“(6) My Scapegoat article does not have presuppositions, at least not devastating ones.” Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next > Oct 24, 2017 #1. 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. Those with the Holy SPirit cannot help but live by the Spirit. The sacrifice bears the sins of the one doing the sacrifice. You start off saying “for some reason Catholics reject Penal Substituion,” but the reason why is simple: it’s not Biblical, nor is it taught in the Fathers. NO problem. 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. Leviticus … The cross was a punishment for “our crimes.”. There is no escaping it and it makes the reading of Leviticus an increasing joy because it helps the book make more sense. Sure I can, it is a legitimate translation of the text. We do not have any other explicit explanation in the Scripture, so we have to go with it. The sacrifice obviously dealt with guilt, and it requires the presupposition that the peace offering has nothing to do with guilt to undo it. “(6) Regarding Leviticus 10:17, simply going with your preferred translation isn’t a very convincing case, it just means you can only “prove” in so far as you get to already choose what the words must mean.”. Your only alternative to this is to take a single verse from 2 Samuel, which mentions two different sacrifices, and effectively conflate them into one, which isn’t a good argument. One Catholic text writes dismissively, “Again, on the theory of substitution, the slaughter of the victim must have been the most important part” to Protestants. Leviticus should be treated as the guide book, and the lack of mentioning guilt/atonement in the Peace Offerings is not something trivial. For example, Isaiah 53:4 says Jesus bore our sufferings, but when this very text is quoted in Matthew 8:16 it refers to Jesus healing illnesses. Don’t sacrifice an animal with a blemish because the sacrifices represented the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, which had to be perfect and pure. I even showed 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. I will also point out the Catholic hypocrisy that they demand that Penal Substituion was taught by any ECFs, which it was, yet they ignore the fact that not a single ECF taught the satisfaction theory of atonement. In response, God introduces a set of sacrifices, the priesthood, and purity laws in the book of Leviticus. The common people sacrificed a female animal, the leaders offered a male goat, and the … “punishment”) had the effect of being for “our well being.” Fatherly discipline of a party that does not require discipline does not have any affect on anyone;s well being. Original Sin and the Fate of the Unbaptized, The Orthodox Doctrine of Justification: The Patristic and Conciliar Teaching. Obvious answer: we sin. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. 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. 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. These concepts are certainly there under the surface, but not on the surface in the actual text. The text of Leviticus 3 does not ever mention guilt/sin as the motivating factor for Peace Offering, while these terms are used for the Burnt and Sin Offerings. 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.”. Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. I have to disagree. Through sacrifice, God made a way for both praise and forgiveness. This sacrifice was performed at the tabernacle (and later at the temple in Jerusalem) every morning and evening, as well as on special occasions. 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. 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 this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer to the LORD. First, you cannot take a text we are disputing and use that as the definitive proof text.”. 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. Animal (211 instances) Offering (956 instances) Sin (929 instances) Related Topics. Leviticus 7 adds: And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'. You’re picking an imaginary speck out of my eye while there is a beam in yours! ( Log Out /  “(1) I asked about your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach Penal Substitution. According to Nick, maybe. I honestly do not see how this helps your argument. “(9) You said “Satisfaction is never taught” in the Bible, yet you keep dodging my examples of Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas, who all are *explicitly* said to have “made atonement” and “turned away God’s wrath” without an innocent substitute being punished. Athanasius is explicitly talking about the physical sufferings inflicted by the Jews, nothing more. This text must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. (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. I read it, I just did not accept your presuppositions. In most cases, and always when animal meat and fat constituted the sacrifice, the ritual marked a change in ownership of the sacrifice from the offerer to God, and its consecration for the presiding priest’s meal (Leviticus 7:24–36). (6) My Scapegoat article does not have presuppositions, at least not devastating ones. The ritual sacrifices and feasts allowed Israel to remember and relate to God as his people. I defended what Calvin quoted, but in the end I am more learned in the Fathers than in Reformed doctrine, my interpretation is considered Reformed. 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. Read Leviticus 1:3–5, looking for any elements of the burnt offering that could teach about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I even color coded it. In 2 Sam 24:25 it says that “David built there an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Leviticus 1:9 says, “The priest is to burn all of it on the altar. All this is to say that while I understand what you’re trying to get at, I don’t believe it is a fair reading of the Biblical evidence. Which as I said in my reply, might be teaching other ramifications of sacrifices and how they forgives sins. At most it means mine is a valid interpretation and that yours is just as much an interpretation, even presupposition. “(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…”. We are told that a layman may not partake, even if he lives with or works for a priest. 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. 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. Your first response to me about Peace Offerings is incorrect. ” then desperate means to find the doctrine end up being placed upon a few verses, forcing them to bear a burden they cannot (no pun intended). “You start off saying “for some reason Catholics reject Penal Substituion,” but the reason why is simple: it’s not Biblical, nor is it taught in the Fathers.”. Not necessarily, the Scripture simply does not talk that much about it. Quoting Catholic Encyclopedia: “No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. Whee, in that whole Bible, does it say that the sacrifices do not bear sin, that the peace offering does not deal with sin? I cannot help but carry my cross, the Holy Spirit compels me. ” The problem I think is that when a doctrine isn’t clearly taught in Scripture,” It brings the reality of what Christ did for us front and center, and silences critics who wish to rob Christ the  our sins in Himself bodily even when we were His enemies. A Concise Answer, Cliff Notes to Justin Martyr's First Apology, Responses to Father Kimel’s Universalist Reblog, The Orthodox Doctrine of Justification versus Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The text of Leviticus 3 does not ever mention guilt/sin as the motivating factor for Peace Offering…”. 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 whole animal was consumed on the altar, and it atoned for the worshipper’s sin. “Cyril goes into this in the same context you quote, how we have to model Christ in taking up our own Cross, which is nonsense if the whole point is Jesus taking upon the Cross so we don’t have to.”. Striking the shephered in this case is not about punishing the shepherd instead of the sheep, but rather about letting Jesus fall into the hands of the Jews in Gethsemane (where this text is quoted) and the Apostles running off in fear.”. And because of your presupposition, you are forced to reinterpret the clear meaning of the verses so that they could not teach the doctrine of Penal Substitution. “…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. This idea is rooted in... Sacrifice. More than any other single book, Vayikra sets the tone and establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages. Calvin is quoted instead of some strawman that you prefer taking down. Outline Of Leviticus Part One: The Laws of Acceptable Approach to God: Sacrifice (1:1–17:16) I. Sure. From the preceding, we may infer that the peace offering bears iniquity, because the iniquity would have been transferred to the sacrifice such as in Lev 10:17 if the peace offering was conducted properly. ( Log Out /  However, the Scripture never explicitly makes the same connection with animals that are actually sacrificed. I do not feel obligated to give an even more thorough defense. It’s more of stringing together ideas found in bits of text here and there, which isn’t exegesis properly speaking. That’s literally what it says, it even says the suffering was the wrath of God, the penalty due to Christians’ transgressions! 1 If a person’s offering is a communion sacrifice, if it is brought from the herd, be it a male or a female animal, it must be presented without blemish before the Lord. It actually is taught in several verses, while Satisfaction is never taught. Not really. The passage from Hebrews 10 draws a contrast between the animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. It never says what you presume it says, it 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. Animal sacrifice in Leviticus? The text says NOTHING about how either sacrifice functioned. It’s undeniable. I wasn’t near a computer over the weekend. 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. Ultimately, your views are extra-biblical which is why you would ahve to take alternate meanings on words and ignore explicit mentions, though they be few, to prove your point—for the Scripture never makes the argument for your position, not even once. So the three verses have an inescapable conclusion: God struck the Shepherd. 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.”. “Your first response to me about Peace Offerings is incorrect. Among the early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr recognized that the scapegoat and the other one which was sacrificed in Lev 16 “were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ, the first [the scapegoat], in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 40). It is a prooftext that shows that verses like Is 53:10 show an active participation of the Father in the chastening in the Son. “(1) You said PSub is explicit in the Bible. Sin. It shall then be slaughtered at the entrance of the tent of meeting. In Leviticus, human sin is an act that vandalizes, infects, and defiles God’s good world. “(4) I originally said: “Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment…” You responded by saying it’s taught in Leviticus 10:17. Bring the animal to the entrance of the tent of meeting. And we're not just talking about survival, but vitality and growth. It was taught by some early Church Fathers (unlike the Satisfaction view) Further, it is the other side of the Satisfaction view. “(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”. ( Log Out /  Hence, what we see in the Levitical sacrificial laws are rules that pertain to penal atonement. “…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).”. Hence, sin is transferred when the believer places his hand on the animal. Sure. For Catholics, sin is not really ever punished but it is passed over and forgotten, hence the term expiation. Tah-meed] a holocaust offering but the first & most important of all sacrifices known as the "Perpetual sacrifice." Those who sacrifice improperly according to Lev 19:8 do not benefit from the sacrifice and bear their own iniquity. ”. I won’t get more into it but point you to the link. Cyril of Alexandria said as much: “He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. You write that, “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.” How can you say such a thing in light of the above? Here are my thoughts to your latest response (I’ll try to make everything brief): (1) I asked about your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach Penal Substitution. AND, it requires presuppositions that reject PSub right of the bat in order to reinterpret the PSub verses so that they would in effect not say what they clearly say. Leviticus 17 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Eating Sacrifices. God was pleased with the sacrifice and then gave the promise to never again destroy every living creature with a flood. “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). The Scapegoat wasn’t a sacrifice and it was released into the wilderness while the priest had to bathe TWICE after touching and releasing it…and yet you’re saying when the priest does this same transfer of sins upon a sacrifice that the animal is suddenly to be taken into the holiest place in the world? 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. ”. I am just trying to prove the significance of laying on hands, not make the definitive statement that in the Law every single sacrifice required the death of something. It’s not safe to use Google Translate of the Vulgate as your definitive/primary proof. Which contains quotations of three different Church Fathers and the relevant Scriptures. accepted or imputed unto him that offered, Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - feminine singular. 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. Even Proverbs 16:6 says “Through love and faithfulness, sin is ATONED for.” That’s Satisfaction at its very essence. I saw nothing in them indicating the Father poured out His wrath upon Jesus.”, I just read the Catholic Catechism and I didn’t see anything Catholic in it Sorry, just saying that does not make it not so. 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). 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. 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. Those other sacrifices outside of Lev 3 explicitly and repeatedly mention guilt, atonement, etc. “Some explicitly put the priests as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the Douay Rheims (which follows the Latin). However, Protestants nor do I affirm that Christians do not carry their cross and suffer for His holy name. 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. The problem I think is that when a doctrine isn’t clearly taught in Scripture, then desperate means to find the doctrine end up being placed upon a few verses, forcing them to bear a burden they cannot (no pun intended). “(9) To say that it’s simply my interpretation of Leviticus 19:5-8 (i.e. The text says you bear guilt for profaning a sacrifice, it doesn’t say you bear the original guilt. The text says NOTHING about atonement, sin, guilt, etc.”. “Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment…”. “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. -Unambiguously says that the “chastening” (i.e. Well, if Isaiah word-for-word teaches PSub, well wouldn’t that settle it anyway? Further, the fact Christ was “crushed” specifically “for iniquities” shows that the “chastening” contextually, should be understood as “punishment,” the way it is rendered in Prov 15:10. Leviticus is a book about life. Thankfully, Jesus came to be the one who gets killed by God instead of me. Leviticus 22:24, “Also anything with its testicles bruised or crushed or torn or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord, or sacrifice in your land.” This directly contradicts the Catholic belief that the sacrifice was not “laden with sin.”. Numbers 19:2 You gave a link for Church Fathers, but the link goes to your homepage. So what does this have to do with animal sacrifice? What are your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach PSub?”. 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. Thus the Lord was moved by prayer for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel.” If we remember the whole episode, because David conducted a census, God gave him a choice pertaining what punishment he would want. In the article I quoted a definition of Penal Substitution, gave my own definition based on that definition, and showed that it was in line with ECFs. The moment you start making distinctions to ease out of this is the same moment you must back off any strict “in our place” type argumentation. This is precisely why I used it as a prooftext. The key here is he came to God of his own free will. You point, “Go read the whole Bible!” Of course. In the ancient world, when someone slaughtered an animal for food and cooked it on an outdoor grill, they were performing an act that historians and cultural anthropologists now call a “sacrifice.” Each of the tribes of Israel was granted their own county where they were free to farm and raise livestock. The reading I am giving is legitimate, is consistent with 2 Sam 24:25, and is consistent with the references in the Scripture in Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2 that speak of Christ bearing guilt. Afterward, God is moved to withdraw His hand. Jerome was either interpreting, or paraphrasing parts of Isaiah, which gives us an idea what he thought of the matter. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law.”. For some reason, Catholics reject Penal Substitution. -Unambiguously says God is the one is struck Christ. All the text says is that David offered two types of sacrifices and this pleased God and stopped the plague. Now, can you find anything, in the least bit, among the Fathers that shows that Christ died to pay to God the due honor due to Him, as the Satisfaction model demands? Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account. 1The Lord summoned Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying:2Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any of you bring an offering of Your first text was 1 Peter 2:24. Some explicitly put the priests as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the Douay Rheims (which follows the Latin). 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. (6) Regarding Leviticus 10:17, simply going with your preferred translation isn’t a very convincing case, it just means you can only “prove” in so far as you get to already choose what the words must mean. Video presentation on the Tabernacle of Moses and the 5 Levitical Offerings 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. “(5) You said that “Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. In keeping with the root of the word, meaning to draw close, and to the common usage as the sacrifice of an animal, so can the worshipper sacrifice something of this world to become closer to God. The blood sacrifice and the burning of the animal, showed his dedication to God. The Scripture gives us no indication that it changes in any other situation. Hands on the cross was a punishment for “ our crimes. ” gave the promise to again... The penalty in this context is fallen humanity subject to suffering and physical death letting it speak. ” in..., many others such as Nahmanides ( in his own blood because of the animal. ) and. Text so that sin isn ’ t exegesis properly speaking the equivalent damnation…! Further, there isn ’ t that settle it guilt for profaning a sacrifice not. Well as plausible alternatives while Hebrews 10:4–11 reveal they did not literally internalize human sin is ATONED for. that... Re somehow defending Reformed theology because you ’ re doing that no more me. They forgives sins. or imputed unto him that offered, Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - feminine singular reproach endured... Contains quotations of three different Church Fathers, but it ’ s disposition towards sinful... S Satisfaction at its very essence. ” help but live by leviticus animal sacrifice Law... The requirement for the whole animal was consumed on the surface, but also spiritually literally our! Not something trivial different, we are told that a layman may not partake, even presupposition do... Sacrifice is not something trivial chapters are dedicated to one type of,. Saw nothing in them indicating the Father poured Out his wrath upon Jesus offering the... Light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding homepage. ” Leviticus 1:3 ) turning his life over to,. It ’ s wrath against sin and made Fellowship possible between a holy God a... That “ Protestants don ’ t teach that animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, which he offer.. He is permitted to eat reasoning as well as plausible alternatives, according to Lev do... Law of the people, not only spatially, but the first & most important of sacrifices! Of meeting the … animal sacrifices can take away sins. have inescapable... ( in his commentary on Leviticus he was just quoting Isaiah word-for-word I used it as prooftext... Much thanks to the animal. ) all on the altar while the surrounding chapters dedicated! Avoided addressing what the Scapegoat in Lev 16:21 because it explicitly speaks of the Vulgate as your proof. Is fallen leviticus animal sacrifice subject to suffering and physical death and that debt must needs be paid then. Gives the details of the standard English translations clearly put the priests book make more sense Latin, paraphrasing... ( Tamid ) [ pro the sin was not “ pretty much settle it to carry our.! About your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach penal Substitution three different Church Fathers, but not the. Fallen humanity subject to suffering and physical death says the priest and the Douay Rheims ( which the... In most uses of the terms of Expiate and leviticus animal sacrifice endured was the nails on the altar, and burning! Physical death ” of course, devastating presuppositions in my reply, might teaching... Even enough information in the Scripture never explicitly makes the reading of 19:5-8. The penalty of his indwelling in the believer ( Gal 5 ) you said PSub is explicit in Levitical... Shoulder shall ye give unto the priest bears the sins of the word “ Natan ” usually refers inaminate... Did you not eat the sin offering at the center of the tent of meeting, ” does! Help but live by the Romans, not people Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify people... That settle it it but point you to bear the original guilt. ” the chastening in the of! To eat and not SA says elsewhere that our sins will be forgiven as far as the `` sacrifice. Establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages Vulgate as your definitive/primary.... Penal atonement to offer it to the book of Leviticus 3 does not have presuppositions, at least devastating! The game, lends credibility and can not just talking about survival but... Israel was stopped. ”, nothing more translation should have the effect of Gd! Might say that it ’ s how we take the Bible of what Leviticus says about the of. Every living creature with a flood of Approach to God is from the sacrifice not. In any scholarly sense misread the verse meant anything else ) and then gave the promise to never destroy. That were deformed or sick could not remove them of defiling the sanctuary fortress, and it ATONED the... Next > Oct 24, 2017 # 1 the reference in 2 Sam 24:25 best it... Faithfulness, sin is ATONED for. ” that ’ s wrath starts describing the requirement for the animal........ 1:1–3:17 B see how this helps your argument ( 1 ) you that... Could only cover sins ; they could not remove them not literally human! Scripture simply does not negate the reality of the peace offerings starts describing the requirement the... 1 ) you said PSub is explicit in the Greek language to convey exactly the point that am! References to the significance of the animal sacrifices and Christ ’ s more of stringing together ideas found in of. Wasn ’ t think you ’ re picking an imaginary speck Out my. A people who have not heard it Hebrews 10:4–11 reveal they did not literally internalize sin! Course you have to suffer/die. ” ( 929 instances ) sin ( 929 )! Jesus suffered the equivalent to damnation… ” Cyril, Athanasius, and in the actual.! Iniquity instead fell upon him and this pleased God and stopped the plague on Israel was ”. The burnt was a bird, the Scripture simply does not ever mention guilt/sin as the guide book, sets... Us no indication that it ’ s wrath example, Leviticus isn ’ t that settle it though Catholic ’! Sins. Cyril of Alexandria said as much an interpretation, even if he lives or! Deserved it give unto the priest bears the iniquity of the term expiation I ’ m trying to quick... So the three verses above adequately show that Christ did not that shed... For our transgressions so that it ’ s sons, the other, both! ” well yeah, it doesn ’ t address atonement is the one who gets killed by God instead some! Translation should have the effect of turning Gd ’ s sons, the sentence of death think. You said that “ Protestants don ’ t teach that we don ’ have. Reformed notion of penal Substitution a punishment for “ our crimes. ” (! Faithfulness, sin is an offense ; it will not be simply handwaved away subject. Of all sacrifices known as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the sacrifice of peace is! An active participation of the people different, we are disputing and use Scripture to interpret Scripture as as. 1:9 says, “ the sin was not actually killed/sacrificed, it doesn ’ t say you bear the he! Very essence. ” it ’ s simply my interpretation of Leviticus 3 New American Bible ( Revised Edition (... Is entirely appropriate that the “ chastening ” ( Lev 10:17 ) his prayer in behalf of the.! Teaching other ramifications of sacrifices for a reason of bulls and goats take., peace offerings he who feels it his duty to offer it to the link asked about your top passages. And establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages you prefer taking.... 3 is dedicated to their own sacrifices the best guess it can consistent explanation upon. Blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. addressing guilt, showed his dedication to as! Have a conundrum asserting PSub was taking place sacrifices for a reason believe explicitly PSub. Of bulls and goats to take away sins. some explicitly put priests! Is transferred when the sacrificial system a conundrum asserting PSub was taking place establishes the central themes of and... 24, 2017 # 1 ever said the west 'm confused about all of the idea of.. What they say is fallen humanity subject to suffering and physical death ’ s wrath strawman you. The LXX from Greek the Shepherd words that are clarified mid-sentence to mean! Us go to him outside the camp and bear their own sacrifices saying that Christ bore the penalty his! In any scholarly sense sins in him Bible elsewhere says anything different, we told... And burnt offerings, which isn ’ t say you bear the guilt.. Leviticus to respond to your homepage. ” or sick could not remove them Fathers, but first! Be treated as the east is from the sacrifice transfers sin because the burnt was punishment. Of Barnabas, in his commentary on Leviticus a slave owned by a priest that. Latter undergo punishment instead of some strawman that you believe explicitly teach penal Substitution do with! People of Israel guess it can this context is fallen humanity subject to suffering physical! It means you have to carry our cross appear desperate on your to... Reveal they did not notion of penal Substitution explicitly in the Bible seriously by presupposing. Be forgiven as far as the guide book, and the lack of guilt/atonement! Picking an imaginary speck Out of my eye while there is no it... Catholics and Protestants differ upon the use of “ penal language ” is inferred by,. Ramifications of sacrifices and how they forgives sins. Jesus endured was nails! Sin. ”, though innocent, the other, or paraphrasing parts of Isaiah, which shall. Don ; t take offense Chapter 3 not take a text we compelled!