Atonement in Scripture: Temple Sacrifices and a Bloodthirsty God? Part 3

blood-flow-dialysis-machine

In this series of posts, I’ve been exploring why God, in Israel’s sacrificial system, was not being bloodthirsty, but rather a blood donor.  He was acting like what we understand to be a dialysis machine.   The Israelites passed their impurities to God through the mechanism of the animal sacrifices (specifically the sin and guilt offerings) and the priesthood.  The priests, when they ate the sacrifices, stored up those impurities in themselves.  Simultaneously, the priests shed the blood of the animals offered, since the animals’ blood was not corrupted by sin.  The innocent animal blood “covered” and “cleansed” the uncleanness of the Israelites.  Meanwhile, every year, the priests stored up the contaminants in themselves until the high priest, representing all the priests, entered into the sanctuary on the annual Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and sent the uncleanness into God.  God consumed it.  In the diagram above, the scapegoat and the sin offerings represented the “used dialysate with waste” which could not circulate back into the system by being eaten.  The scapegoat had to carry the sin of the people far away into the wilderness as a representation that God separated sin from the people.  And the other goat and the bull similarly could not be eaten.

By contrast, many people seem to think that the sacrificial system was more analogous to a courtroom, where a bloodthirsty God needed to be appeased because of His hostility towards people per se.  This is called the penal substitution view.  In this lens, ultimately Jesus is seen as bearing the divine punishment to appease a God whose anger is provoked by human lawbreaking.  As I’ve already explored, the implications for the penal substitution view are vastly different from what I am calling the medical substitution view.

I’ve been critiquing penal substitution advocates Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach in particular for their handling of the Old Testament texts on the sacrificial system.  Not only do they fail to explain (1) why non-moral objects like the altar, furniture, and tabernacle itself need atonement as cleansing, they fail to account for (2) how the slain goat offered as a sin offering relates to the second goat, the scapegoat; especially (3) why the sin offering is not eaten by the priests on this occasion, as compared with Leviticus 6:14 – 18 when God explicitly instructs the priests to eat every sin offering, and Leviticus 10:16 – 20 when Moses becomes angry with Aaron when Aaron does not eat the sin offering as instructed; (4) how the high priest came to acquire, symbolically, all the sin of the people so as to bring it into the sanctuary in the first place; and (5) the relation between the Day of Atonement and the rest of the Pentateuchal narrative.  I will offer an explanation for all those elements.  In so doing, I believe my explanation better answers all the dimensions of the text.

 

(1) Why Do Non-Moral Objects in the Tabernacle Need Cleansing?

On the first point, the Day of Atonement rite is focused just as much on renewing the physical space of the tabernacle as it is renewing the priests and the high priests who serve there.  The Day of Atonement rite begins with reference to the death of Aaron’s two sons, not only to thematically link the events, but to suggest that the chronological sequence of Leviticus 11 – 15 and 16 – 17 is not the narrative sequence.  ‘Now the LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the LORD and died.  The LORD said to Moses: ‘Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil…’  In other words, Leviticus 11 – 15 serves to interrupt Leviticus 1 – 10 and 16 – 17.  It would be more natural to read the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood and then read straight on to the instructions for the Day of Atonement rite.  I believe the author-redactor of the Pentateuchal narrative makes this insertion in order to offer a narrative explanation for why the tabernacle and its furnishings need to be cleansed annually.  They had to be cleansed because of their regular contact with the unclean Israelites.

Jewish law established the symbolism of Israelites becoming unclean by touching unclean objects:  unclean animals (Lev.11), dead bodies, graves, menstrual blood, etc. (Lev.12).  The Israelites’ vulnerability to disease, especially diseases that were infectious skin diseases, also reflected a deeper corruption of human nature in which some biological problem contained within the human body surfaced on the skin (Lev.13 – 15).  It stands to reason, therefore, on the higher order of worship, that if human beings had some kind of contamination due to sin, that God’s sanctuary would become unclean as well because of contact with the Israelites, the priests, and the high priest.  Hence, the explanation of physical contamination (Lev.11 – 15) interrupts the discussion of the sacrifices performed in the sanctuary.

The Day of Atonement sought to remedy that situation and, at least, renew the physical sanctuary for ongoing use.  The ceremony begins with the high priest entering only at the appointed day (Lev.16:2), with the appropriate animals for sacrifices in the holy place (Lev.16:3), and while in the holy place, bathing and dressing appropriately in linen symbolizing cleanliness (Lev.16:4), with one bull to make atonement for himself and his household (Lev.16:6, 11), and two goats for sacrifices (Lev.16:7 – 10).  The sacrificed bull, along with incense on coals, would create a smoke within the tent (Lev.16:11 – 13).  This symbolized the cloud of smoke in which Moses mediated before God for Israel on the top of Mount Sinai (Ex.19).  Into this cloud of smoke the high priest stepped, representing Moses and reenacting the sacred renewal of the holy covenant, the covenant which Israel kept breaking.  The sacred objects and the sanctuary itself needed to be cleansed and atoned for:

 

14 Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.  15 Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.  17 When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.  18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides.  19 With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it20 When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat…32 So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar.  He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.  (Leviticus 16:14 – 20, 32 – 33, emphasis mine)

 

Leviticus is clear that the slain goat was a sin offering ‘for the people’ (Lev.16:15); the bull served that purpose ‘for the high priest and his household,’ perhaps because the bull did physical work and thus represented the high priest and his priestly work.  But the very next verse clarifies that it is not merely for the sinful transgressions of the Israelites, although that awareness is certainly present, but first and foremost for their impurities (Lev.16:16).  That is, their uncleanness, which the biblical author understands as coming from the corruption of the human heart from the fall (Gen.6:5 – 6; 8:21); perhaps the author intends the phrase to be synonymous with that reality.  It is because God’s sanctuary ‘abides with them in the midst of their impurities’ that it must be cleansed.

 

(2) How Are the First and Second Goats Related?

The second gap of silence in the thesis of Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach is their lack of treatment of the first goat, the goat given to the Lord as a sin offering.  This contributes to their apparent inability to integrate the cleansing aspect of the word kippur into some interaction with the wrath of God.  Rather than examine the first goat presented as a sin offering, they immediately proceed to discuss the second goat, the scapegoat.  This is a methodological flaw that allows them to separate the two goats in principle, rather than see them as complementary sides of one reality.

After preparing himself to enter the sanctuary and bringing one bull and two goats (Lev.16:1 – 13), the high priest then offered the bull as a burnt offering and the first goat as a sin offering.  The blood from the burnt bull offering was ‘for himself and his household,’ allowing him to enter into the sanctuary and continue the rite (Lev.16:14).  The blood from the sin offering of the goat was ‘for the people’ (Lev.16:15).  The high priest was to sprinkle the blood on the places where the furnishings of the sanctuary interfaced with the Israelites and God in heaven:  the front of the mercy seat where God was ‘closest’ to the high priest, the priests, and the people (Lev.16:14) the horns of the altar where it was ‘closest’ to heaven (Lev.16:18), etc.

The atonement rite is clear that the first goat is sacrificed and its blood sprinkled on these places in the sanctuary to ‘make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities’ (Lev.16:16).  Mention of Israel’s ‘impurities,’ ‘transgressions,’ ‘sins,’ and ‘impurities’ once again are found in this one rather dense verse.  Apparently the contamination of the Israelites affects the physical furnishings of the sanctuary.  For their blood, like the blood of all humanity, is corrupted.  Thus, the contamination needs to be cleansed from the sanctuary by the innocent blood of the first goat.  And, at the same time, the sinfulness of the Israelites needs to be sent away – but to where?

This brings us to the second goat, the scapegoat.  I believe that this second goat is present because the complementary image had to be provided by the atonement rite:

 

21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.  22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.  (Leviticus 16:21 – 22)

 

The three authors are correct, I believe, in seeing that the goat sent off into the ‘solitary land’ is an image of being cut off from the presence of God in judgment.  The suggestion of some, that the meaning of ‘solitary land’ (azazel) is ‘a rocky precipice’ or ‘complete destruction,’ might also affect our interpretation slightly.  But I will not treat that question here, as it does not seem to be a particularly distinguishing feature for helping us decide between penal substitution and ontological substitution.  Jeffery et. al. rightly dismiss the idea that ‘azazel’ is a goat demon, for acknowledgement of goat demons is specifically condemned in Leviticus 17:10.

Hence, Jeffery et. al. argue that the principle of substitution is unavoidable here.[1]  I agree.  But what type of substitution is being represented?  Is it penal?  Once again, it seems to me that the symbolism of substitution is medical.  The scapegoat carries away a disease to be exterminated, symbolically, much like a virus carrier.  It does not carry away the guilt of Israel, symbolically, and still less the personhood of Israel collectively, to be punished in exile.  The second goat represents the sending of Israel’s sinful contamination far away.  But the first goat represents the sending of Israel’s sinful contamination into God Himself.  The two ideas complement each other.  Margaret Barker points out that Hebrews 8 – 9 and 13:11 – 12 say that Jesus was the goat sacrificed, while Hebrews 13:13 implies that he was also the scapegoat. The Epistle of Barnabas, chapters 5 and 7, compares Jesus to both the slain goat and the scapegoat as well.[2]  Hence, the New Testament and the early Christians did not separate the two goats.  They saw them as two aspects of one ritual.

Not just the sanctuary, but the people had to be symbolically cleansed of their sins and renewed as well.  When the covenant was initially ratified, Moses took blood and sprinkled it on all the people (Ex.24:8).  But it was no longer possible to do that when Israel became too numerous.  Similarly, Eleazar the priest performed the red heifer ceremony providing cleansing ash-water for anyone in the congregation who handled the dead bodies of the first generation of Israelites who died in the wilderness (Num.19), lest they defile the sanctuary (Num.19:20).  This red heifer ceremony only needed to be performed for a limited window of time, but anything like that later would also be logistically impossible due to Israel’s sheer size.  Even the act of sprinkling all the Levites with water so they could serve at the tent of meeting (Num.8:5 – 22), which was possible in the wilderness, would quickly become unmanageable because the Levites would soon become too numerous.  The second goat – the scapegoat – seems to be provided in the atonement rite with the first goat as a way to provide the same symbolism as the original covenant sprinkling of the whole congregation.  The first goat died to carry the contamination of Israel into God Himself, giving back its clean lifeblood with which to cleanse the sanctuary.  The second goat died in the wilderness as a symbol of God separating Israel’s sinful contamination from the people themselves.  It was therefore a medical substitution.  The two goats together serve to remind Israel about the renewal of the covenant.

 

(3) Why is the Sin Offering of the Goat on the Day of Atonement Not Eaten?

Moreover, very unlike sin offerings on every other occasion, which were eaten by the priests (Lev.6:24 – 30; 10:24 – 26), on the Day of Atonement, the remains of the bull and the first goat were not to be eaten:

 

27 But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.  28 Then the one who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water, then afterward he shall come into the camp.  (Leviticus 16:27 – 28)

 

Any valid treatment of the Day of Atonement rite needs to account for this irregularity.  Eating the remains of the sin offering would have normally fallen upon the priest.  It was a picture of the priest internalizing Israel’s sin, storing it up within himself.  Those remains were considered to be so holy that, unlike every other occasion when human contact with a dead animal was a bit circumspect, touching the flesh of the sin offering made the person ‘consecrated’ (Lev.6:27), which means, I presume, committed to the eating of the remains.  This was a serious matter.  Recall also that Moses was angry with Aaron’s sons on an occasion when they did not eat the remains of the sin offerings (Lev.10:24 – 26), an episode which underscores the utter seriousness of the priests’ responsibility to take into themselves the sinfulness of the community, symbolically.  However, in the case of the Day of Atonement, the ritual law is very clear that absolutely no one is to eat the hides, flesh, or refuse of the bull or goat.  That is, the sin is not to symbolically cycle back into the priests.  The purpose and symbolism of the Day of Atonement absolutely requires that God consume all the sin (iniquity and uncleanness) of Israel, putting all of it to death by simultaneously consuming it within Himself by fire, and separating it from the people through the scapegoat.

The laying on of the high priest’s hands onto the scapegoat (Lev.16:21) appears to represent a symbolic transfer of some sort.  The high priest, by slaying the first goat, was allowing the goat to ‘carry’ the sinfulness.  He then appeared before God in the holy of holies so that God could symbolically put his own uncleanness to death, as well as the stored up uncleanness of the Israelites, eaten by all the priests in the sin offerings.  Then the scapegoat running off into the wilderness can be said to represent God separating our sinfulness from us as far as the east is from the west, by taking it into Himself, which is the only place for it to go.  If this is the case, then the two goats simultaneously represent not the death of Jesus and his forsakenness from the presence of God, but the death of the corruption in his human nature and his sending it far, far away from himself and us.

 

(4) How Did the High Priest Come to Acquire All the Impurity of the People?

The fourth oversight Jeffery et. al. commit concerns the question of how the high priest symbolically came to acquire all the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the people in the first place.  All of Israel used the sanctuary, directly and indirectly through the mediation of the priests.  But while this perhaps explains why the sanctuary needed to be cleansed and why the boundaries between earth and altar need to be sprinkled with the innocent blood of animals, it does not explain why the high priest could present the sin of his people on their behalf in the first place.  Certainly in the text of Leviticus 16, atonement for the people does not rest on the scapegoat alone, but on the bull and the slain goat as well, the physical sanctuary, the entire priesthood, and the high priest.  But through what conduit did all the pollution of Israel symbolically come to rest on the high priest’s shoulders?

First, as Leviticus 6:24 – 30 and 10:16 – 20 indicate, priests alone ate the sin offerings and the meat portions of the guilt offerings.  The Israelite worshipers did not eat any portion of the sin offering or guilt offering.  This was unusual among the sacrificial offerings, and sin and guilt offerings themselves were associated with the presence of the tabernacle sanctuary and the priesthood established to mediate the covenant.  Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and peace offerings existed before the sanctuary was established.  Burnt offerings were completely consumed by fire (Lev.1:2 – 3:17; 6:8 – 13), representing God completely consuming the animal.  Grain offerings offered by the people, representing the blessing of God from the abundance of the land, were partly consumed in the fire (eaten by God) and partly eaten by the priests (Lev.6:14 – 18), though if a priest offered a grain offering to God on the day of his ordination, God alone consumed it (Lev.6:19 – 23).  Peace offerings were a meal shared by the Israelite worshiper, God, and the priest.  The fact remains, therefore, that only the priests ate the sin offerings and the meat of the guilt offerings.  The priests, by eating these offerings, were then said to ‘bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD’ (Lev.10:17).  The semantic parallels to the Day of Atonement, where the scapegoat bears away guilt, should be clear.

Then, in all the sanctuary sacrifices, what matters is not just that the animal dies, but who eats it (Lev.6 – 7).  Peace offerings are eaten by the Israelites with the priests (Lev.3:11, 16; 7:15 – 16), with some of the animal burned, representing God sharing in and extending a meal.  Burnt offerings are eaten by God symbolically through fire (Lev.6:8 – 13) because, as I believe, the ashes of the animal would be scattered over the land, symbolically nourishing it.  Sin offerings are eaten by the priests, who were symbolically taking into themselves an uncleanness from their fellow Israelites (Lev.6:24 – 30; 10:16 – 18).  So the sanctuary system represents God ‘eating’ sin and consuming it in Himself – or having his mediators, the priests, do it – and extending back the meal of fellowship.

Hence, I do not agree that ‘the sin offering and guilt offering emphasize punishment or retribution for sin.’[3]  Calvinist theologian and biblical scholar Vern Poythress, who made that statement in his 1991 work The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, acknowledges the eating of the sacrificial meal at the sanctuary as significant for the Israelite and God, but fails to acknowledge the eating of the sin and guilt offerings by the priest as significant for the process of atonement.  If the death of the animal symbolizes retribution, then there is nothing particularly special about the sin and guilt offerings, because animals die in all the offerings, excepting of course the grain offerings.  Why then do only sin and guilt offerings emphasize punishment or retribution for sin?  And why then did the Pentateuch differentiate between these offerings and others?  These questions tend to go unexplained in Calvinist interpretations of the sacrificial system.  Nor do Poythress or others discuss the matter of why the sin offering is conspicuously not eaten by the priest on the Day of Atonement itself, whereas the priests eat sin offerings on every other occasion.  These omissions are typical and are shared by John Stott in his 1986 book The Cross of Christ; Brevard S. Childs in his 1992 work Biblical Theology of Old and New Testaments, which was rightly critiqued by Margaret Barker for devoting only four pages out of five hundred to the subject of atonement in the Old Testament[4]; Emile Nicole in his 2004 essay ‘Atonement in the Pentateuch’ in The Glory of the Atonement; Thomas Schreiner in his contribution, ‘Penal Substitution View,’ in the 2006 book The Nature of the Atonement comparing four views on the subject; Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach in 2007 in Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution; and William Barrick in his 2009 article ‘Penal Substitution in the Old Testament’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal.  This is an omission on their part, an omission that tends to be reproduced by evangelical commentators, and certainly by defenders of penal substitution.  A rare exception is Gordon Hugenberger, who maintained in his class on the theology of the Pentateuch that who eats which sacrifice is significant to the overall message of the text.  If what physically happened to the animal in its death is so important to atonement theory, it stands to reason that who physically ate it afterwards might also be significant.

The rites of the sin and guilt offerings emphasize the contamination of sin being passed along from the Israelite through the animal to the priest, stored up among the priests, until the high priest could take the accumulated contamination from the Israelites and send it into God on the Day of Atonement.  This explains at a stroke why the sin and guilt offerings were added to the worship practices of the people of Israel when the sanctuary and the priesthood were established.  Sin and guilt offerings are involved in the mediation of the priests and the mediation of the sanctuary.  And that mediation is accomplished not judicially using legal-penal symbolism, but medically using physical-ontological symbolism, namely eating.  Sin and guilt are passed along physically from the Israelite to the priest, symbolically speaking.  The priests bore the sin away from the congregation (Lev.10:17).  The sanctuary system, therefore, was God’s way of storing up the contamination of Israel’s sin.  It was consumed physically by the priests, and stored up by them as covenant mediators until the high priest could bring that sin and guilt to God using the symbolism of the two goats on the Day of Atonement.  God bore away Israel’s sin by eating it Himself.  That is, He was acting like a dialysis machine.

 

 

[1] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions:  Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), p.49 – 50

[2] Margaret Barker, ‘Atonement: The Rite of Healing’, Scottish Journal of Theology 49.1.1994, footnote 30.  Barker offers a very compelling, integrated interpretation of the Day of Atonement.  However, one problem with her proposal is that she seems to be open to the scapegoat representing both Jesus and a demon named Azazel/Asael.  She interprets the goat being offered ‘as Azazel’ as if God would place human sins on a demon and send it far away.  While this is an attractive ‘christus victor’ atonement theory, ultimately, I doubt that ultimately the scapegoat represents both Jesus and a demon.  Too, the New Testament does not suggest that God laid human sin on the devil or some other demonic being, meaning that the New Testament does not confirm Barker’s thesis, but goes in a different direction.  Thus, her critique of L.L. Grabbe in footnote 33, that he did not draw ‘the obvious conclusion,’ is premature.  While the textual support she marshals for this view has some significance, Barker does not consider the role of the sanctuary as a whole as a ‘plan B’ from God’s perspective, which Sailhamer does, and on which I build my understanding of the sanctuary, sin and guilt offerings, and the Day of Atonement rite.  This leads Barker to elevate rabbinical positive opinion about the sanctuary overmuch (Barker, p.4, 6), seeing the high priest as God Himself and not as the human mediator between God and Israel.  She does not consider the biblical writers’ qualified and reluctant endorsement of the sanctuary and the priests, with substantial critique, especially the critique given by the Pentateuch itself.  Methodologically, Barker rests her case on a substantial amount of extrabiblical literature, especially 1 Enoch, whose value might be illustrative but not determinative, in my mind.  Jewish extrabiblical writing tends to be pro-Temple and give unqualified approval to Israel’s major institutions, unlike the biblical writings.  Thus, I suspect that ‘as Azazel’ is better understood to not refer to a demon but to sinfulness itself, ‘as sin,’ although that would need to be proven elsewhere.  Moreover, I can accept Barker’s suggestion that the slain goat is not merely ‘for the Lord’ but ‘as the Lord.’  If this is the proper understanding, then the two goats represent the division wrought by the high priest between Israel and Israel’s sin through a divine self-sacrifice (which is admittedly easier for a Christian to argue for, given a commitment to the New Testament).  It is the human mediator between God and Israel, in the presence of God, who brings about a separation between Israel’s sinfulness and Israel itself, through the double imagery of the goats:  one dies ‘as the Lord’ and the other dies taking Israel’s sin far away.

[3] Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (P&R Publishing, 1991), ch.3.

[4] Margaret Barker, ‘Atonement: The Rite of Healing’, Scottish Journal of Theology 49.1.1994, p.2

Advertisements

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Michelle says:

    You know what, I did some editing and some adding to my last comment (which I believe is in moderation), so I’m going to re-post the whole thing. So, if you like you can delete the last one. Or, if you like you can delete all of them, lol. And if these comments are unwelcome, my sincere apologies. Any way, here it is:

    Hi, Mako,

    I found your blog through Fr. Stephen’s blog, Glory to God for all Things. I really enjoyed reading it. Very interesting stuff. If you don’t mind, I’m going to think out loud here, and then ask a question or two. Please, be patient with me. I’ll try to articulate this the best I can:

    So, the sin offering brought by an Israelite to the temple represents his own person; the animal is a substitute, on which is laid his human nature, which shares in Adam’s subjection to corruption and death. This human nature then comes together with the nature of God within the animal to represent a single being who possesses both natures. What ever God unites Himself to, truly becoming one with it, becomes Holy. Thus, within the animal substitute Adam’s nature becomes Holy, along with all who share this nature with Adam (since Adam is one with all of humanity, as a single, whole entity).

    So, this unity is what needs to happen to purify humanity, but the common Israelite has to use an animal substitute for this because he is not capable of withstanding this union of man and God within himself, because when the pure blood is shed he would still die (like the animal does, but when an animal dies its not such a big deal). In fact, only God the Human can stand to unite to God the Father, since God the Human is also Life Itself, having within Himself the Power to raise Himself up again after shedding His blood. In fact, God the Human actually wouldn’t have died at all, not even after having His blood shed, except that He does so voluntarily. He voluntarily unites Himself to Adam’s corruption, which is death, since otherwise Adam would have continued to be under submission to it. Now all is under submission to Christ.

    Now, we consume Christ in the Eucharist. Is this what the priest was doing when he consumed the offering after the blood cleansed everything? Was it a ‘type’ of Eucharist, though not the ‘real’ Eucharist? If so, then what is it that makes you believe that the sin still abides in the food that makes up this Eucharistic meal? Seems like the reason the priest had to eat it was not to take the left over sins within his self, but in order to consume the Pure Meal on behalf of the people. He was subsequently purified by the ritual, and thus could consume of the Pure Meal. Like you said, the shear number of the Israelites prevented all from being able to doing this themselves, so the priest acts on their behalf. But then what would be the point of the Day of Atonement, since all the sins have been taken care of already?
    Is it because on the Day of Atonement nothing is consumed, but rather sent outside the camp in a desolate land, that you believe the priest must be storing sins? I guess this actually would make sense, since the animal wasn’t actually capable of becoming released from death ‘s grip when the two natures of God and man came together in it. So, I think you are right, the priest consumed the offering because of the sin that was still upon it, due to the fact that only Christ is fit be a clean offering. The God human is absolutely necessary –only to Him is death subjugated. He is the Stronger Man who binds the strong man. But I do still think that the priests consummation of the meal is supposed to be a ‘type’ of eucharist.

    But then my question is why do you believe that the uneaten offering, and the scapegoat are sent off outside the camp for the purpose of God consuming them? Because, as I have stated, only the God man is capable of being a truly pure offering, and the scapegoat and uneaten offering cannot. If God truly purifies Israel by consuming these inferior offerings, then the people have become pure sans-Christ. The God man’s offering is no longer the necessary, crucial element of Israel’s salvation, but, rather, God’s consumption of inferior animal sacrifices accomplishes the whole work. Partaking of the true Eucharist isn’t necessary for the people of Israel, because God’s partaking of inferior animals did the job just fine.

    However, it seems to me, that the sins placed upon the scapegoat, and the sins that still remain in the uneaten offerings, were sent off to a desolate place so that they could not further defile the temple and the Israelites through immediate contact, or “recycling,” as you call it. And these defiled things were to remain outside the camp where they are safest, apart from all the people, until the Christ comes to finally take care of them once and for all.

    And if you wish to use the medicinal language of Christ cleansing us from death’s corruption as the Great Physician, as opposed to using language that describes Him as winning Righteousness and Holiness for us through violent “punishment” of death, violently putting Death to death, as the Great Victor in Battle, then that’s just fine. But the latter can easily be explained in ontological terms of Christ doling out violent “punishments” upon our enemy, Death, without losing any of the truths explained above. They are both apt metaphors. But I must be clear; in the latter metaphor the punishments are always directed at death itself. And Protestants could easily acquire for themselves this latter ontological metaphor, and even retain penal theory based on such. The only problem with Protestants is that they will conflate our enemy, Death, with human nature, calling this conflation “total depravity,” and then wrongly proceed to direct God’s vengeance upon humanity.

    For example, instead of thinking of sin as a disease needing dialysis, think of sin as a demonic little beast named, Death, needing extermination. He clings to you just as closely as a virus, and devours you, eating away at you just as viciously as a cancer. And instead of placing Adam’s human nature, riddled with disease, upon the offerings and scapegoat, we rather place Adam’s nature, along with the vicious little beast digging his claws into him, upon them. Both metaphors do a good job of explaining things, I think.

    So, I guess my point is that using medicinal language is fine, and the ontological nature of our salvation is good and true, but penal substitution can still easy find its way into Christianity. And that’s fine too. The problems really only occur when people start conflating notions of ontological human nature with notions of ontological death, and then dogmatize it, as Protestants have done.

    But now these metaphors have got me thinking! We see both metaphors clearly spelled out in the gospel accounts, namely when Jesus heals the leprous and casts out demons from the possessed. But let’s be honest with ourselves here, in none of these gospel accounts does Jesus suggest these people would have faced some sort of judgment had He passed them by instead. No, rather, the only people Jesus threatens with judgments are the hypocrites –you know, the Pharisee and Sadducees. Is it maybe that while these ontological metaphors fit perfectly for the lepers and demoniacs, they fail in the cases of hypocrites and the like? Is something totally different going on in these cases? Are we in need of a third metaphor? I will have to think about this!

    Thanks for your patients! Please, let me know what you think, and where I err on all of this.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. makonagasawa says:

    Hi Michelle, thanks for your patience – we had some family business to take care of. And thanks for your very thoughtful questions. To start with: You raise an intriguing question about whether we can parse the sacrificial animal, the priestly order, and the temple itself. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to attribute all of the above to Christ. Moreover, the rhythm of the Israelite calendar year has something to with imaging the person and work of Christ. Hence, the climactic moment is the Day of Atonement, where all the priests, who have stored up the ritual impurity all year long, are represented by the high priest, who somehow sends the sin into God.

    I don’t think that the sacrificial animals or grain offerings were direct typological pointers to the eucharist. The main reason is because the symbolism is changed by Christ. The sacrificial system seems to represent a vehicle by which impurity can be transferred to God. So perhaps the animal reflects something of the humanity of Jesus, carrying our sinfulness with him to his death so he can give his life (imaged by blood) back to us in his resurrection.

    The eucharist, by contrast, seems to represent… well, perhaps a variety of equivalent things, like the union of divine and human in Jesus, or the life poured out by Jesus at his death and resurrection, or the Holy Spirit (Luke’s theme of ‘bread’ in Luke 11:1 – 13 seems to culminate in ‘the Holy Spirit’ in 11:13). But regardless, the imagery of eucharist points to a completed work, which is received by us as a gift. We are not really giving something or transferring something to Christ in the imagery of the eucharist.

    I think, if I’m understanding you correctly, that would be my answer to why the slain goat and the scapegoat are distanced from Israel. The two goats were effective for only the temple dwelling arrangement which God took up temporarily. They did not actually cleanse people of actual sin (Hebrews 10:1 – 2). It served a real purpose, I think, in a limited sense, by allowing God to give back life to Israel in a very limited sense, so He could be near them in their midst, and so their land could be fruitful. But ultimately, it pointed to the deeper and much more intimate temple-dwelling of the Son in human flesh, and what Jesus would be doing and would do with finality.

    I’d be happy to speak of Christ being victorious over death and the demons, and have done so. I might quibble with you about whether sin is more fundamental than death, in both the New Testament and early church theologians like Irenaeus and Athanasius. It has to do with human nature being something God called us to develop and shape over time, with Him, originally. So sin, for example in Athanasius, is a disordered or misshapen human nature. His favorite word is ‘corruption.’ It leads to death, that is true. But it isn’t absolutely synonymous with death, if I’m understanding the texts correctly. I might add that it’s a bit like what neuroscience is telling us about the brain: It’s designed to be developed. And we can wire it and rewire it based on our choices. But our choices and the wiring it causes in the brain will shape our desires and wants.

    And, in these blog posts, I’m especially concerned to compare the penal substitution and ‘medical substitution’ views. The main point here for Protestant evangelicals like me is that the love of God is for the person, while the wrath of God is for the disorder/disease/corruption within the person. In that sense, the wrath of God is an activity of God that flows out from His love, and is directed at the thing that is killing us, and interferes with the relationship between God and us. My stress is that, in the medical/surgical model of atonement, the love of God and wrath of God have two different objects. That is not possible in the legal-penal framework. A judge in a courtroom cannot distinguish between the personhood of the person, and something in the person that has gone awry.

    Finally, I think with Jesus’ healing miracles, he was doing something outside his own body that reflected what he was doing within his own body. So leprosy is a ‘type’ or image of sin (Leviticus 13), not in the sense that lepers were more sinful, of course. But that lepers depicted our sinful condition in a particular way. As did paralysis. As did bleeding. As did being dead. Etc. So when Jesus healed people in those conditions, it’s because he was healing the human nature in himself in a deeper and more profound way, uniting it with God.

    I think the paradigm can fit quite nicely with the Pharisees and Sadducees, or the prostitutes or tax collectors for that matter. Is it natural and logical for a doctor to be stern and rebuking with those who pretend to know about health but give others false information? Absolutely. His language might have been more of a rebuke to them because (1) they were leading the rest of the Jewish people to war with Rome, which would be tragic; (2) they were supposed to know the Scriptures more than the common Jewish person; and (3) their self-perception was so off. But with the Pharisee Nicodemus who sat on the Sanhedrin, for example, Jesus spoke of ontology (born again/from above) and medical atonement (the source of venom would be crucified in John 3:14 – 15). Calling the Pharisees and Sadducees to repentance was simply calling them to participate in what he was doing in himself on their behalf, too.

    Does that make sense?

    Like

  3. Michelle says:

    Mako,
    Sorry I haven’t responded till just now. I want to thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to chew on it for a bit, and then maybe I will follow up. Thank you again.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s