Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[SolusChristus]

There was a recent book released called, "Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus' Death" by Andrew Remington Rillera.

I have not read the book, but I've seen it pop up online and in certain circles. In the book, Rillera attacks Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and argues that PSA was not inherent in the OT cultic system. For example, he argues, "neither death nor suffering nor punishment of the animal has any place in the sacrificial system."

Does anyone know of any critical interaction with this book?

 

[mpinckard]

I know nothing of this book, but the statement you quoted has me scratching my head. I can understand the argument regarding the suffering of the animal not being part of the sacrificial system, since the animals were simply killed, not tortured or anything. Saying that punishment of the animal has no place is a bit question-begging. But what could he possibly mean by saying that the death of the animal has no place in the sacrificial system?

 

[arapahoepark]

Nothing specific. I'll have to take a look but Leon Morris should address the broad claim.

 

[SolusChristus]

I know nothing of this book, but the statement you quoted has me scratching my head. I can understand the argument regarding the suffering of the animal not being part of the sacrificial system, since the animals were simply killed, not tortured or anything. Saying that punishment of the animal has no place is a bit question-begging. But what could he possibly mean by saying that the death of the animal has no place in the sacrificial system?

I'm not entirely sure since I've not read the book but according to AI, here are some of the arguments he gives:

• Sins Requiring Capital Punishment: Rillera notes that for sins in the Mosaic Law that required capital punishment or being "cut off" from the community, no animal sacrifice could rectify the situation. This suggests that sacrifices were not meant to be a substitute for the punishment of death.
  
  
• Animal Suffering: The sacrificial system was not about the animal's suffering. Rillera argues that to maltreat the animal would have rendered it ineligible to be offered to God, as it would no longer be "without blemish." The death was quick and humane, and the ritual itself reconceptualizes the event away from the concept of a "death."
  
  
• Purpose of Blood: According to Rillera, the blood of the animal was not a substitute for human blood. Instead, human blood was considered to defile the altar, while the animal's blood functioned to purify it. He argues that sacrifice is based on life, not death, and the blood represents the life that is offered as a gift to God.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[automerge]1755116094[/automerge]

Nothing specific. I'll have to take a look but Leon Morris should address the broad claim.

Which Leon Morris book are you referring to?

 

[paranymph]

Not a fan of Leithart (Federal Vision), but:

Lamb of the Free

A critique of Andrew Rillera's book on atonement

peterleithart.substack.com

Derek Rishmawy (@DZRishmawy on X) recommends Bobby Jamieson's Jesus' Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews. Rishmawy has been posting various resources on atonement, though of course there's no book that's going to respond directly to it right now.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm not entirely sure since I've not read the book but according to AI, here are some of the arguments he gives:

• Sins Requiring Capital Punishment: Rillera notes that for sins in the Mosaic Law that required capital punishment or being "cut off" from the community, no animal sacrifice could rectify the situation. This suggests that sacrifices were not meant to be a substitute for the punishment of death.
  
  
• Animal Suffering: The sacrificial system was not about the animal's suffering. Rillera argues that to maltreat the animal would have rendered it ineligible to be offered to God, as it would no longer be "without blemish." The death was quick and humane, and the ritual itself reconceptualizes the event away from the concept of a "death."
  
  
• Purpose of Blood: According to Rillera, the blood of the animal was not a substitute for human blood. Instead, human blood was considered to defile the altar, while the animal's blood functioned to purify it. He argues that sacrifice is based on life, not death, and the blood represents the life that is offered as a gift to God.
  
  
  
  
  
  

[automerge]1755116094[/automerge]


Which Leon Morris book are you referring to?

Apostolic preaching of the Christ.

 

[MW]

But what could he possibly mean by saying that the death of the animal has no place in the sacrificial system?

I haven't read the book but some of the older challenges to PSA argued that the sacrifice was more about "life" than "death." That is, the blood is offered as a token of a life of obedience. Death itself and the carcass of the animal is the aftermath of the sacrifice. That is their argument. It has been answered a thousand times but people like their echo chambers. In the traditional view death is not incidental; it is essential. I think your question reflects our natural intuitive reading of the Scriptures. How can death be meaningless? It is absurd to cast it aside.

 

[John Nyberg]

It’s interesting how Isaiah 53 must be ignored or explained away by both Jews and Christian opponents of PSA. Yet for those who have ears to hear, the whole of scripture is filled with the beautiful promises of Christ’s atoning death.

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

 

[mpinckard]

Purpose of Blood: According to Rillera, the blood of the animal was not a substitute for human blood. Instead, human blood was considered to defile the altar, while the animal's blood functioned to purify it. He argues that sacrifice is based on life, not death, and the blood represents the life that is offered as a gift to God.

I haven't read the book but some of the older challenges to PSA argued that the sacrifice was more about "life" than "death." That is, the blood is offered as a token of a life of obedience. Death itself and the carcass of the animal is the aftermath of the sacrifice. That is their argument. It has been answered a thousand times but people like their echo chambers. In the traditional view death is not incidental; it is essential. I think your question reflects our natural intuitive reading of the Scriptures. How can death be meaningless? It is absurd to cast it aside.

Thanks for the summaries. I suppose I can understand the sort of logic that would get someone to that position, but those are some pressure logical contortions, and I don't find the idea to be any less silly than I did before.