The End of Penal Substitution?? A Review of Lamb of the Free
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 ноя 2024
- Follow me on Goodreads: / joel-wentz
Is this the end of penal substitutionary atonement?? Is PSA dead?? Does 'Lamb of the Free' convince the reader of its provocative argument? If so, how does the Bible actually present the death of Christ in sacrificial terms? How is the death of Christ rooted in the Levitical sacrificial system, and what implications does this have for understanding the New Testament? Here are my thoughts on this astounding book.....
Main Idea - 0:35
Research - 5:09
Readability - 6:49
What I Learned - 8:26
Reaction - 14:57
Okay, okay, you sold me. I will read this. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. As always, your efforts to bring good books to our attention is deeply appreciated! Thanks Joel.
I can’t tell you how excited I am to read this! The boys over at the Lord of Spirits podcast started to educate me in this direction, but I just want to soak up as much knowledge is I can hold on this subject. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
Fantastic review. I’m Protestant and attend a messianic synagogue and our rabbi as well as numerous scholars were blown away by this read. We just went through Yom Kippur and wow was it a perfect subject matter to address since YK is all about atonement and forgiveness of sins. I’d love to dig into it
You are my most trusted Christian book reviewer and you completely sold me on checking this book out! I relate to you so much in terms of your theological journey in regards to atonement (I recently got Welcoming Gifts which I think is in the same direction as this book, so maybe I'll read that one first to prepare for this one!)... So I'm quite sure I'll have a blast with this one as well. Keep up the fantastic work!
Wow thanks for the kind words! I'm so encouraged that my humble little RUclips channel resonates with you and your journey. That's exactly why I'm doing this - I strongly suspect there are many of us out there! And I'm not familiar with 'Welcoming Gifts' but now I'm intrigued!
Dear Joel, thanks for this review! I’m diving into this book now (along with my perpetual 12 other books at once!)
I wanted to suggest that you review Chris Green’s The Fire and The Cloud: A Biblical Christology. He constructs a christology purely out of the Old Testament in dialogue with premier Christian and Jewish voices, all while wrestling with the tensions of supercessionism! He’s a beautiful and dense and mystical writer. Look into it!
Just finishing this book and am most impressed: ultra-highly recommended.
I am almost finished and totally agree with you- this is the BEST book I have read in a long time. It changes our theology and our discipleship at the same time. I will follow your discussion next about understanding what Jesus really has done. To those who have not read the book-here are a couple of quotes- “Jesus died for us- but not instead of us.” Jesus is the forerunner - we follow Him in Union and participation with His life.
As one who used to believe PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) was THE gospel, there are many passages that I have found directly challenges this. Two stand out for me.
One, Jesus says to “take up your cross and follow me”. If Jesus’ death was a substitution, why does he tell his followers to follow in his manner of death? And some early believers did die via crucifixion if tradition is to be believed.
Secondly, Jesus’ own name means “He will save his people from their sins.” He doesn’t save his people from the penalty of their sins. It is sin that Jesus saves us from, not from God.
Some will still insist on substitution, and I realize that. 😊 I hope to read this book.
How does the book deal with verses like 1 Peter 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness?"
Well, you should read the book to find out ;-) There is a chapter devoted to all the "what about [insert New Testament text]?" so these objections are addressed. But a lot boils down to the surprising realization that many of these texts can be rightly understood, even in a straightforward reading, without any appeal to substitution (ie. Christ still goes ahead of us, Christ still takes on the curse, encounters death, etc.....but all without it being explicitly substitutionary or "in my place"). Even that 1 Peter text can be understood as Christ doing something ahead of me, and I still benefit from it, but without a substitutionary exchange. It's shocking how many of us smuggle in substitutionary logic without even realizing it. Can't really do the argument full justice in a reply comment, so again, I heartily encourage you to read the book!
@@JoelWentz I probably well assumed you might say I should read the book, and that's fine.
I don't doubt that verses like 1 Peter 2:24 and other similar ones can be skirted. But I don't agree that there's smuggling going on to read it as substitutionary language. I think one would read that as the plain language of the text, and that applying alternative meaning would cost some integrity with scripture.
I would also offer that the levitical sacrificial system was insufficient inasmuch as we needed Christ and the cross. It seems a bit backward to me.... To interpret the sufficient by means of the insufficient. Rather would we not look to understand what is all-sufficient, and measure everything else by this.
No doubt Jesus accomplished a multitude on our behalf on the cross. But I have found that at the heart of certain atonement views, many that are pointedly anti-PSA, is a desire to minimize our sin or deny God's authority - neither of which serve the gospel. I'm not suggesting this to be your motive, but it is one that Christians would be watchful to guard against.
Just wanted to add a thought. 1 Peter 2:24 is often used as a proof text for PSA. But look at the intended result of Jesus bearing our sin in his body. It says "...that we might die to sin and live for righteousness."
It doesn't say "...that our penalty might be removed" or something along those lines. The purpose of Jesus' suffering in 1 Peter 2:24 is a certain RESPONSE from us in HOW WE LIVE. That we die to sin and live for righteousness and are therefore cleansed in a way that the blood or bulls and goats could never accomplish. I think this is the ransom idea Jesus taught, and which Paul also teaches explicitly. That Jesus dies to free us from captivity to sin and deliver us into a new life of obedience to the will of God.
@@thomasalbinholmes2538 While 1 Peter 2:24 hardly stands solo, it would seem as though Peter didn’t want us to miss it, right? I do agree that other verses like Philippians 3:9 or Romans 4:22-25 give us more insight on this righteousness ….
Jesus bears our sin on the cross & because he takes on our position with sin and death, we exchange this for His position of righteousness & life.
I agree God expects a response from us because Jesus says, “if you love me, you’ll obey my commandments” (John 14:15). Absolutely.
And…. I agree Jesus says He came “to give his life as a ransom for many.”(Matt 20:28 & Mark 10:45)….. It’s interesting bc in a ransom scenario - the one in need of rescue is innocent. However, Scripture is clear that our sin is not only what holds us captive, it is also our fault source. We are not innocent. If you hold this model to the same analogous standard as others, it only makes sense if it’s speaking of the “many” who are ultimately found faultless & blameless in Him.
@@thomasalbinholmes2538 While 1 Peter 2:24 hardly stands solo, it would seem as though Peter didn’t want us to miss it, right? I do agree that other verses like Philippians 3:9 or Roman’s 4:22-25 give us more insight on this righteousness ….
Jesus bears our sin on the cross & because he takes on our position with sin and death, we exchange this for His position of righteousness & life.
I agree God expects a response from us because Jesus says, “if you love me, you’ll obey my commandments” (John 14:15). Absolutely.
And…. I agree Jesus says he came “to give his life as a ransom for many.”(Matt 30:28 & Mark 10:45)….. It’s interesting bc in a ransom scenario - the one in need of rescue is innocent. However, Scripture is clear that our sin is not only what holds us captive, it is also our fault source. We are not innocent. If you hold this model to the same analogous standard as others, it only makes sense if it’s speaking of the “many” who are ultimately found faultless & blameless in Him.
I think this might be a case of a solution in search of a problem. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is given a variety of aspects in Scripture. It is substitutionary, it is restorative, it is atoning, and many more. But this is true also of the sacrifices of the Old Testament as well. This sounds very much like the placement of an artificial dichotomy. Just as Jesus is Savior, Redeemer, Friend, Judge, King, Lord, Comforter, Sacrifice, Father, Priest, Man, and God, so must His perfect sacrifice also be many things, all Biblical, based on the needs of all humanity. Just because a pesron finds in Him comfort does not mean that they also fail to find His substitutionary atonement.
Amen friend!
When thinking about the atonement, I think of a diamond that has multiple facets - all of which are integral to the whole, and of which shine with such beauty,
What are you seeing in scripture that Christ did substitutionally? I have yet to hear anyone give me anything that He did in that manner. As best as I can tell, we still die and we are called to follow His example and die to our sin, we are expected to be righteous like He was, we will be resurrected like He was if we believe in Him, we suffer, many believers have suffered in the same ways He did, etc. I don’t understand where people are seeing substitution, if by that, you mean instead of us so we don’t have to. It seems He did things ahead of us, but instead of us
Great review, you are reading some good books Joel!
I'll probably read it eventually, although these works are often over-informed by the post-Temple reaction to the sacrificial system. It's true that evangelicals especially read substitution into everything and lack a sense of the larger Temple system. However, the nature of Isaac's binding --and Jesus as its reverse-- is a paradigm which should color the Christian understanding of the whole system. The Book of Hebrews leads us to this understanding, especially how the entire sacrificial system was powerless to cleanse the sinful on its own, but only had any relevance because of Christ's later sacrifice. These things in mind, it seems unwise to abandon the idea of substitution entirely.
To be honest , the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't teach penal substitution either and they claim to hold tightly true to the early church apostolic teachings and instead teach more of a healing based theology in regards to the atonement. Check out Saint Maximos the Confessors , On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. That would be an interesting book review by you.
I'm looking forward to read this book (but I'm already convinced that PSA isn't biblical). Does it go into Isaiah 53?
Here is a partial list of Penal Substitutionary Atonement problems:
5. Basic logic tells us that a complete payment cancels forgiveness. You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not need to pay a debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid, not after the payment has been made!
6. Forgiveness that can be bought or sold is not true forgiveness. If you think that you or a third party can purchase genuine forgiveness, you do not understand forgiveness!
7. We humans are able to forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God cannot do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God.
8. PSA’s "infinite justice” claim has God incapable of truly forgiving us without first getting a proxy payment by murder and blood. How can that be genuine forgiveness?
9. If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive. God is not a deceiver for forgiving people before Christ died.
10. God said many times that He would forgive, and He forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5 “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2 “LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7
11. Jesus did not seem to think that he was going to make a payment to God for the sins of humanity. Even while on the cross He did not speak as if he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Jesus did not say, “Father, wait until I am finished paying for their sins, then you can forgive them.”
12. Every example of forgiveness we have from Jesus shows forgiveness in the normal human sense, not in some unheard-of future forgiveness, transfer, imputation, payment, or third-party justice. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...for if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses...” Matthew 6:12, 14-15 “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Mark 11:25 (See also Matthew 9:2-8, 18:21-35, Luke 5:20, 6:37, 7:47-48, 11:4, 15:11-32.)
13. A literal payment requires a literal transfer and a literal recipient of that payment. How can a death (an action, not a substance) be a literal payment? Who collected this payment?
14. If God has been paid in full for our sins, then why does He still demand that we stop sinning and live right, and even have wrath and threaten judgment for disobedience? If Jesus paid it all, God got what He wanted.
15. Would not a payment for sin be a type of indulgence payment, a bribe to ignore sin and to issue a pardon? A blood sacrifice as a payment to a god is a pagan idea, which is why God ordered the Old Testament people many times to stop their sacrifices - they began treating sacrifices as if they were indulgences, and that stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and sacrifices were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get Him to change.)
For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation”
I’d recommend Michael Morales’s biblical theological work on Leviticus.
What you said on union with Christ is actually the very context of penal substitution, as Dr. Robert Letham has put it. I think you (and perhaps this author have a VERY particular definition of substitution and penalty that you’re trying to avoid). You may want to ask yourself what particular trendy aversions to the doctrine you may have picked up during your “deconstruction.” Nothing you said here actually deals with the biblical notion that Jesus, as the second Adam, died as a sacrifice for sin to appease the wages of sin on behalf of His Bride in order to sanctify her. The notion that Jesus received the cup of God wrath stored up for sin on behalf of his people who would receive eternal death, body and soul in Hell is straight from Scripture.
Also, the decontamination idea is nothing new (Morales talks a great deal about it) - however you didn’t touch on the role of the priest as representative of the people, as a “cultic Adam” (Morales talks about this) and the Temple as cosmos. No, ceremonial cleanness isn’t the same as moral sin but it is a correlate. Morales might help you to bring decontamination to the people and not only the space, to the cosmos and not only the temple.
It’s interesting to me that those who “deconstruct” tend to be so motivated by there desire to reject a particular truncated heterodoxy that they end up embracing a different truncated heterodoxy rather than just embrace a fuller orthodoxy.
Yeah I've read Morales. Very familiar, and I do like it quite a bit. Still a lot of value there, and Rillera interacts directly with Morales on the substitution point in his book. At the end of the day, I found Rillera persuasive.
I may do a video walking through my journey with atonement theology. I find many people make frustrating assumptions about the motives of those of us who have questioned certain theological ideas, like PSA, but I could turn many of the questions I receive right back. What are your motives for holding onto something like substitution? Those are just as important to examine.
@@JoelWentzI don’t think that should frustrate you in the least - I hope you run into more of it. Confessional folks are not just trying to cramp your theological style. Believe it or not your “journey” isn’t all that unique and you’re walking down a very familiar road.
I remember interacting with Brandon Robertson and he had a similar way of speaking about his questioning the traditional doctrines and deconstructing too. But he insisted that he was orthodox on the core doctrines of the faith. Now look at him.
Also, the burden of proof is not on the confessional position but on the one questioning it. People raise that concern about denying PSA because so many that attack it also are rejecting doctrines like Hell and throwing out biblical sexuality for good measure. Rejecting PSA tends to come from those with an allergy to the wrath and justice of God. And this is just what I’ve witnessed in the past fifteen years.
If that’s not you and you really are coming at this from a purely exegetical place, fine, but acknowledge the real dangers. Maybe admit that you’re the exception and don’t be offended when people point out that you sure sound like the rule.
The main problem with classical penal substitutionary atonement is that it divides the Trinity. How do the ideas of this book relate to Orthodox theology?
I think this is a misconception that scripture easily resolves. How do you see the trinity divided in PSA?
@@Shark_fishing Is there anger/wrath/lack of relation/lack of experience of communion between the Persons of the Godhead "during" the Passion?
@@Custodes21 I'm personally more interested in scripture than Hollywood. But I'm deducing that you would presume scripture like Isaiah 53:10 or Jesus' words in Matthew 27:46 either mean something other than their obvious reading - or- the trinity was divided... Is that what you would say?
@@Shark_fishing Penal substitutionary atonement gets interpreted as an angry wrathful judgmental father punishing the son in our place for our sins. The son is loving and forgiving, the father is angry, wrathful and judgmental. The Trinity is thereby split. The divine wrath is directed at the Son and not us. He is beaten in our place.
@@adrianthomas1473 When I read 1 Peter 2:24, “He bore our sins in his body on the tree” or Col 2:14, “nailing it (our record of wrongs) to the cross” (inasmuch as we know it was Christ’s body that was nailed to the cross)…. I cannot deconstruct substitution. When I read in Isaiah 53, “the punishment that brought us peace” or “it pleased the Father to crush him”…. I cannot deconstruct penalty for sin or God’s wrath with sin from the picture of the cross. With the narrative of the curse (man’s sin & God’s wrath response) which brought about death to begin with, I cannot read Pauls words “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” Galatians 3:13…. And not think, the curse was intended for me, but Jesus took on that which was intended for me… substitution.
But then the following texts, which are Jesus’ own words…..
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again” John 10:17
“But I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father” John 14:31
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” John 6:38
“You have no authority over me unless it had been given you from above” John 19:11
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:18
In Matt 26:53-56 Peter comes to Jesus’ defense when he is seized for the crucifixion & Jesus rebukes him, reminding Peter that he still holds the authority of heaven but has knowledge of what must be fulfilled.
I do sense the tension that logic gives us, but I think scripture provides enough to overcome it. And I think this last passage is interesting in this conversation because to some degree I think the tension that you represent and hold on behalf of Jesus is likened to the tension that Peter felt in his defense as well. But Jesus reminds us, he holds the authority. He is not a victim or an unwilling participant in His death. Rather, “I and the Father are one” John 10:30….. The Godhead, sacrificing Himself at unimaginable cost, testifying to the greatest love story that history- or future come -will ever know.
Would this line up with a Catholic view like that of Phillip De La Trinite and his book What is Redemption? In that book he argues that the traditional Catholic view is more that of "vicarious satisfaction," which is that we are unable to offer the proper sacrifice to God (a sacrifice of perfect love of God and neighbor, since the law is summarized that way), so Christ entered the fallen realm of our sin and offered that perfect love sacrifice for us, even though it caused him suffering, because no greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends.
Hi, Joel. I came across your channel because, although I'm a religious Jew, I'm interested in other faiths, especially Christianity. I enjoyed your review. To me, as a Jewish educator, it's good to hear that Christians may be getting a fuller, more accurate picture of biblical, sacrificial ideas-ideas that Jews have been talking about for centuries in and through rabbinic literature. For a long time, for example, I've noted that it's odd how Christians seem to put so much emphasis on Jesus as a "Paschal" offering when the genuine biblical festival of atonement and forgiveness is Yom Kippur. As you noted, Passover is about the Exodus (which could have its own set of meaning-symbols for Christian life), not the forgiveness of sin as such.
This leads into a couple of other specific comments I'd like to make: I don't agree with the assertion that Yom Kippur is simply "Decontamination Day" within Israelite Scripture. Here's Lev 16:21-22:
"Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness" (NJPS 1985).
This ritual act is distinct from other purification ceremonies Aaron was to perform. Or look at the summary of the day, ibid., v. 30: "For on this day he [or, He] will make atonement [or, expiation] for you to purify you; from all your sins you shall be pure before the LORD" [translating literally and with Masoretic punctuation]. If anything, Jesus should probably be portrayed as the YK "scapegoat," not the Paschal lamb.
But there's a much broader issue beyond just Yom Kippur that needs correcting, in my judgment. I'll try to be brief. It's completely wrong (and apologetic or even polemical) to suggest that all the Jewish Bible concerned itself with was decontaminating the sacred shrine, and there was no way to seek forgiveness or atonement for, or otherwise deal with, moral sin. In fact, that biblical method is repentance: turning away from sin, changing your deeds and way of life, and returning humbly to God. It's all over the place. (Five quick examples: Deuteronomy 30, Isaiah 1, Ezekiel 18, Micah 6, and Jonah 3.) With all due respect to the author of that book, claiming that God overlooked or intentionally avoided the issue of repentance and forgiveness until Jesus came is both inaccurate and unjust to Scripture.
All the best in your channel!
Hmm, I definitely missed that part in the book that “God overlooked or intentionally avoided the issue of repentance and forgiveness until Jesus came.” @JoelWentz, could you cite the pages? I got the opposite understanding after reading the book: None of the sacrifices deal with sins that defile both the person AND the land, namely murder, sexual immorality, and idolatry. Those are dealt with either by capital punishment or exile. And yes, restoration back to the land after (quasi-)exile through repentance and a divine “water cleansing”. Jesus’ gospel message of “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven/God is near” fits perfectly with this.
His book also deals with your objection regarding Yom Kippur.
*Edited
@@RBlackwelder82 Hello. My comments were based only on Joel's review of the book, not the book itself. So it's possible that your observations amount to a critique of Joel's summary/interpretation. Perhaps you should write a comment pointing out where Joel got things wrong, if you are confident in your reading.
I will say, though, that your description of the book still appears to overlook the powerful teachings of repentance and personal atonement that are vividly presented in Jewish Scripture (apart from and beyond sacrifice). No, it is NOT merely capital punishment or exile which can deal with sin. There is sincere prayer, change of heart, humility, deeds of mercy, acts of justice, revising one's life, and the like.
@@KingoftheJuice18 yes all those in the book too as I was trying to indicate. You may agree more than disagree after reading the book.
*Edited
@@RBlackwelder82 You did not spell those out, and you suggested that they all come AFTER exile, which is not what I said. But if your reading is correct, then Joel really misunderstood what must be one of the book's central ideas, i.e., why Jesus needed to bring a new and different sort of atonement for sin.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I encourage you to read the book for more info.
The interesting thing about Christian theology in the west is that it confuses Passover with Yom Kippur. The former has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. It’s about deliverance from slavery and death. That leaves only Yom Kippur as to deal with when understanding the Atonement of Christ. I will be interested in seeing how this book addresses this latter holy day.
They believe Christ is the Lamb in both (which is obvious).
So his atonement frees us from slavery (our sin) if you’re apart of his house, covered in his blood.
@@ZachFish- True to a point, though deliverance is different than atonement. Also, I believe that Yom Kippur involved two goats rather than a lamb. John the Baptist conflates them in John’s Gospel when he calls Jesus the Lamb of God (Passover) who takes away the sin of the world (Yom Kippur).
@@davidstout6051 Precisely
@@davidstout6051 I'm not sure John conflates them. By saying Jesus is the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, he is referring to the goat that symbolically bears the sin of the people and takes it out into the wilderness where it belongs. I believe that "lamb" (at least back then) refers to either sheep or goats.
About lambs referring to either sheep or goats, see Exodus 12:5
I'll be picking up this book. I ran into Warren McGrew/Idol Killer's Penal Substitutionary Atonement Series a while back & that was incredibly helpful for me. Looks like this will be as well.
Got the book because of your review and it sounded interesting. Alas, when the forward (I think it was, maybe the introduction) claims that speaking of God as king (monarchical terms) gets put aside I knew something was off…
It would probably be a good read and have some insights, but if I had the time to read I would much rather suggest going straight to Milgrom.
5:40 Yeah Milgrom is on my reading list too. His Leviticus commentary. Its a bit expensive at the moment. From second hand sources, the purification imagery associated with atonement has influenced my reading of atonement passages.
Not very interested in this book. The problem with academia is that many authors major in the minors. I did not hear a major point addressed here. The actual lamb in the sacrificial system
Had no clue what was going on and was not laying down its life of its own free will.
Contrast this with Jesus who by the way brings in the "new covenant" and lays down His life willingly for the sinner who turns to him in faith.
Isaiah Chp 53 clearly states that He takes our punishment upon Himself. The gospel is beautiful and simple but evidently not so easy to believe for some.
May God Bless!😁
I've been noodling on an idea that the substitutionary part of the atonement has to do with human to human relationships rather that human to God and I wonder if this touches on that any.
Joel, if you haven't read Rethinking The Atonement by David Moffitt you should check it out. Good stuff.
I have read that and loved it! Though Moffit's was more of an essay collection, this one is more coherent and organized so I liked it even more. Thanks!
Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser? He is the one who first introduced me to categories like "decontamination" in understanding the sacrificial system.
Also, have you read George MacDonald? He is vehemently opposed to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and argues that it violates the character of God.
I'm not quite ready to have the doctrine deconstructed, but it seems like the way is being cleared...
Does Rillena explain that Jesus is currently doing sacrifices in the heavenly temple?
Great book and great review.
I bought the book based on your recommendation and so far I am loving it. I already had stopped affirming PSA, but this provides a clearer framework for understanding the OT sacrificial system.
I realize that Is 53 is poetry BUT does it not mean He took our PUNISHMENT:
Isa 53:4
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5
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.
Good question
In every instance where the NT references Is. 53, it does so in a non-substitutionary manner. Mat. 8:17 quotes Is. 53:4, but in a way that denies substitution: “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”” The meaning is not that Jesus healed by making himself sick and literally bearing or transferring the diseases to himself, but rather that he was compassionately burdened by human suffering and he did something about it. Matthew also considers this prophecy fulfilled before Jesus went to the cross, not as a consequence of the cross! It was not fulfilled by the death of Jesus, but by his life.
In 1 Cor. 15:3 we read, “…Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is likely Is. 53:5. In the phrase “died for our sins” it is the Greek word “hyper,” indicating causation, not replacement or substitution, indicating that Isaiah 53:5 was not about substitution, but a prophecy regarding the cause as to why Jesus died - because of our sin, not in place of our sin, and certainly not as a payment for our sin.
Is. 53:4 A careful reader of the second phrase of verse 4 will see that "we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God" is saying that the people "esteemed" or reasoned that God was punishing the victim. A proper contextual reading of this verse together with verse 5 shows that it was not God punishing, rather, the victim was enduring the pain and suffering due to the wrongs of others toward him. The suffering was not caused by God or for God, not an act of divine justice, but of human injustice! To make matters worse, the verse is often misread as if it says, "we saw him stricken BY God." This is a serious misuse of the text!
Is. 53:5 expands on verse 4. The first word is "but," intended as a contrast. Verse 4 is saying, "we thought this…" and verse 5 corrects the error with, "but the truth is this…" Sadly, so many teachers read this “but” as if it says "and." Their mind processes it as, "…stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 "AND" he was pierced for our transgressions…" These teachers WANT the passage to be about God punishing Jesus as a payment for sin, so their minds are reading what they expect the passage to say instead of what it actually says! Both the Hebrew and the LXX (Septuagint) state that, “he was pierced BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our transgressions, he was crushed BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our iniquities.”
Is. 53:6 shows the cause of this injustice is due to the people straying. The LORD “has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The words translated “has laid on” is a most unusual choice of words chosen to project the PSA view. In Hebrew “has laid on” is “hip̄·gî·a”, which actually means “to fall, to meet, or to encounter.” The Greek word is "paradidōmi", meaning, "to hand over, to give or deliver over." The meaning is simply that God had the culmination of the error of the people fall on, or meet at, or delivered to, the point where they were willing to murder this innocent servant, exactly as stated in Acts 2:23. The same Hebrew word, H6293 is used in verse 12, but most translations have this word as “intercession.” Apparently, the only place where translators conveniently use “has laid on” for H6293 is this one case in Isaiah 53:6, which should raise serious suspicions.
@@atonementandreconciliation3749this is really interesting
I am in the middle of NT Wright's "The Day the Revolution Began," and going through slowly cause of the density. Are there some connection points between Rillera's work and what Wright was moving towards - or an even further shift. Wright's specialty is NT and he relies on other scholars for the Hebrew Scriptures, but he has often communicated the idea that we have paganized our soteriology.
I also really appreciated Wright's book. I would say this one is an even stronger shift, as Wright maintains some substitutionary logic and language in his work, whereas Rillera wants to completely remove anything substitutionary. But Wright does overlap with Rillera in the way he links up Passover with how the Gospels present Christ's death.
@@JoelWentz Thank you. Yes, Wright targeting in on the Passover (I think I first read it in Broken Signpost) was one of the first "Oh?" Moments that jump started my own exploration on the theme.
Check out Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen for a historical review of views of the Atonement.
Yes I Personally believe it's OK to affirm Different Atonement Theory because I don't see a direct Contradiction between them.
So my top 3
Christus Victor
Restored Icon
Scapegoat
I don't think PSA is Biblical but still researching on other Substitutionary Atonement theories
I'm reading Christus Victor now too. Says it was predominant view in the early church.
Welp, I found my next book to read! :)
I would skip page 17 to 42 where the author of the book hands off the discussion to a 1987 edited book announcing "humans were originally suppose to be vegetarians". So much of theology is imagination where a modern theologian spiritualizes and ritualizes every little thing, Consider this simpler explanation: Meat spoils within 3 days (Lev.7:16-18; 19:5-8). All the sacrificial offerings were meals shared with the family and priests to prevent uneaten meat spoilage being scattered throughout the "kitchen" campfires of the population. When the fire burned the meat, it became a burnt offering.
I was bothered by the repeating use of the word "individual" when describing the offerings that were intended for groups of people eating together.
Other than those two hic-ups, the book is a MUST READ to understand the sacrificial system as having NOTHING to do with substitution nor punishment. Salvation was remembering their deliverance, not being "saved" from individual sin to insure an afterlife.
Oh and also the question can be not that there are Non substitutionary views of the atonement that are true. It is if the substitutionary views of the atonement are all incorrect or false. So Rillera not only has to show that there are other views of the atonement that work but that the substitutionary atonement views are not Biblical. I do believe that all main Western Christians have some form of substitutionary atonement whether protestant or Catholic.
Each person can decide for himself/herself whether or not Rillera succeeds at his endeavor, but ,having read the book, I can say that he works diligently to address that substitutionary models are not biblical by leading the reader to understand ‘atonement’ through a Levitical paradigm which, in turn, is explained by the prophets. He is convinced that we cannot understand what Christ has done without connecting it to OT sacrificial intent. He works to show that that intent was never about substitution. I personally find his line of reasoning compelling and persuasive specifically because he goes to great lengths to have complete fidelity to the biblical text, despite the natural inclination to read into the text what what has been typically taught. I would say that Rillera’s efforts are a true attempt at exegesis as opposed to being an eisegetical expression of his own needs and projections.
Substitutionary atonement is very broad. Jesus taking on of anything of mine for me is substitutionary atonement. I do not see how he can get past any substitutionary atonement. The NT references Isaiah 53 and it seems clear that Jesus (The sacrificial lamb) took on our sin and he was pierced for our transgressions. I am not sure how that is not substitutionary.
Using the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the discussion of Jesus in Isaiah 53 would seem to go against his argument. Is he saying the sacrifices were not a substitute for the Jews? Of course, there was more than one type of sacrifice, but some seemed to be substitutionary in manner.
Passages like 2 Cor 5:21- "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
1 Peter 1:18-19 "or you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. "
1 Peter 2:24 "“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”
Isaiah 53
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
and
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
In every instance where the NT references Is. 53, it does so in a non-substitutionary manner. Mat. 8:17 quotes Is. 53:4, but in a way that denies substitution: “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”” The meaning is not that Jesus healed by making himself sick and literally bearing or transferring the diseases to himself, but rather that he was compassionately burdened by human suffering and he did something about it. Matthew also considers this prophecy fulfilled before Jesus went to the cross, not as a consequence of the cross! It was not fulfilled by the death of Jesus, but by his life.
In 1 Cor. 15:3 we read, “…Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is likely Is. 53:5. In the phrase “died for our sins” it is the Greek word “hyper,” indicating causation, not replacement or substitution, indicating that Isaiah 53:5 was not about substitution, but a prophecy regarding the cause as to why Jesus died - because of our sin, not in place of our sin, and certainly not as a payment for our sin.
Is. 53:4 A careful reader of the second phrase of verse 4 will see that "we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God" is saying that the people "esteemed" or reasoned that God was punishing the victim. A proper contextual reading of this verse together with verse 5 shows that it was not God punishing, rather, the victim was enduring the pain and suffering due to the wrongs of others toward him. The suffering was not caused by God or for God, not an act of divine justice, but of human injustice! To make matters worse, the verse is often misread as if it says, "we saw him stricken BY God." This is a serious misuse of the text!
Is. 53:5 expands on verse 4. The first word is "but," intended as a contrast. Verse 4 is saying, "we thought this…" and verse 5 corrects the error with, "but the truth is this…" Sadly, so many teachers read this “but” as if it says "and." Their mind processes it as, "…stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 "AND" he was pierced for our transgressions…" These teachers WANT the passage to be about God punishing Jesus as a payment for sin, so their minds are reading what they expect the passage to say instead of what it actually says! Both the Hebrew and the LXX (Septuagint) state that, “he was pierced BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our transgressions, he was crushed BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our iniquities.”
Is. 53:6 shows the cause of this injustice is due to the people straying. The LORD “has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The words translated “has laid on” is a most unusual choice of words chosen to project the PSA view. In Hebrew “has laid on” is “hip̄·gî·a”, which actually means “to fall, to meet, or to encounter.” The Greek word is "paradidōmi", meaning, "to hand over, to give or deliver over." The meaning is simply that God had the culmination of the error of the people fall on, or meet at, or delivered to, the point where they were willing to murder this innocent servant, exactly as stated in Acts 2:23. The same Hebrew word, H6293 is used in verse 12, but most translations have this word as “intercession.” Apparently, the only place where translators conveniently use “has laid on” for H6293 is this one case in Isaiah 53:6, which should raise serious suspicions.
I've read about half of Gathercoles book so far, and IMO its weak. Especially his attempt to connect Isa 53 to 1 Cor 15.
much is due to misunderstanding atonement.. at-one- ment. it's all about restoration and relationship. who wouldn't want to meet up at a barbeque to talk things out? 😁
Isn’t the whole idea of bringing an animal to be sacrificed for your sin or uncleanness substitutionary in nature? That animal is perfect and is dying for me and their pleasing fragance reaches up to God’s presence on my behalf
Yeah, this is the exact kind of pop-understanding of the sacrificial system that this book very carefully and rigorously corrects. I highly recommend reading it if you are open to being challenged!
@@JoelWentz I am for sure intrigued and I like being challenged. Calling this a "pop-understanding" is an overstatement to me. Substitutionary atonement is a widely held belief through much of protestant higher education.
You may have heard it said repay and eye fir an eye, but I say to you . . .
@JoelWentz indeed: I started the book precisely because an Old Testament weltering in nonhuman gore is utterly repugnant: anyone would wish religious folk would evolve away from such savagery, not co-opt it for some sort of salvific magic: of course Rillera is not trying to remove these hideous barbarism from religious history, but his point about the death of the unfortunate victims being in no way substitutionary, nor the object of the exercise - indeed the taking of nonhuman life at all being considered murder except in set circumstances and with set rituals - puts a very different cast on these practices and liberates present-day christians from having to explain a vindictive, violent god only appeasable by death.
@@JonPagelProtestant higher education on the topic is misguided.
You gotta read Jesus and the Forces of Death by Thiessen and also Moffit's Rethinking Atonement now!
I loved Moffit's work, and Thiessen is high on my list now!!
Isn't Redemption entirely about substitution?
"Penal substitutionary atonement is not biblical" - no wonder you like it. That's what people who hate the gospel want: no salvation.
Are you saying that penal substitution is the only way you can conceive of Jesus’ saving work? If so, I’ve got great news for you! Rillera devotes ample portions of this book to explaining just how to conceive of the Gospel and Jesus’ saving work in a non-PSA fashion and, if nothing else, it is at least made clear that Rillera is very serious about his Christian faith.
@@camerondavis5337 I notice you dodged my comment's content.
My comment was in sum:
'Penal substitution is salvation'
Your comment in sum:
'So there's no other aspects to the atonement?!?'
Try again.
God forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these:
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and WILL FORGIVE their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
“I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and YOU FORGAVE the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5
“Their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant. But he, being full of compassion, FORGAVE their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. For he remembered that they were but flesh.” Psalm 78:37-39
“YOU FORGAVE the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2
“LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a FORGIVING God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV
“Who is a God like you, PARDONING iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18
“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly PARDON.” Isaiah 55:7
Jesus taught, ““For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15
Jesus did not die to help God with some forgiveness problem. That is how it often is taught, but is not biblical. Sadly, the translations often help to muddy this because the Reformed translators are deathly afraid of someone thinking that they are doing works if they stop sinning. So, it ends up being portrayed as God being enabled to forgive.
We humans can forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God could not do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God.
If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive.
For a deep dive into this topic, look for the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation”
@@JesusPeopleSF Read up on Nestorianism. Protestants have this heresy implicated in their Christology. Jesus is a Divine Person with a human nature-He is not a Divine Person AND a human person. The PSA model is rooted in a Nestorian Christology, so that a human person had to keep the law and then also bear the wrath of God for breaking it - - in our stead. It’s heretical. And by the way, this Nestorian Christological heresy also distorts Protestantism’s view of the Lord’s supper and the nature of the church. That’s the price you pay for starting your theology with Soteriology instead of Christology.
@@charlesheck6812 you are not only violating protestant conceptions of orthodoxy but also RC and EO conceptions of it. Read up on the Chalcedonian Creed sometime, it's very.... how should we say... "ecumenical"