What is Substitution? Rethinking Sacrifice: Covenant vs. Purification Frameworks

In this week’s episode of Genesis Marks the Spot, I proposed a clarifying distinction that we will continue to explore in future episodes:  covenantal blood‑sacrifice operates differently than purification sacrifice.  But…modern evangelical Christian discourse collapses both under the term “substitution,” and what they really mean is “replacement.”  I believe this does real theological damage, and is simply an over conflation of data to boot.  And no one likes an overconflation of data, do they??  (Gary Wayne, you can keep sitting down.) 

Now, there’s a reason for that over conflation, for sure.  When you have the same figurative element involved (blood/sacrificial meal), then, well, what do you expect? 

We’re going to work to dismantle that confusion.  We might make it more complicated as we go, but if we have to nuance our views, then…that’s exactly what we should do.

Warning….this blog post doesn’t come with a solid conclusion.  I want you to consider some things and we’ll build on this in future posts.  (I’ll try to remember to come back here to link them in order.)

Covenant Framework: Representation, Not Replacement

Ancient covenant rituals, such as those from Iron‑Age Assyria (and possibly in Genesis 15), used animal sacrifice not to erase sin but to dramatically represent consequence due covenant‑breakers.  We might think of the animal as a token in a board game, standing in symbolic solidarity with the person, not taking their place.  The potential covenant-breaker is not having the animal substitute him, like, whew, thank goodness I got away with that!  It's a ritual enactment--a warning, not a law.  This is participation-representation, not substitution-replacement.  The person who is being represented remains fully accountable.  

(Plus…in a covenant ceremony, there’s no past deeds or even necessarily future deeds that are being drawn upon necessarily.  And we should not overlook the fact that the sacrifice wasn’t about torture of the animals, but rather to provide a meal.)

In contrast to the above view, evangelical usage of “substitution” often conjures penal substitutionary atonement (PSA): Christ takes our punishment, appeases divine wrath, and absolves the sinner--essentially we’ve got a theological bailout going on in this view.

Purification Framework: Ritual Cleansing vs. Covenantal Witness

Okay, so all that is about covenant ritual; that's a distinct type of ritual and use of sacrifice.  

Rituals tied to purification (Levitical sacrifices for ritual impurity) are about restoring access to sacred space, not judicial consequences.  These evolved along a separate track from covenant rituals.  Now, in Christ, both covenant and purification are active--not merged, but layered.

So that’s where the difficulty comes in.  When you have a symbol that does dual duty, how do you separate the meanings and intent?

Is PSA Part of an “Atonement Mosaic”?

Well, I’m not answering this question fully in this blog post, but it’s our question before us.  Can we still say that PSA is “part” of the atonement?

I’m going to share a blog post from the late Dr. Michael Heiser where he addresses PSA and says he “believes in” it.  Now, fair enough…we need to take someone’s words as they seem to mean it, and since we can’t even discuss this with Dr. Heiser here anymore, we’ll accept that that’s what he said.  But we'll take his comments and move forward with it as if we have an imagined conversation partner, because I know people who will say very similar things in similar ways and who believe that Dr. Heiser affirmed PSA (I mean, he says that he does!....so he did.....right?...).

If you guys know me, you know I’m all about context and concept.  If PSA is basically defined a certain way……and you actually go and change all the elements in that definition, then guess what?...

…You no longer have the same concept.

Here’s Dr. Heiser’s blog post:  Some Random Thoughts About Substitutionary Atonement - Dr. Michael Heiser 

This particular post by Dr. Heiser is in response to guest posts that Dr. Ronn Johnson had written called The Big Story of the Bible.  I know many people who’ve had their minds blown in reading Dr. Johnson’s work in those blog posts.  Indeed, I count myself in that group.  They are a great set of posts that are packed with data and challenge some common evangelical theological threads.

Dr. Heiser says:

I believe in the concept of penal substitution, but I’m going to question that terminology a bit below. I believe in it if what is meant is that “we have redemption through his blood” (i.e., that the cross event was about our redemption, saving us from a fate that we could otherwise not avoid). In that regard I consider the atonement more than an example and not a ransom to be paid to Satan. However, I think the other views of the atonement make some contributions. We either “have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12) or not. Those verses seem quite clear to me. 

Of course, in these passages mentioned, we have some work to look at the terms and meaning of the author there.  What is “redemption”?  How is it secured?  What does blood do?

For those who haven’t heard of it, I’ll recommend the book Lamb of the Free by Andrew Rillera.  I don’t agree with everything he says (and I’ll be discussing things from his book in the future), but it’s a much-needed book for this conversation.  Also, I can point you to my conversations with Spencer Owen which I think will be very helpful to you.

Dr. Heiser in his post doesn’t touch--at all--on purification.  That’s a crucial part of this.  People talk about “redemption” as if it’s a price, a debt, a payment, etc.  But we are missing an absolutely crucial piece of the puzzle if we don’t understand purification and, as I said, if we conflate terminology and figurative imagery (blood) unhelpfully.  

But “penal” implies a punishment, and “substitution” implies taking a punishment on our behalf. If the death of Christ on our behalf wasn’t really about giving God a substitute on which to pour out his wrath (this is what Dr. Johnson is beginning to focus on), then “substitution” likely isn’t the right word. Again, to repeat, I think Christ did die for our sake, but how to describe how that worked may require language other than “penal” and “substitution.” For certain the subject of penal substitutionary atonement has been articulated carelessly in evangelicalism. This is (for me) the chief value in Dr. Johnson’s series. For now I’ll go with the traditional nomenclature.

Okay, so Dr. Heiser is keeping with the “traditional nomenclature.”  And he does.  But you see he’s challenging all the pieces.  And…as I said, we cannot take covenantal work and purification work as if they are the same thing, even though they might use the same emblem.  

With every passage used that calls to Christ’s work, we need to ask:  

1. Is this calling up sacrifice? 
   
   
2. If so, what kind of sacrifice? 
   
   
3. In that sacrifice, what is going on? 
   
   
4. What is the purpose? 
   
   
5. What do the elements symbolize?

What about Passover?

In his blog post, Dr. Heiser brings in the Passover, but again...he doesn’t bring in any conversation about purification.  And no word about covenant, either.  And I'm just stating that to say that we need to bring both of those fully into the discussion here.

Where does Passover fit into the classification of sacrifice?  Hard question. 

When it comes to the biblical text, this is something we might be frustrated about when we see that the NT authors do seem to be conflating some things.  (Darn, I just said we weren’t supposed to do that, didn’t I?)  There’s no wrath in the passages in Hebrews 9 or Ephesians 1.  The term “redemption” does call up the exodus, though (which, yes, does have wrath against the Egyptians...but, importantly, not towards the Israelites).  The passages are also calling up that good ol' Leviticus purification frame.  

The Passover is another use of blood that may align with covenant or may align with purification or may be doing its own thing…..but this is why we need to be careful and not overstate our case!  

Here’s our final important question to consider today:

Are the NT authors calling up the Assyrian covenantal framework of warning-representation?  

• The NT authors do seem to be calling up a marriage between Leviticus (purification) and Passover (category-still-to-be-determined).  (Should this surprise us?  Jesus died in association with the Passover, but it's also clear that NT authors loop in Day of Atonement language to Jesus' work, as well.)
  
  
• Passover may have something to do with a warning-representation, possibly…but it’s strange.  The people in the house who had the blood on the doorposts were spared.  ...That vs. the vassal who broke loyalty with the Assyrian king who wouldn't have gotten off scott-free like that. 

"Don't worry, just get me another lamb dinner and we'll call it square," --said no Assyrian king, ever.

Of course the Exodus has many dates assigned to it, and it seems likely that the Exodus happened during the Late Bronze Age, not the Iron Age.  That may or may not make a difference in how we understand what’s going on in the Passover. 

Honestly, I’m still working through a lot of thoughts about what was going on during that event, at any rate, so even if I wanted to land the plane, I’m not ready to do so.  What I’m doing is pointing out some distinct elements to consider that I think aren’t addressed adequately in the conversation as it tends to stand.  We must seat the sacrificial system in all its pieces in its ancient context.  That doesn't mean that there aren't unique elements or that there are always exact parallels, but if you want to make the case that sacrifice and substitution have everything to do with God's wrath--well, let's see the work to build that.  Mere mentions of blood in a text won't cut it, sorry.

As for whether or not PSA is part of the “atonement mosaic,”…that’s harder to defend once the concept as a whole starts to get dismantled.

But I’m leaving the conversation for now, and you can look forward to more.  Please let me know in the comments or by messaging me directly if you’ve got any thoughts to add!  (And, truth to be told, I’m not sure I get notified when I get comments, so if you leave one and I don’t respond, it’s likely because I didn’t see it and you can contact me directly.)