There has been a connection suggested that Penal Substitution Theory is proven through Levitical sacrifice as the burnt-offering itself necessitates the symbolism of God punishing the object of the sacrifice with the punishment reserved for the worshippers. I suggest this conclusion is eisegesis, that the practice of burnt-offerings (and specifically in terms of propitiation) has never been interpreted by its practitioners as implying the punishment due the worshipper symbolically being inflicted on the sacrifice itself. For arguments sake, I am contending here that the idea is a modern concept foreign to the ANE world in which God called Abram and the Hebrew religion.
Scripture itself offers several examples of burnt-offerings that could not be defined as propitiation as they do not have wrath in mind. All animal sacrifice where an animal is slaughtered, in the Hebrew religion, result in at least a part of the sacrifice being consumed by fire. The use of fire apart from an appeasement of divine wrath demonstrates a function that does not have punishment in view.
The process of atonement in ANE culture served to make things or people acceptable or pleasing to a deity and averting the course of evil loosed by some action or force. Actions of propitiation turn aside wrath.
Here are a few examples:
1. In the ancient Akitu Festival (dating back the time of Abraham) animal ritualistic sacrifices were offered to the god Marduk. The ritual lasted 12 days and consisted of purification of the temple, sacrifice, propitiation, penance and absolution (this is the festival with the “humbling” of the king…something I wish we could do today with D.C.). Wrath awaiting the king is averted and the king is forgiven. The evil of the king is viewed as resting on the sacrifice. The god is appeased, BUT the wrath that would have resulted because of that evil is not presented as being inflicted on the sacrificed animal.
There is also a sacrifice which removes evil from the people and places it on the sacrificed animal. The animal is not offered, here, as a burnt-offering but is instead discarded outside of the city. The evil, however, is not viewed as sins but rather demons or evil spirits. Regardless, what is laid upon the sacrifice is the evil endangering man, not punishment inflicted by deity.
2. The kispum ritual (essentially a family cult ceremony to dead ancestors) was practiced twice a month during the full and new moon, and animal sacrifices were rendered to the gods. The purpose here was not appeasement of wrath but honor and worship. The mode of the sacrifice did not imply the gods acting on the object sacrificed at all.
3. The pagrā’um-ceremony, connected with the god Dagan, offered dead animals in honor of the dead. Again, no punishment is placed on the object sacrificed.
4. The Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra describe ritual sacrifice. The people presented a donkey as an offering for purification and atonement for the purpose of appeasing the wrath of the gods, to turn aside their anger. But again, the idea that the gods punished the object sacrificed with the punishment due the worshippers is foreign to the cult.
I am not suggesting that the Levitical system of atonement is based on pagan ritual. But I am suggesting that the practice of ritualistic sacrifice, specifically burnt-offerings, existed prior to the Mosaic Law. This is evident through Scripture (the offering of Noah, the near-sacrifice of Isaac) as well as the ANE rituals just presented. Therefore, when introduced within the Levitical system, the idea of burnt-offerings was not a foreign concept to the Israelites. Just as common was the idea of atonement. What was foreign to these people was the notion that the punishment for man’s sin would be inflicted on the object being sacrificed.
In Scripture, burnt-offerings are associated with appeasement and not the exercise of wrath on the part of God. Likewise, I do not know of a passage that states God poured out his wrath (in terms of inflicting punishment due sinners) on Christ as the atoning sacrifice, but rather that God sacrifices His Son.
Since the notion that atonement consists of the sacrifice not only representing man but also being punished (symbolically with animal sacrifices, literally with Christ) with the punishment due the worshipper is foreign to both the world that made these sacrifices and Scripture, where did it originate?
(Sources: Julye Bidmead, “The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia”; John Walton, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible”;Samuel Kramer, “The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character”; Eugene Merrill, Rooker, and Grisanti, “The Word and the World”; Dennis Pardee, “Ritual and Cult at Ugarit”).
Scripture itself offers several examples of burnt-offerings that could not be defined as propitiation as they do not have wrath in mind. All animal sacrifice where an animal is slaughtered, in the Hebrew religion, result in at least a part of the sacrifice being consumed by fire. The use of fire apart from an appeasement of divine wrath demonstrates a function that does not have punishment in view.
The process of atonement in ANE culture served to make things or people acceptable or pleasing to a deity and averting the course of evil loosed by some action or force. Actions of propitiation turn aside wrath.
Here are a few examples:
1. In the ancient Akitu Festival (dating back the time of Abraham) animal ritualistic sacrifices were offered to the god Marduk. The ritual lasted 12 days and consisted of purification of the temple, sacrifice, propitiation, penance and absolution (this is the festival with the “humbling” of the king…something I wish we could do today with D.C.). Wrath awaiting the king is averted and the king is forgiven. The evil of the king is viewed as resting on the sacrifice. The god is appeased, BUT the wrath that would have resulted because of that evil is not presented as being inflicted on the sacrificed animal.
There is also a sacrifice which removes evil from the people and places it on the sacrificed animal. The animal is not offered, here, as a burnt-offering but is instead discarded outside of the city. The evil, however, is not viewed as sins but rather demons or evil spirits. Regardless, what is laid upon the sacrifice is the evil endangering man, not punishment inflicted by deity.
2. The kispum ritual (essentially a family cult ceremony to dead ancestors) was practiced twice a month during the full and new moon, and animal sacrifices were rendered to the gods. The purpose here was not appeasement of wrath but honor and worship. The mode of the sacrifice did not imply the gods acting on the object sacrificed at all.
3. The pagrā’um-ceremony, connected with the god Dagan, offered dead animals in honor of the dead. Again, no punishment is placed on the object sacrificed.
4. The Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra describe ritual sacrifice. The people presented a donkey as an offering for purification and atonement for the purpose of appeasing the wrath of the gods, to turn aside their anger. But again, the idea that the gods punished the object sacrificed with the punishment due the worshippers is foreign to the cult.
I am not suggesting that the Levitical system of atonement is based on pagan ritual. But I am suggesting that the practice of ritualistic sacrifice, specifically burnt-offerings, existed prior to the Mosaic Law. This is evident through Scripture (the offering of Noah, the near-sacrifice of Isaac) as well as the ANE rituals just presented. Therefore, when introduced within the Levitical system, the idea of burnt-offerings was not a foreign concept to the Israelites. Just as common was the idea of atonement. What was foreign to these people was the notion that the punishment for man’s sin would be inflicted on the object being sacrificed.
In Scripture, burnt-offerings are associated with appeasement and not the exercise of wrath on the part of God. Likewise, I do not know of a passage that states God poured out his wrath (in terms of inflicting punishment due sinners) on Christ as the atoning sacrifice, but rather that God sacrifices His Son.
Since the notion that atonement consists of the sacrifice not only representing man but also being punished (symbolically with animal sacrifices, literally with Christ) with the punishment due the worshipper is foreign to both the world that made these sacrifices and Scripture, where did it originate?
(Sources: Julye Bidmead, “The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia”; John Walton, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible”;Samuel Kramer, “The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character”; Eugene Merrill, Rooker, and Grisanti, “The Word and the World”; Dennis Pardee, “Ritual and Cult at Ugarit”).
