The sacrifice is not costly because it involves a killing, but because to kill an animal means one is giving it up entirely.
"That’s just inept. It fails to draw a rudimentary distinction between a symbol and what it stands for. Penal substitution doesn’t assume that the animal is literally innocent."
Then you have a problem, because according to PST what the old sacrifices ultimately signified was that death, i.e. punishment is required in order to cover over sins, and that punishment is inflicted upon a 'spotless' victim. If you're saying that the spotlessness of the victim does not signify the innocence of the perfect sacrifice, i.e. Christ, then what does it signify?
You can't rely on the typological significance of one aspect of sacrifice (i.e. that it involves killing or punishment) for your argument and ignore the significance of other aspects. My reading of the significance of sacrifice does a better of seeing the typological significance of all aspects of the sacrifice.
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. For since the law has but A SHADOW of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near." Hebrews 9:27-10:1
ReplyDeleteEverything that God set up before Christ Jesus' death is a shadow of the pure redemption that is in Christ's death.
I would add that the fact that there was a descending scale of the costliness of the offering in accordance with one's wealth, and that at the bottom of the scale even fine flour (!) could be offered, reinforces the interpretation that what really matters in the sacrifice is not that a killing or punishment takes place but that something very valuable is given up. At the same time, of course, we should not forget that ultimately what God wants from us is a life lived in accordance with his commandments. That is the 'sacrifice' that he ultimately wants, and that is what Jesus offered up.
ReplyDeleteJD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Of course blood has to be shed in order to get at it. But the verse is very clear: blood is atoning by means of the life i.e. that is in the blood. The blood does not become atoning because it is shed, but because it contains life."
No, it "becomes atoning" because it represents the *taking* of life.
"The significance of the death of the sacrificial animal is very clear from the context of the culture in which it was made, where such animals were so valuable."
Were sacrificial birds like doves and pigeons appointed due to their economic/dietetic value?
"If you're saying that the spotlessness of the victim does not signify the innocence of the perfect sacrifice, i.e. Christ, then what does it signify?"
I'm puzzled by your persistent mental block on this issue:
i) A sacrificial animal isn't literally innocent or guilty.
ii) A sacrificial animal symbolizes innocence.
iii) It its symbolic significance, it stands for a literal referent (the Redeemer).
"You can't rely on the typological significance of one aspect of sacrifice (i.e. that it involves killing or punishment) for your argument and ignore the significance of other aspects."
Of course I can. The sacrificial animal is a concrete metaphor. Like any metaphor, it posits a limited correlation between the metaphor and the analogue.
"My reading of the significance of sacrifice does a better of seeing the typological significance of all aspects of the sacrifice."
To the contrary, you remove the key element, then swap in irrelevancies.
"...ultimately what God wants from us is a life lived in accordance with his commandments. That is the 'sacrifice' that he ultimately wants, and that is what Jesus offered up." JD
ReplyDeleteJesus died for those the Father gave to Him. (John 17)
Ultimately it is about the glory God receives for His amazing grace and love for filthy rotten sinners like us.
He saves sinners for His glory, by His grace and mercy.
And of course, "we are His workmanship" for His glory as well.
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
I obey the Lord, because I love Him, and fear Him. I surely do disobey Him a lot, but I hate that i do.
The ONLY reason I love Jesus is because He first loved me. He sought me, and He bought me, with his redeeming love.
What a Savior!
Have a terrific Lord's day Steve!