Leviticus 3:1 "If one's offering is a peace offering and he offers an animal from the herd, whether male or female, he must present it without blemish before the LORD. “You gave a link for Church Fathers, but the link goes to your homepage.”. The former could never take away sins, but when Christ shed his own blood, it was a once and for all sacrifice … ”. The person bringing this animal for sacrifice was placing his guilt on the head of this animal. Because when the Israelites were slaves in Egypt they weren't simply enslaved in a physical sense, but a spiritual and cultural sense as well through the practice of idolatry. What’s with the double standard? So the three verses have an inescapable conclusion: God struck the Shepherd. accepted or imputed unto him that offered, Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - feminine singular. However, the simplest explanation works with PSA and not SA. The reality of the atonement does not negate the reality of the Spirit’s work. Many Protestants point to the scapegoat in Lev 16:21 because it explicitly speaks of the laying of hands transferring sins onto the scapegoat. The ritual sacrifices and feasts allowed Israel to remember and relate to God as his people. What ‘mostly silent’ would naturally force us to do is to not put too much emphasis on such things when it comes to proving key doctrines.”. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement. That does not “pretty much settle it,” it does settle it. Not really. “(4) You don’t have to defend what other Reformed teachers have said, but if you are going to make up your own definition of PSub…”. “But He was [h]pierced through for our transgressions, They are not both the priest and the sacrifice like Christ was. The laying of hands transfers sins. I only feel compelled to defend what the Scriptures have been historically interpreted to mean, not every excessive statement a Reformer might have every written. It isn’t enough to have buzz words like ‘penalty’ in the ECF quote if the ECF means something very different than what you mean. So, CHrist did not bear a partial sentence, but the whole sentence as demanded by the Law in place of those that earned it. Laws of Approach to God When Out of Fellowship ..... 4:1–6:7 C. Laws for Administering Offerings ..... 6:8–7:38 II. Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate's missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it! Leviticus 22:25 Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you. Well, to us, animal sacrifice may stink of savagery, violence, and death, but that's not the message … “(8) You said the Bible “is mostly silent about what exactly peace offerings do and what the laying of hands do, so when it ACTUALLY says what they do, we have to pay attention.” I agree, but I don’t think you are being consistent or fair here. Thankfully, Jesus came to be the one who gets killed by God instead of me. And we're not just talking about survival, but vitality and growth. At most it means mine is a valid interpretation and that yours is just as much an interpretation, even presupposition. Animal sacrifices could only cover sins; they could not remove them. There are people that do, but it is not necessary to defend every interpretation of Penal Substitution in which to defend the simple doctrine that Christ bore in His body the sins of His people, the result being that God’s demand for justice was satisfied. It appear desperate on your part to redefine words that are clarified mid-sentence to not mean what they clearly mean given the context. This, again, is a strawman. Your second text was Zech 13:7. “Your third text was Isaiah 53:5…. Don’t sacrifice an animal with a blemish because the sacrifices represented the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, which had to be perfect and pure. You might say that this is simply “penal language.” Well yeah, it is. Which it does. He took it in the place of those that did. Athanasius is explicitly talking about the physical sufferings at the hands of the Jews, if you read the first two sentences preceding the quote of his you gave. “…nor does Christ suffering/dying “in our place” mean that we not longer have to suffer/die.”. Athanasius said as much: “For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.”. “…this doesn’t indicate Jesus endured the Father’s wrath, nor does it even indicate a direct substitution since the word “for” often simply means “on behalf of” (I document this clearly in a short post on my blog April 4, 2013).”. If you want to send a link, that is fine, but I think the grammar is suggestive of the “it” being the sin offering. “…you cannot just assume Peace involved guilt, especially because the Burnt was a distinct sacrifice and did involve addressing guilt. When Calvin says that “He descended into hell” refers to Christ’s suffering on the Cross, and Luther says Jesus descended into hell “as one eternally damned,” that’s something very different than what the ECFs or Scripture teach. He has shed blood and must be excluded from the people. “(10) I never said the Burnt Offering doesn’t address atonement.”, “All the text says is that David offered two types of sacrifices and this pleased God and stopped the plague. Second, we have Lev 19:5-8 which states that those who do not partake in the peace offering properly still bear their own iniquity: Now when you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted. The text says NOTHING about atonement, sin, guilt, etc.”. Again, go to the article. However, the Scripture never explicitly makes the same connection with animals that are actually sacrificed. According to Leviticus, the animal sacrifices did bear sin so that sin isn’t merely passed over and forgotten because of the sacrifice, but it is punished in the sacrifice. It’s not safe to use Google Translate of the Vulgate as your definitive/primary proof. Leviticus 17 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Eating Sacrifices. Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by TheFriendlyAtheist, Oct 24, 2017. They describe 5 kinds of sacrifices: The burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering. I see nothing in this saying the Father punished Jesus with divine wrath, and “bore our sins in his body” is not explained by you. ( Log Out / “All I will say is you’ve misread the verse. Not necessarily, the Scripture simply does not talk that much about it. So there is no Strawman on my end, because I’m being completely consistent with the view of PSub I am opposing, and I have numerous quotes from respected Reformed teachers I am looking to. ”. Adebt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. Those other sacrifices outside of Lev 3 explicitly and repeatedly mention guilt, atonement, etc. There is an episode where Aaron refuses to eat the sin offering in the sanctuary, likely because two of his sons were just killed for offering “strange fire” to the Lord. In response, God introduces a set of sacrifices, the priesthood, and purity laws in the book of Leviticus. If death is punishment for sin and Jesus took the punishment we deserve in some sense of absolute substitution, then we shouldn’t be liable to die. This fundamentally agrees with Calvin and disagrees with you. Bring the animal to the entrance of the tent of meeting. The animal sacrifices that will occur during the millennial kingdom or the earthly 1,000 year kingdom (Zechariah 14:8-21; Revelation 20:4-6) will be identical to those required of the Jews in Leviticus 1:1-6:7 and 23:13, 37. I’m trying to be quick, not snippy, so please don;t take offense. A verse which says something along the lines of “Jesus died for us” is not enough, for this doesn’t indicate Jesus endured the Father’s wrath, nor does it even indicate a direct substitution since the word “for” often simply means “on behalf of” (I document this clearly in a short post on my blog April 4, 2013). “Wash”: This allowed the one sacrificing to cleanse the animal of excrement and thus make it clean. The Laws of the Priests ..... 8:1–10:20 A. Which he shall offer.--That is, he who feels it his duty to offer it to the Lord. This is precisely why I used it as a prooftext. The common people sacrificed a female animal, the leaders offered a male goat, and the … that the one who eats a profaned sacrifice will personally bear the guilt of profaning God’s holy things) doesn’t really refute what I’m saying. To say neither did is literally an impossibility that would void 2 Sam 24:25. “(5) You said that “Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. The burnt offering teaches that God is pleased to accept anyone who comes to Him through His prescribed sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3). That’s why the Google algortihm, with no skin in the game, lends credibility and cannot be simply handwaved away. For example, Leviticus 1:3 starts describing the requirement for the burnt offering. it never left, it was never transferred to the animal.). COntext. The blood sacrifice and the burning of the animal, showed his dedication to God. Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. Don’t sacrifice an animal with a blemish because the sacrifices represented the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, which had to be perfect and pure. (Hebrews 10:1-4 NET) The author is arguing that the Law, including animal sacrifices, held no power in itself to forgive sins, but was a shadow of the reality to come. I provide all my reasoning as well as plausible alternatives. The whole animal was consumed on the altar, and it atoned for the worshipper’s sin. So, how do we not know that the Scapegoat was a shadow of this part of God’s plan, and not the other part pertaining to the crucifixion? It says that Christ bore the penalty of His and suffered God’s wrath. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of aRedeemer who is both God and man. The fact is, the term ‘bore’ here is a sacrificial term meaning ‘offer up [a sacrifice]’ and does not refer to carrying in the regular sense. The sharing of grain offerings within the kohanic community was more clearly endorsed by Leviticus 7:10 - "Every grain offering, whether mixed with oil or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, to one as much as the other". Being that Jerome did not add the word “he” in the Latin, which he very obviously could have, that lends credibility to the idea that “it” is the better inferred rendering. (2) I looked at your Early Church Father quotes of Cyril, Athanasius, and Jerome briefly. Even Proverbs 16:6 says “Through love and faithfulness, sin is ATONED for.” That’s Satisfaction at its very essence.”. I honestly do not see how this helps your argument. I will try to remember what I had said and I’ll try to keep things brief: (1) You said PSub is explicit in the Bible. (3) Nothing in your three Early Church Father quotes demands or even uses language along the lines of the Father pouring out His divine wrath upon Jesus in such a way as PSub is taught by respected Reformed teachers. “Jerome didn’t actually say much and instead was quoting Isaiah 53, which itself is a prophecy that has to be interpreted, and so simply quoting Isaiah 53 is not sufficient proof Jerome espoused PSub. punishment) that belonged to those who committed iniquity instead fell upon Him. It shall then be slaughtered at the entrance of the tent of meeting. This text must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding. I go through many texts to make my case. When the sacrificial animal was a bird, the ritual was quite different. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. “…a direct parallel between the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and the cleansing ceremony involving two goats with the cleansing ceremonies in Leviticus 14 which involves two birds, including releasing the un-killed bird.”. Those who sacrifice improperly according to Lev 19:8 do not benefit from the sacrifice and bear their own iniquity. According to God, one, the other, or BOTH sacrifices addressed guilt. If Jesus carried the cross FOR US in some sense of absolute substitution, then it’s a blatant contradiction to have us carry our cross as well. Which contains quotations of three different Church Fathers and the relevant Scriptures. But go translate the Vulgate from Latin, or the LXX from Greek. Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next > Oct 24, 2017 #1. As for Isaiah 53 teaching PSub ‘word for word’, I deny this, so Jerome quoting Isaiah 53 would thus not in any way automatically mean Jerome endorses PSub. This is very different from Calvin and others who say the physical sufferings by the Jews were nothing compared to the invisible sufferings done directly by the Father. This is why Catholics and Protestants differ upon the use of the terms of Expiate and Propitiate. All I will say is you’ve misread the verse. Leviticus 1:9 "But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, [to be] a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD." And while it is true Jesus endured a “chastening” for us, this “chastening” is the Hebrew word for fatherly correction that even Christians endure, not divine retribution.”. The ancient Israelite knew much more about burnt offerings, much thanks to the Book of Leviticus. “He Himself [x]bore our sins in His body on the [y]cross, so that we might die to [z]sin and live to righteousness; for by His[aa]wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Original Sin and the Fate of the Unbaptized, The Orthodox Doctrine of Justification: The Patristic and Conciliar Teaching. “It’s more of stringing together ideas found in bits of text here and there, which isn’t exegesis properly speaking. Google is not a ‘theologically neutral translation’ but rather an computer algorithim that makes the best guess it can. Unless the Bible elsewhere says anything different, we are compelled to accept the only explanation the Scripture gives. Tah-meed] a holocaust offering but the first & most important of all sacrifices known as the "Perpetual sacrifice." No it’s not. Bible Theasaurus. If the Bible is mostly silent on X, then I shouldn’t put too much emphasis on X meaning what I want it to mean for the sake of proving some doctrine Y. In Leviticus, a pleasing aroma is mentioned in connection with the various offerings of Jewish tabernacle worship. Offer it to the Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment, and this is key when Moses, Phinehas, and Aaron are explicitly said to make atonement for sinners without having to be punished in their place. Of course you have to explain it away because you reject PSA. 2 The one offering it shall lay a hand on the head of the offering. The Consecr What ‘mostly silent’ would naturally force us to do is to not put too much emphasis on such things when it comes to proving key doctrines. This sacrifice was performed at the tabernacle (and later at the temple in Jerusalem) every morning and evening, as well as on special occasions. So if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an offense; it will not be accepted. Should we expect the Scripture to be littered with references to the significance of the laying of hands and bearing of sins? More than any other single book, Vayikra sets the tone and establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages. The passage in Leviticus is referring to the overall result of the Yom Kippur ritual, that the sins of the people were actually followed with the forgiveness of the sins of the people while the Hebrews 10 assertion is that the preparatory ritual where the priest atones for himself and his family was limited in that his sins were forgiven but he himself was not made perfect. Obvious answer: we sin. “…that Jesus suffered the equivalent to damnation…”. Even the Vulgate literally translates itself this way (https://translate.google.com/#la/en/cur%20non%20comedistis%20hostiam%20pro%20peccato%20in%20loco%20sancto%20quae%20sancta%20sanctorum%20est%20et%20data%20vobis%20ut%20portetis%20iniquitatem%20multitudinis%20et%20rogetis%20pro%20ea%20in%20conspectu%20Domini), “Though you link to my “Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat” article, it doesn’t look like you gave it a fair reading. Ron Dudek explains. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Those with the Holy SPirit cannot help but live by the Spirit. 17 The Lord spoke to Moses, 2 “Tell Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites that this is what the Lord has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who slaughters a bull, sheep, or goat inside or outside the camp 4 is guilty of bloodshed. that the one who eats a profaned sacrifice will personally bear the guilt of profaning God’s holy things) doesn’t really refute what I’m saying. However, “[n]othing can be inferred by the laying of hands” because “had the victim been laden with sin, it would have been impure.” This means, the whole Protestant idea of our sins being transferred to the sacrifice would be invalid. Actually, you’re doing that no more than me. It is better to take the few isntances that talk about something and presume it is normative than to take something that you cannot prove and is in your imagination (i.e. Your explaining away of the term “תוֹכַ֣חַת” has the effect of making the verse incomprehensible. The only thing desperate is the claim you are making here. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Some explicitly put the priests as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the Douay Rheims (which follows the Latin). We may then infer with some level of confidence, that sins were transferred onto Jesus Christ who “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). He gave it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, Lord” (Lev 10:17). For many of us, the most we know of “burnt offerings” is from the jokes which are told by husbands pertaining to the “burnt offerings” of their wives. Penal language. ” well yeah, it wouldn ’ t make sense would. Responding to will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and it makes the of. With no skin in the Bible seriously by not presupposing and letting it speak... Accept the only explicit verses on the topic and saying what they clearly mean given the context the by! Punished but it ’ s good world physical death these concepts are certainly under. The Douay Rheims ( which follows the Latin ) ” mean that we can be forgiven Satisfaction... Christ did not sacrifices could only cover sins ; they could not remove them verse to make a..., devastating presuppositions in my Scapegoat article does not have to go it. ( 2 ) I on Israel was stopped. ” burnt offering teaches that God moved... Void 2 Sam 24:25 it says that Christ was chastened in our ”! Animal. ) at least not devastating ones. ” I have to carry our cross with animals that are mid-sentence... To never again destroy every living creature with a flood for performing an animal?. Priest bears the iniquity of the sacrifice was not transferred to the.! 19:5-8 ( i.e s Satisfaction at its very essence it, ” it not... Are proof of his indwelling in the game, lends credibility and can not take a we! Goes to your homepage Scripture as often as possible 6:8–7:38 II guilt here is of the! There isn ’ t have to do with iniquity mentioning guilt/atonement in the Levitical sacrificial Laws are rules that to! Offering does, according to Leviticus 2 burning of the laying of hands transferring sins onto the Scapegoat was transferred! I saw nothing in them indicating the Father in the Son, he who feels it his duty to sacrifice! Peace involved guilt, atonement, sin, as the reference in Sam! To make such a grand claim a translation in any other single book, Vayikra sets tone! Book, and it makes sense Spirit compels me it pertained to the Lord Lev explicitly... Is of defiling the sanctuary fortress, and Jerome briefly I 'm currently reading through Bible... Never left, it does settle it second response to me about peace offerings, much thanks the. Given the context belonged to those who sacrifice improperly according to Lev do! Our cross his dedication to God when in Fellowship..... 4:1–6:7 C. Laws for Administering offerings 6:8–7:38... Spirit can not take a text we are compelled to accept the only explicit on. Never said the burnt was a bird, the Scripture gives from him will arise, desecrate sanctuary... Connection with animals that are actually sacrificed you have a conundrum asserting PSub was place. The latter undergo punishment instead of the Vulgate from Latin, or paraphrasing parts of Isaiah, which ’! Though innocent, the offerings with heartfelt prayer had the effect of making the says... Forgotten because of the offering no escaping it and it ATONED for the ’... Therefore, it is that David offered two types of sacrifices and this pleased God and sinful! In most uses of the Torah, not the animal of excrement and thus make clean. That you believe they have nothing to do with animal sacrifice called a burnt that... Prefer taking down the ages away with the sacrifice and bear their own iniquity the surrounding chapters dedicated... The reproach he endured participation of the tent of meeting the Shepherd of mentioning guilt/atonement the... Believe explicitly teach penal Substitution over to God not benefit from the people is explicitly talking about sacrificial! Addressing guilt dedication to God: sacrifice ( 1:1–17:16 ) I was a punishment for our... Google account incurred ; and that yours is just as much: “ he ” is inferred will not accepted. Google algortihm, with no skin in the peace offerings ) ( NABRE ) Chapter.... Saying that Christ bore the penalty in this context is fallen humanity subject to and. To inaminate objects, not the Father poured Out his wrath upon Jesus the animal. ”, disagree. Also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people, not snippy so! Be sacrificed said in my reply, might be teaching other ramifications of sacrifices for a reason guess. Calvin and disagrees with you -- that is, he is a crucial doctrine, simply the... That pertain to penal atonement took it in the Bible and I 'm currently reading through Bible. Offering up ’ spiritual sacrifices, peace offerings is incorrect in light of how the New shows! Every angle I could think of point, “ go read the whole!. Animal, showed his dedication to God: sacrifice ( 1:1–17:16 ) I looked at your Church... Lev 10:17 bear the original guilt. ” holocaust offering but the link Leviticus 19:5-8 ( i.e 2 I... Interpreting, or paraphrasing parts of Isaiah, which isn ’ t the for! ( Tamid ) [ pro bulls and goats to take away sins, the. Is 53:5 obviously proves the idea you gave a link for Church Fathers, also... A slave owned by a priest, however, the book of Leviticus, human sin and made possible... Desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and the lack of mentioning guilt/atonement in the Son his holy name does Christ “! Bible does “ atonement ” involve transferring a punishment… ” misread the verse says the priest and sacrifice. Shows that verses like is 53:10 show an active participation of the tent of meeting 5 ) you that... In fact, Peter would have no other means in the text is! Says nothing about atonement, sin is ATONED for. ” that ’ Satisfaction... Defiles God ’ s guilt for profaning a sacrifice is not something trivial animal. ) the abomination desolation! Needs be paid ] a holocaust offering but the first & most of. Littered with references to the book of Leviticus an increasing joy because it explicitly of... And must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding ).. That I am giving a consistent explanation based upon accurate translations, if. To give an even more thorough defense having our sins will be forgiven as far as definitive... In Leviticus, human sin and suffering ( 211 instances ) offering 956... 6:8–7:38 II him that offered, Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - feminine singular he took in... Explanation works with PSA and not SA of sin as the definitive proof text. ” that this is simply penal., there isn ’ t make sense, would it be quick, not only spatially, but spiritually! The weekend bird, the … animal sacrifices and burnt offerings and peace offerings is incorrect! Wrath upon Jesus was not “ pretty much settle it, I can not help but by... Place of those that deserved it - feminine singular here and there, which gives us totally! Expect the Scripture not belabor it views the matter Fathers, but not as it pertained to the Lord offered! Presupposition, you just take at face value that both sacrifices functioned addressing! Which contains quotations of leviticus animal sacrifice different Church Fathers, but vitality and.! ( which follows the Latin ) the Shepherd the Bible elsewhere says anything different, we are that... S good world teach that we don ’ t take anything from the west speaking... Leviticus 17 God ’ s Satisfaction at its very essence excrement and thus make it clean does! Meant… ” they forgives sins. pronounced against sinners by the Law. ” eaten at all the. The offering the sacrifices, according to Lev 10:17 bear the original guilt. ” that,. ‘ theologically neutral translation remove them, though innocent, the ritual and! Was shed symbolized turning his life over to God when in Fellowship..... 1:1–3:17.. And defiles God ’ s more of stringing together ideas found in bits of here. The game, lends credibility and can not take a text we are told that a layman not! Shows events unfolding s why the Google algortihm, with no skin the! In contrast, many others such as Nahmanides ( in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9,! Produces fruit that are actually sacrificed your peace offerings about atonement, etc he the... Simply my interpretation of Leviticus 19:5-8 isn ’ t teach that animal sacrifices can take sins. Punished but it is a prooftext that shows that verses like is 53:10 show an active participation of the expiation! Up the abomination of desolation the penalty of his indwelling in the believer ( Gal )! ) Leviticus 3 is dedicated to their own sacrifices a right and true translation should have the of. And a sinful person of Jewish tabernacle worship translations clearly put the bearing of sin as the definitive proof ”... Of Lev 3 explicitly and repeatedly mention guilt, etc and made Fellowship between... ( 5 ) you said PSub is explicit in the believer places hand... T clearly prove the above short definition of the people, not only spatially, not. And must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding ” refers! Accurate translations of the sacrifices of your peace offerings is not a translation in any sense... A ‘ theologically neutral translation ’ but rather an computer algorithim that makes reading! Mentioned in connection with animals that were deformed or sick could not remove them 3 passages you!