Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

In a recent post where I discussed the Mercy Seat as it relates to Romans 3:25, a Calvinist named Michael objected by saying that I had neglected to address the Scapegoat of Leviticus 16. Because this is an important enough issue, I decided to make a post addressing the Scapegoat, especially because it's one of the (few) Biblical examples that comes anywhere close to teaching the erroneous Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution. 

Thought the Bible gives only a few details about the Scapegoat, I will take a look at them and examine whether they give evidence of Penal Substitution or not. 

"Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

To supplement the last post I made, a commonly abused text that I regularly see Protestants quote when attempting to prove Penal Substitution from Scripture is Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." They interpret this to mean that God cannot forgive unless someone pays the ultimate price for sin, taking your guilt and dies in your place. 

On the surface level, this reading does make sense, but ripped out of context and completely misunderstanding the Levitical Sacrificial system (which I've written about elsewhere), that reading falls immediately flat. In this post I will focus simply on the context and show just how off the mark this Protestant claim is. 

The context here is some of the richest in the Bible, being a place where the old and new testaments (covenants) are compared side-by-side. As you read the following passage, keep in mind that I've replaced the terms used in the ESV with the term "testament" because thats the Greek term (diatheke) used from verse 15 to 20. For whatever reason, many translations are very inconsistent in how they translate "testament" here, mixing in terms like "Will" and "Covenant," which I see as very bad form because Paul was using the same term throughout and clearly wanted people to connect the dots.

15 Therefore [Jesus] is the mediator of a new [testament], so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first [testament]. 16 For where a [testament] is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a [testament] takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it [Greek: testator] is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first [testament] was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the [testament] that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The first thing to notice is that Protestants only quote the second half of 9:22 and ignore the first half, since they don't see how it fits. But what Paul is saying here is that forgiveness of sins is connected to the purifying by blood. The link between blood purifying and sins being forgiven is well established in the Bible (e.g. Heb 9:13-14; 10:29; 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5). This is why Catholics say justification is based upon (or includes) sanctification, rather than something that merely accompanies justification (as Protestants teach). 

The second and more important thing to notice is that the "death" and "blood" mentioned here is not about transferring a punishment, but rather inaugurating a covenant (also called testament). Thus, the language Paul is using here is that of something along the lines of a "Last Will and Testament", distinguishing between the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations.

This is interesting because it sheds a new light on how Christ's death is understood. The analogy given in verses 16-17 is that of a Last Will that a parent writes of how he wants the inheritance to be split up and which goes into effect upon their death, inaugurating a new dispensation of sorts. Clearly this death of a parent doesn't have anything of the nature of Penal Substitution about it, so this strongly suggests that Penal Substitution is not the model which Christ's death patterned after in ushering in the new testament. 

To build immediately on that, verses 18 and following say the old testament was inaugurated in this death/blood fashion, and yet Moses wasn't resorting to Penal Substitution when he inaugurated the old testament (Exodus 24:1-11). Thus, the death/blood of Jesus in patterning after that when instituting the new testament likely wouldn't have had the nature of Penal Substitution either. 

The way I see this, the death inaugurates a new dispensation, which makes sense in a way (e.g. the Resurrection signifies a new way of living and new hope). The sprinkled blood then serves the purpose of consecrating the members for their new life under the covenant (Heb 9:13-14). This death is 'natural' in the sense that, after Adam, suffering became a 'natural' part of life, but it carries with it a bitterness and 'sting' since we all know suffering and death is not enjoyable. In becoming man, Jesus both made Himself subject to natural suffering and natural death (mortality), and in getting circumcised put Himself under the Mosaic Testament and made Himself subject to suffering and death at the hands of the Jews. This suffering in virtue of the Incarnation addressed in a 'medicinal' way (e.g. destroying death) the global sin-death problem, while the suffering under the Mosaic Testament addressed the violated covenant problem the Jews found themselves in (Heb 9:15) that was in a sense stalling God's promise to Abraham from being fulfilled in reaching the Gentiles (Gal 3:13-14). There's probably more that could be explored here, so I definitely have some pondering to do.

Why is "Mercy Seat" mentioned in Romans 3:25? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

I've been wanting to write about Romans 3:25 for a year or two now, but I never got around to it. I think it actually contains an interesting nugget that strongly goes against Penal Substitution, so it's definitely worth exploring. What recently got my interest was that a Calvinist lady I was talking to online had kept bringing up Romans 3:25 and I just found out another Calvinist that often posts here has written up his own article on Romans 3:25 in support of Penal Substitution. So I take this as a sign that I need to talk about it too! 

Christians & Colleges: What your parents and teachers don't tell you, and what could cost you dearly.

Now that the school year is over for many high school seniors, their next big move is to decide which college (if any) they should attend. Unfortunately, there is a lot of ignorance and deception with regards to finding the right college, and these poor kids are led like sheep to the slaughter by those closest to them, namely their teachers and even their own parents. As someone who sees the light on this matter, I think it's my duty to warn others, and hopefully help many from going down the path of serious suffering. 

Many might think that I'm going to talk about the moral depravity going on inside and outside the classrooms of almost all of these institutions of higher learning, but I'm going to address a most pernicious issue that even many of the good Christian institutions (both Catholic and Protestant) are caught up in. 

The problem I'm going to talk about here is the issue of tuition. Everyone knows deep down there is a problem, but most don't think twice about it. Simply stated, the great majority of college students leave college (with or without a degree) saddled with massive debts, and I think something is very wrong with this picture. The matter is principally one of sheer greed on the part of colleges, with the generally gullible and misinformed "guidance" of high school counselors, teachers, and parents. 

A parent, teacher, or counselor who is truly concerned about the well being of an 18 year old child would never suggest the child put themselves in a position to be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of crippling debts. Obviously, that's a very unchristian thing to do, but tens of thousands of these 'role models' effectively send tens of thousands of these children to sign away their freedom.

To get to the heart of the problem, people need to realize that the great majority of colleges follow a business model, meaning the primary goal of the college is to make a profit, with the secondary goal being to educate. This already means that the very notion of college has been effectively corrupted, since the well being of the person is subordinated to the profit making motives of the institution. This is nowhere more plain than when it comes to the sickening issue of "financial aid." 

The term "financial aid" is very innocent sounding, giving the impression that the less well off should be equally entitled to an education as the rich folks. But that's not what "financial aid" is nor has been for quite a while. Consider the fact a majority of students at most colleges have to rely on financial aid and loans. What this translates into is that the school knows it can charge an outrageous sum of money for tuition, and the government will pick up the tab, with the student being saddled with loans for the remainder of the cost. This isn't an exception, it's the norm, and it's happening on even the most reputable Catholic colleges. Common sense should tell anyone that if a college's primary income is based on "financial aid," then something about the tuition costs is not right.

I think the tuition for a single year at a typical college should be around $10,000. Of course, that sounds unrealistic to most people, but if you stop and think about it, that's a very reasonable number. This amount minimizes the need for loans, minimizes debts, and still gives the college a decent income to cover expenses. Plus, it makes it more reasonable and realistic to pay off any loans if all the student can find is a minimum wage job. Sadly, even good Catholic places like Franciscan University of Steubenville charge around $30,000 per year (including room and board), which means most students will be forced to rely on financial aid and leave school with many thousands of dollars in debt.

So what's the right approach? I think the first thing that all these kids need to know is that getting into massive debt isn't smart and that there are reasonable alternatives. These kids deserve to be warned about that rather than being given the impression they shouldn't worry about going in debt. They need to know that it's perfectly fine to start off at a community college and attend college close to home (so as to at least minimize room and board expenses). They need to know that it's not acceptable to feed into these greedy institutions or turn to financial aid as a primary means of paying for such things. And Catholics in general need to be aware that even most Catholic colleges are greed based institutions, and this greed feeds into the overall lessening of Catholic values as a result.

I don't care how Catholic a college claims to be, if they're saddling students with massive debts, they've failed their duty and are acting in a very unchristian manner. The madness needs to stop.

Did Jesus drink the Cup of God's Wrath in our place? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

This article is going to be a quickie. We all know the account of Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46), where Jesus prays, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." In order to support their erroneous doctrine of Penal Substitution, many Protestants have incorrectly assumed that this "cup" must be the 'cup of God's wrath' spoken about a few times in the Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah and Jeremiah (e.g. Jer 25:15). But this is easily disproved. 

The key text to look to is Mark 10:38-39, 

37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

This is the time when James and John request to be honored by sitting at the Lord's right and left in the Kingdom. Jesus responds by saying that this is no small honor, and in fact it comes at a hefty price. Jesus asks them if they will be able to drink the same cup and undergo the same baptism He is about to undergo. This is undoubtedly the same "cup" of Gethsemane. But what Jesus says completely undermines the Penal Substitution reading, since Jesus isn't drinking it in their place, but rather inviting them to drink it as well! The only acceptable reading is that this "cup" is physical persecutions that God's servants must endure, which explains why the Apostles were martyred. Thus, the 'cup of God's wrath in our place' thesis is instantly and elegantly disproved.

There's no way this "cup" could be the Eucharistic cup, and there's no way to read this as Jesus draining the wrath from the cup so that it can be drunk like sweet wine, since both of these require no heroic or challenge about them. (I've actually had Protestants make these kinds of claims.) This is further supported by the fact Jesus speaks of a "baptism" He will endure, which cannot be a water baptism since that already happened. Only the most desperate folks will deny the "cup" and "baptism" here refer to the same thing, physical persecutions.

And even with all that said, the "cup of God's wrath" in the Old Testament was that of physical persecutions as well, and Jeremiah 49:12 gives an interesting insight on the matter: "If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink." This text shows that surrounding nations who were not deserving of the conquering armies had to suffer at their hands, and this corresponds to the fact sometimes God sends sweeping judgments across areas that sometimes include innocent people. The point isn't that these innocent people were taking wrath in place of the guilty, but rather along with. So in this sense, we could also say that Jesus suffered along with us in virtue of His humanity, without suggesting it was in place of us. And the Bible is very clear that Christians suffer for the kingdom, they're not exempt! 

 

I've never been sure how Protestantism can address the fact that if Jesus suffered and died for us that we still have to suffer and die. That apparently disproves PSub in itself.