Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 14

[chuckd]

Q. Can any mere creature pay for us?

A. No. In the first place, God will not punish another creature for the sin which man has committed. Furthermore, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin and deliver others from it.

I found this odd. In some sense, some of the sacrifices (particularly animals) were punished for the sin which man had committed, correct? They died.

 

[Ploutos]

Animal sacrifices were typological, not propitiatory.

 

[MyCrows]

The sacrificing of the animals served as a pointer, an indicator if you would. They pointed to the one who would come and bear God's wrath against sin. They were only shadows of the substance that is found in Christ.

 

[chuckd]

Animal sacrifices were typological, not propitiatory.

Yes, but even where that is spelled out in Hebrews, the author still uses the language that the sacrifices were offered for sin (e.g. Heb. 7:27), albeit by types and shadows. I feel like the answer could have said that creaturely punishment was not sufficient. Not that God didn't do it at all.

 

[Pomopu]

Yes, but even where that is spelled out in Hebrews, the author still uses the language that the sacrifices were offered for sin (e.g. Heb. 7:27), albeit by types and shadows. I feel like the answer could have said that creaturely punishment was not sufficient. Not that God didn't do it at all.

It doesn't say he "has not," only that he "will not."

But besides, as noted, the death of a creature has never done a single thing to deal with sin. Nothing meritorious. Not a jot, tittle, not an ounce of any wrongdoing has been remitted except by the death of Christ. The death of cursed creatures? Since all are cursed since the fall? Worthless. Mere pointers.

 

[py3ak]

I found this odd. In some sense, some of the sacrifices (particularly animals) were punished for the sin which man had committed, correct? They died.

The wrath of God was not poured out on the animals. Although they are also subject to vanity because of man's sin, they are not the objects of vengeance.

Yes, but even where that is spelled out in Hebrews, the author still uses the language that the sacrifices were offered for sin (e.g. Heb. 7:27), albeit by types and shadows. I feel like the answer could have said that creaturely punishment was not sufficient. Not that God didn't do it at all.

As so often, the answer is found by continuing to read. Hebrews 9:13-14 especially explain what sort of validity animal sacrifices had, and it was in the symbolic sphere.