Day of Reconciliation

[DaveXR650]

The author describes "atonement" in the Day of Atonement as kippur , a purification rather than substitution.

One thing I am a little puzzled by is the concept that penal substitution is by necessity opposed to the purification and washing motifs. Does the author list any references for this? I have not found any in my own reading but I could just have overlooked them. The idea of purification and washing is common in Calvinist era hymns and the theme is way more predominate in Owen's writings on Hebrews than penal substitution, at least what I have read.

I have never seen one who believes PSA hate the lines "and sinners plunged beneath that flood loose all their guilty stains" or "there may I though vile as he wash all my sins away". I think we should clarify whether there is really any opposition to kipper being described as purification vs just the idea that what you see with the Levitical sacrifices does indeed also illustrate a substitution taking place because it is clearly said that the need for purification stems from sin and that is what must be cleansed, washed away or removed before one can approach a holy God. I do see where kipper can have more meanings than purification but I certainly don't nor do I know of anyone who believes PSA opposing the use of "purification" tied with kipper, rather what is opposed is that something in kipper nullifies PSA.

 

[JonC]

One thing I am a little puzzled by is the concept that penal substitution is by necessity opposed to the purification and washing motifs.

PSA is opposed to the "atonement" as presented in Leviticus to describe the Day of Atonement, but not necessarily to how PSA theorists redefine atonement.

Part of the readon is Hebrews 9. Christ is presented as dying and then entering into the Most Holy Place through His own blood (which, in Leviticus, would be atonement made by the high priest to atonement for the tent of meeting and the altar beside atoning for the sins of the people). Christ "purified" Himself (flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom of God) to enter that Most Holy Place not made with hands. There Christ as our High Priest makes atonement for our sins. This is Christ Himself as the Propitiation or Atonement for our sins, to be received by faith.

The reason PSA contradicts biblical atonement is the theory views God as taking our sins, putting them on Christ, and Christ experiencing Gid's pu ishment for our sins instead of us. There would be no sins to be cleansed.

In Leviticus "atonement" is cleansing rather than a substitution. The priest makes atonement for the tent of meeting, then for the altar, and lastly for the sins of the people.

PSA theorists deny this by "double speek", by redefining "atonement" to mimic the pagan sacrifices meant to appease the anger of their gods.

What the atonement changes os not God but man by cleansing us ftom sin (God removes our old heart and spirit, gives us a new heart and spirit, we put to death our old self, we die to the flesh, ate made new creations, are conformed into Christ's image.


PSA is a secular addition. It is neo Greco-Roman philosophy developed in the 16th century Renaissance huminism movement (the movement that sought to revitalize Greco-Roman philosophy, art, literature, and architecture).


The problem is twofold. First, it is an addition to the biblical text that focuses on this secular philosophy as primary. But second and more importantly, it replaces biblical atonement.


You have demonstrated this. The secular philosophy is "every crime must be punished; punishment satisfies the demands of the law; the role of the judge is to avenge the law".

You use that failed secular philosophy almost verbatim (all sins must be punished; punishment satisfies divine justice; God as Judge avenges divine justice).

You simply do what Calvin did - you take this secular neo Greco-Roman philosophy and replace the law with divine justice and crimes with sins.


The reason that Christ's death was not God punishing Jesus instead of us is our dins remain on us which necessitates man being "cleansed" in Christ.

If the biblical text is correct then PSA is obsolete. If God punished none of our sins on Christ we would still be saved and the requirements of the law would still be met because we are cleansed of our sins, made new creations in Christ, conformed to His image.

What is not satisfied is that failed neoGreco-Roman philosophy (every crime must be punished, punishment satisfies the law). But who cares? That philosophy was wrong and is not in the Bible. God saved us by His righteousness manifested apart from the law (as the law could not save us).

 

[JonC]

So as far as "atonement" goes, we can say that substitution is foreign to biblical atonement. Instead atonement is active in purifying or cleansing. This is what God has declared to be the purpose of atonement.

But there is another component in the ritual. There is another animal which is not sacrificed but instead carries away the "decontamination" of sin. This is the "scapegoat" ("totegoat", goat offered to Azazel).

What the atonement does is cleanse from impurity, cleans from unrighteousness.

But there is another category in the OT sacrifice system. Atonement is made for the sins of the people tp cleans them. There remains the sins themselves. Impurity is cleansed, sins are forgiven. They are acts which have been committed. They cannot be removed but are carried away. This is the symbolism of the scapegoat.

Again, this os not substitution, the animal is not killed or sacrificed. No blood is shed here. Sins are forgiven on the basis that the person has been cleansed, but dins themselves are symbolically carried away, remembered no more.

 

[JonC]

The problem with adding PSA to the equation is the atonement as presented in the biblical text is complete. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that the theory can contribute.

PSA is designed only to address the problem PSA has created - how does the biblical atonement satisfy this neoGreco-Roman philosophy? Obviously the biblical text does not satisfy what that philosophy demands as the philosophy itself is unbiblical. The theory asked the wrong questions because it assumes a false reality.

 

[DaveXR650]

The reason PSA contradicts biblical atonement is the theory views God as taking our sins, putting them on Christ, and Christ experiencing Gid's pu ishment for our sins instead of us. There would be no sins to be cleansed.

I am beginning to see how you put the logical steps together to arrive at this. If you can read into the Levitical models of atonement we have recorded as cleansing and purification only and in a vague, even antiseptic way, and ignore references to actual sin being involved, actual committed sins, as being removed and cleansed, and then also ignore all connection of God's reaction to our sin as "wrath" and all references of this as being possible to be propitiated or atoned for, then all references of justice and "the just for the unjust" you are on your way.

If you can add to that a reworking of those obvious passages in Isaiah where "someone" is bruised for our transgressions (maybe make it someone else's transgressions), and overlook the fact that it is referenced in the New Testament as meaning Jesus then you are well on your way. The only other thing you might want to do is eliminate those passages referring to the threatening of the Law and the fact that a law breaker is "guilty" and there is no remedy. And I almost forgot, you have to eliminate all references to the cross and the manner of Christ's death as being planned and participated in by the whole Trinity. With that, you should be on your way. To what, I don't know. Maybe Orthodox Christianity, or is that unfair to them. Certainly not Mennonite theology, PSA is right in their current statement of faith. Maybe just dangerous ground that hopefully the Spirit will pull you back from eventually.

 

[JonC]

I am beginning to see how you put the logical steps together to arrive at this. If you can read into the Levitical models of atonement we have recorded as cleansing and purification only faith.

I am not reading purification only, but since we were discussing the atonement in the OT (the Day of Atonement) I was reading the passages dealing with the Day of Atonement.

"Atonement" is defined as "purification" by the actual passage. But this is one of two ritualistic components. The other is the "scapegoat" ("totegoat", the animal set aside for Azazel).

The problem with your theory is it not supported by the biblical text (Scripture does not differentiate in type making atonement for the tent of meeting, for the altar, and for the sins of the people.... all are the same making of atonement).

You have created a created a new category and have insisted this neo-atonement be the primary way to view the work of the Father redeeming us.


In your opinion why did God omit substitution in the biblical text but was very specific that "making atonement" is "cleansing"?

...ignore all connection of God's reaction to our sin as "wrath" and all references of this as being possible to be propitiated or atoned for, then all references of justice and "the just for the unjust" you are on your way.

I certainly have not ignored God's "reaction" (I would say judgment) towards the wicked. The wicked "store up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath." God's wrath will be expressed on all wickedness.

In fact, this is what biblical atonement takes care of by satisfying the demands of the law, yet as God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

On the "day of wrath" God will punish the wicked. All who have not been "cleansed from all unrighteousness", who have not "died to the flesh", who have not been made new creations" will absolutely be cast out.

But God is just. He will justly declare the new creations made in Christ's image innocent of sin. And He will condemn the wicked.


God being "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ" is why God passed over OT sins until the Promise has come (read the passage as you are misapplying that verse).

God justifiies the one who has faith in Christ. We are made into Christ's image, given a new heart and spirit. Those of us who are Christians, who believe and have not been carried away from the faith once delivered by philosophy, will be righteous. We will be glorified. That is our destiny, joint heirs with Christ.

But God is also just. He will not punish the righteous but He will also in no way clear the guilty.


The crux of your argument is neoGreco-Roman philosophy. You cannot acceot a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law even if it fulfills the requirements of the law.

Why? Because you have adopted the secular philosophy ("all crimes must be punished, punishment satisfies the demands of the law") by "Christianizing" it (all sins must be punished, punishment satisfies the demands of divine justice).


But the Atonement is simply not the work of the Father punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us. Instead the Atonement is the work of Christ cleansing us, the work of God destroying who we were to recreate us in the image of Christ.

If you can add to that a reworking of those obvious passages in Isaiah where "someone" is bruised for our transgressions

Why would I even consider such? Christ was bruised for our transgressions, He bore our sins bodily, He shared our infirmity, He was made sin for us, He shared our humanity, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, He was made flesh, and He died in the flesh as flesh will not enter the kingdom of God.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I like discusding doctrines with people who hold different views (whether Mormon, JW, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian,... whatever). It gives me a chance to proclaimed God's Word.

BUT one criteria is the standard has to be the biblical text. I do not care what John Owen, Ellen White, John Calvin, Joyce Myers, Kenneth Copeland, Joseph Smith, John Wesley,... whoever... taught that the Bible really taught. I am not of a cult mentality. I like to keep things simple rather than trying to decide which men (or women) to follow.


I have provided you with exactly what God has said ("what is written", "the faith once delivered", the biblical text).

You insist that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, that Jesus was our penal substitute taking God's wratg upon Himself so we would escape that wrath.

Problem is what you ultimately deny is the power of God to make a man into a new creation. You cannot accept that salvation is a work of Christ rather than the Father punishing Him.


Like the Pharisees, John Calvin also could not grasp God's righteouness apart from the law. I think this is by God's design. You accept that God created, but reject that God could possibly make us new creations, actually make us righteous.


What has been shown here is I have a faith grounded in the biblical text, but you have chosen to ground your faith in a 16th century secular philosophy and in men. You cannot provide even one passage stating your belief (you have to add "what it really means" as a footnote).

 

[DaveXR650]

"Atonement" is defined as "purification" by the actual passage. But this is one of two ritualistic components. The other is the "scapegoat" ("totegoat", the animal set aside for Azazel).

My concerns are that "purification" is describing moral impurity and committed sin as well as our very "sinfullness" for lack of a better word. There is absolutely no objection that I have found (and I ask again for anyone who knows otherwise to show me) of any Calvinist or other advocate of PSA to the idea of us being purified or washed and that it can be described as done by the blood of Christ, often without mention of his death or his specifically "taking" our sin onto himself. What we claim is that there is scripture indicating specifically that Christ bears our sin and that he was bruised for our transgressions, and that the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I'm glad to hear you also believe that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. Don't be outraged that it was brought up because the very critics who claim that somehow they know that laying your hand on a sacrifice did not mean that there was an identification with guilt and an implied transfer of sin or impurity - are the same ones who claim that the passage in Isaiah is not referring to Christ.

But God is also just. He will not punish the righteous but He will also in no way clear the guilty.

Keep repeating that with each post because it shows a severe lack of understanding of the gospel.

Problem is what you ultimately deny is the power of God to make a man into a new creation. You cannot accept that salvation is a work of Christ rather than the Father punishing Him.

That's actually the work of the Holy Spirit, described in scripture and explained in great detail by Owen. It's precisely why I keep saying that this was a unique redemption plan, involving the whole Trinity, that was devised before the foundation of the world. The verse you keep using serves to show just how special the circumstances and those involved (the Triune God) were in making this possible, the just for the unjust, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. (Christ died for us according to the scriptures as a purification ritual would be insufficient as an explanation).

 

[JonC]

My concerns are that "purification" is describing moral impurity and committed sin as well as our very "sinfullness" for lack of a better word.

The issue is our sinfulness (wickedness) as sins (actions) themselves are but manifestations or "fruits" of our wickedness. If that is what you mean, I agree.

Sins are forgiven, wickedness (unrighteousness) is cleansed.

I guess we can think of it like a crime. A murderer murders because he is a murderer (hate in his heart). Christ identified the issue in Matthew 5.

There is absolutely no objection that I have found (and I ask again for anyone who knows otherwise to show me) of any Calvinist or other advocate of PSA to the idea of us being purified or washed and that it can be described as done by the blood of Christ, often without mention of his death or his specifically "taking" our sin onto himself.

I doubt you will find any objection from PSA theorists as we all know that Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.

The problem comes in when people define the atonement according to what is NOT in the Bible but they believe is taught by the Bible.

In the Bible sins are forgiven (think of the scapegoat) and wickedness is cleansed. The idea that sins are transferred to Jesus and then punished so that we can escape the wrath to come is not logical or biblical.

Sins are actions. They are things that have been done. Christ bears our sins (ultimately bears the consequences of our sins). But sins are themselves superficial (sins are the bad fruit produced by the bad tree). The fruit of sin itself is death. "Sin produces death", "the wages of sin is death". We will all suffer this death for all have sinned. It is appointed man once to die (because of sin) and then face God's judgment (the "wicked are storing up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath"; "the wicked will not enter the kingdom of God"; "God's wrath is upon the wicked").

In the Bible "atonement" is not substitution but "cleansing". The high priest made atonement for the tent of meeting, then the altar, then the sins of the people. The Day of Atonement was to be observed as a time of cleansing (Leviticus 16).

The priest took the blood (life) from the animal into the Tabernacle. He made atonement for the tent of meeting, the altar, and finally the sins of the people with this blood (life).


You are right that there are two distinct aspects the Atonement deals with. They are physical death as the death sin produces as a wage and then the judgment of God against the wicked "on that day".


But you are blending the two together when it fits your theory and separating them when it doesn't. Scripture does not do this.

Our sins are taken away (removed). It is as if we did not do them. God remembers them no more. Yet we still suffer the death those sins produced (we still suffer under the power of evil, the dominion of Satan). Jesus shared in our humanity, became flesh, even though He knew flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God.


What you are missing is the "why", or the basis for our forgiveness. It is not that God all of a sudden decided to compromise His justice snd punish the innocent or clear the guilty. Had God done that He would cease being God as He has revealed Himself in His Word.

The reason we can be forgiven is not because God punished the Righteous but because Christ Himself is the Guaranteor or Surety of our faith. We will be recreated, conformed to His image. Jesus IS the reconciliation of God and man.

This goes to God's judgment rather than the death all are appointed to die because of their sins. He reconciles us. He is the Atonement that cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

That's actually the work of the Holy Spirit, described in scripture and explained in great detail by Owen. It's precisely why I keep saying that this was a unique redemption plan, involving the whole Trinity, that was devised before the foundation of the world. The verse you keep using serves to show just how special the circumstances and those involved (the Triune God) were in making this possible, the just for the unjust, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. (Christ died for us according to the scriptures as a purification ritual would be insufficient as an explanation).

It was a unique redemption plan. I do not know why you keep going back to this being God's righteousness manifested through the law. It was something else, something promised but obscured in the Old Testament.

It is the work of God (God takes out our old heart, gives us a new heart) but this is uniquely "in Christ" (we are made new creations in Christ). The old goes away and the new comes.

I believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (rather than an idea NOT in the biblical text, not "the faith once delivered).

This matches the Levitical system because that system foreshadowed or was a witness to the salvation to come.

And in the Levitical system there was no substitution. A sacrifice was killed, this provided the means by which the priest made atonement for the tent of meeting, the altar, and the people's sins by cleansing or purification.

Jesus likewise entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands through His own blood as a Propitiation to be recieved by faith (His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness).

The second aspect of the Levitical system was a goat that was not sacrificed (a live goat). This is the animal set aside to Azazel (the "scapegoat", "totegoat"). This goat was sent to take away the sins of the people, to symbolically remove the consequences of sin.

Christ suffered these consequences with us, is the Lamb who takes away the dins of the world. But rather than by nullifying Scriptute it is by giving Life (the sting of deatg is removed). The Second Adam became a Life giving Spirit.



The biblical text itself makes sense without wondering "but, what does it really teach". The Bible teaches "what is written", it teaches the biblical text. Anything ekse is nothing but human wisdom (philosophy).

 

[JonC]

I look at it this way, @DaveXR650 -

We understand in part, we know in part. Our reasoning is flawed. I believe thr Christian concept of reasoning together is not working through theories or different understandings but pointing to God's own words.

I would rather stand before God, hear what He says what I understood incorrectly (I am sure it will be a long list) but knowing what I was leaning on was His words and knowing He will make me stand than standing before God saying "but that is what John Owen (or John Calvin, or Kenneth Copeland, or Joyce Myers...etc) said you were really teaching" and hearing "I never knew you", or "you allowed yourself to be cartied away by that philosophy". I do not trust even John Owen to make me stand.


When we look at the biblical text itself the substitution of PSA is not there. I believe many hold on to it because it was "good enough" for their theological heros. But I fear that is not good enough for God.

It is sad, but I do not think you will find the true gospel of Jesus Christ on the broad road - whether the most popular view of Evangelicals (PSA), the most popular view of Lutherans (SA) or the most popular view of any sect. Salvation is not a popularity context - too many people are trying to say they have discovered what the Bible really teaches and too few are interested in the words God actually gave us to know Him.

 

[JonC]

I do see where kipper can have more meanings than purification

It literally means "to wash away" or "to cover over". In the Hebrew religion it means "to cleans" or "reconcile". It is the root of Yom Kippur (an ordinance set aside as a day of cleansing from sin).

My point is kipper never means "substitution" and was never the sacrifice of animals (in the Bible).

What you are referring to is Nīqu. This is an animal sacrificed to appease the wrath or anger of the gods. It was in the religions surrounding the Hebrew people, but not a part of the Hebrew religion.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would rather stand before God, hear what He says what I understood incorrectly (I am sure it will be a long list) but knowing what I was leaning on was His words and knowing He will make me stand than standing before God saying "but that is what John Owen (or John Calvin, or Kenneth Copeland, or Joyce Myers...etc) said you were really teaching" and hearing "I never knew you", or "you allowed yourself to be cartied away by that philosophy". I do not trust even John Owen to make me stand.

I've explained this before and I shouldn't have to do it again. I use Owen or whoever, well, not Copeland, but I use quotes because I don't consider myself at a level to quote only myself so to speak. I find it offensive to be constantly told that that is somehow wrong when in any other venue it would help only to give credibility to one's position and ensure others that it wasn't just someone talking out of their hat. I will continue to do it that way and if that is not acceptable then discuss this with someone else. No one is trusting in John Owen, or Jon C. But we know who John Owen was.

It literally means "to wash away" or "to cover over". In the Hebrew religion it means "to cleans" or "reconcile". It is the root of Yom Kippur (an ordinance set aside as a day of cleansing from sin).

My point is kipper never means "substitution" and was never the sacrifice of animals (in the Bible).

I would disagree in that the death of the animal was as much a part of the atonement as the applying of the blood, meaning that the sacrifices were set up I think, on purpose. Something else could have been used for purification rites. The blood of a slain animal was not a random choice. And like I said earlier, cleansing or covering is fine as a metaphor for the handling of sin, just as bearing our iniquity or bearing our sin is also.
Hebrews 10:4 says it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. I think that infers that the Hebrews were indeed viewing that the symbolism of the animal sacrifices did indeed involve the taking away of sins even though the truth was that it was a foreshadowing of Christ in the future. Just above that in 9:28 it says Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. And I know we will now go into a cycle again of well, bear means with us and not instead of us and so on. Go ahead if you wish but the verses seem plain enough to me.

The only reason I started engaging you again was to see if a source, Rillera, in this case had any other insights as his book was touted as the end of PSA. I don't know why it's OK to use him and not John Owen but it's not my problem as I am in favor of quoting people who are known as being authorities whether I agree with them or not. But I am behind the times in our age of self esteem. If you don't know of anything else he brings out in his book then I'm done and I do truly appreciate the time you take to respond to me. But there is really nothing else to say.

 

[JonC]

I've explained this before and I shouldn't have to do it again. I use Owen or whoever, well, not Copeland, but I use quotes because I don't consider myself at a level to quote only myself so to speak. I find it offensive to be constantly told that that is somehow wrong when in any other venue it would help only to give credibility to one's position and ensure others that it wasn't just someone talking out of their hat. I will continue to do it that way and if that is not acceptable then discuss this with someone else.

??? I never said it was wrong to quote Owen. I said Owen was wrong about several important doctrines but I never said you shouldn't quote him.

Obvioiously quoting Oewn does not lend any credibility except with those who hold his views. You could quote Barth to any holding his views. Or even Copeland to those holding his views.

The point being the fact that quoting Owen does not lend any credibility to your position any more than me quoting theologians who hold my views lends credibility to my position.

This is not a popularity context with whoever has the most theologians on their side wins.

I was saying that we cannot expect to be saved because of the men who holds our views. We have to go to the Bible.

Your position is a secular judicial philosophy popular in the 16th century, just put in Christian words. If I were going to imply you follow anybody it woukd be John Calvin because this is where that philosophy ("every crime must be punished; punishment satisfies the law") was first articulated within a Christian context (every sin must be punished; punishment satisfies divine justice).

But I am saying we have to acceot God's own words, something you are hesitant to do because your faith is not expressed in the biblical text.

I would disagree in that the death of the animal was as much a part of the atonement as the applying of the blood, meaning that the sacrifices were set up I think, on purpose. Something else could have been used for purification rites. The blood of a slain animal was not a random choice.

It was the blood of a slain animal pointing to Christ's blood that purifies us from all unrighteousness.

As far as dealing with sins (as opposed to cleansing from unrighteousness), there was no death involved. The animal was not killed. It carried the sins away (forgiveness) while the blood of the animal slain was used to cleanse from unrighteousness.

Sacrificing the animal itself was obedience (in the Hebrew religion it was a "gift of obedience"). Christ's obedience even to death is important but it is not the pount where we are cleansed of unrighteousness or even forgiven of our sins.

1. The high priest entered the Tabernacle through the blood of the perfect (without blenish) slain animal. He used the blood to make atonement for the tent of meeting, the altar, and ginally for the sins of the peoole. The Bible calls this "cleansing from sins".

Christ died and entered the Most Holy Place through His own blood. There He is the atonement to be recieved by faith, it is His blood that cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

2. The animal set aside to Azazel (the "scapegoat", "totegoat") was perfect (without blemish), was not killed, and carried the sins of the people away (forgiveness).

The Atonement is twofold - cleansing from unrighteousness and forgiving past actions. Jesus' death was necessary as it is through His blood we are cleansed from unrighteousness (receiving His Life). But forgiveness is not (per scripture) technically centered on Christ's death. It is centered on His Life (His person, Christ as the Mediator, the Advocate, for all who are in Him).


I do not kniw where you got your philosophy. But it is exactly the reasoning of John Calvin based on Calvin's philosophy of secular law, believing it absolute and applying that as divine justice.

The only reason I started engaging you again was to see if a source, Rillera, in this case had any other insights as his book was touted as the end of PSA. I don't know why it's OK to use him and not John Owen but it's not my problem as I am in favor of quoting people who are known as being authorities whether I agree with them or not. But I am behind the times in our age of self esteem. If you don't know of anything else he brings out in his book then I'm done and I do truly appreciate the time you take to respond to me. But there is really nothing else to say.

I do not believe one should refrain from quoting people. The only exception is when people try to use them as an authority.

What should I care about an anti-Baptist Puritian who actively persecuted Christians while strongly advocating infant "baptism", viewing baptism as a necessary seal of regeneration and teaching that the children of believers holding a federal, covenantal and relative holiness to God above nonbelievers?

I only offered Rillera (among several others) because you thought such scholars did not exist. I quoted him here because I was examining his words against the Standard of the biblical text.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 pointed out that PSA theorists view God as dealing with sins but also as Christians being cleansed of their unrighteousness.

I agree with these two categories. We need to be forgiven of our sins (these are past acts) but we also need to be cleansed from all unrighteousness.

We both believe the Levitical sysyem foreshadows this work.

So again... to the Bible.

On the day of atonement two distinct rituals took place, and each shadows one of these aspects of Christ's work.

The people brought two perfect animals.

1. One was set aside to God. This animal was slain and the high priest took the blood to the Tabernacle. The priest made atonement for the tent of meeting, for the altar, and after this was completed for the sins of the people. God states in this way the tent of meeting, the alter, and the people were cleansed or purified from unrighteousness.

2. The other animal was set aside to Azazel (it was the "scapegoat", the "totegoat"). This animal was not harmed and symbolicly bore the sins of the people away from the camp. This the forgiveness of sins. It was an act not of the slain animal but of the animal that was alive. Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

There is absolutely no substitution in the Levitical system (other than representative) per the biblical text.


We can ask why it would be a bad thing to add that God punished Jesus, or Jesus regained God's honor man had stolen, or Jesus provided stored up merit, as long as we agree on points 1 and 2 above.

The reason is simpler, and it has been proven time and time again. When we add to God's Word we are changing what is there. What may seem like a minor difference, adfing just a little philosophy, soon becomes the main focus of theorists. PSA theorists do not believe thar PSA is a minor theory that can be held alongside the biblical text. They believe PSA is the theory that describes what the biblical text is "really" teaching. It is dangerous as men are led away from "the faith once delivered" by such philosophies and often come to view their theory as the gospel itself. The danger is they come to a point where they can no longer be considered Christian by faithful believers, yet they will never see their state as they have been carried away by the philosophy they have come to love and trust more than they love and trust God.