Episode #327 - Lamb of the Free with Dr. Andrew Rillera

Welcome to the Two Cities Podcast, a podcast about theology, culture and discipleship, and this is episode 327. In this episode we're talking about Lamb of the Three with Dr. Andrew Valera. Dr. Andrew Valera is assistant professor of Biblical studies and theology and at the King's University in Edmonton, Alberta. And he's the author of the book that we're discussing in this episode Lamb of the Three, recovering the very sacrificial understandings of Joneses that published by Gascade. Team members on the episode from the Two Cities include the Reverend Dr. Nathaniel Edition, Reverend Daniel Parham, Dr. Logan Williams, and me, Dr. John Anthony Dunn. So this conversation with Dr. Valera was super interesting, his book is fascinating. We talk about the sacrificial system and the temple cult of ancient Israel in Hebrew Bible Old Testament texts and how that relates to the New Testament. Lots of ground is covered. What were some of the takeaways that you all had from this conversation? It was a really fascinating conversation on an issue that I think is worthy of reflection. The vice favorite part of today's discussion actually comes at the end when Andrew starts to connect why this why thinking about this right is important for the local church. Yeah, it is a great podcast to talk about the kind of implications and give us some of the details of Andrew's book. I really found this book really helpful in refreshing and challenging. Of course, my favorite part was when Andrew conceded that me and Paul Sloan were right about something and he was wrong. So now I'm joking. But no, it's a great conversation. So here that's look forward to. I also appreciated the pieces where Andrew pushes us against a conflation of what what that sacrificial conversation is and it does not diminish wherever position you fall on. It does not diminish that Christ death accomplished something. And it is purposeful and still hinges and arcs on the gospel that even across differences in articulation. The gospel is still fundamentally core at the death of Jesus. And so what do we do with the language, the semantics of that. You know, I appreciate the fact that he's willing to seem like he's on the ledge theologically with so many people but is able to articulate that I think succinctly and allows us to ponder on it. So I appreciate it in that conversation. And if you haven't already, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review. You can also follow us on Facebook, X, Instagram, or visit us at our website at thetoocities.com. And with that, here's our conversation with Dr. Andrew Valera. Dr. Valera, thanks so much for joining us. And of course, thanks for inviting me. Glad we finally were able to make this work. It has been a bit, but we're so excited to talk about your book Lamb of the free recovering the varied sacrificial understandings of Jesus's death. Of course, you know, there's a lot going on in this book, but you just tell us kind of in a nutshell what your thesis is, what you're setting out to do. Sure, yeah, so I'm trying to first overview the libidical sacrificial system for lack of better term, trying to, you know, you can do on to everything, but just the canonical picture of the sacrificial system goes beyond the bit of kiss, but we'll use that for now. And outlining the various functions and types of sacrifices. As well as how the purity system works in tandem with it so that for the main purpose of so as I part one of the book. So that we can I can sufficiently understand analyze when sacrificial or purity imagery is being used by New Testament authors to for them to interpret the meaning of Jesus death primarily. But as we go through in the book like his life is the resurrection is the sentient and things like that come in come in. But so the goal of analyzing, I mean, the goal is to understand the New Testament authors. Understanding of Jesus in terms of sacrificial imagery and or and or purification imagery, so that is just to be clear to other to the audience. That doesn't mean I'm dealing with Jesus death per se in the New Testament. There's going to be other metaphors imagery like things used to understand and allume in the meaning the saving significance of Jesus death. I am primarily focused on the sacrificial and ritual, a pure ritual parody, understandings and significance of Jesus. But I do touch on at the end passages that the reason I deal with them is they're not about sacrifice, but they often are taken to be and I argued why they're not. So there is a little bit outside of the sacrificial realm, but yes, so the main point is to understand when the New Testament authors are using sacrificial imagery and and related things to understand the meaning of Jesus. Well, on that point, could you actually explain for us what do you mean by sacrificial? What do I mean? I don't know I've heard this book too long ago and now no, so I mean when when the New Testament authors are activating a specific sacrifice we find in in the Torah. So are they using a well being sacrifice? I don't know if we'll get into the nuances of the settlement, but in a toning sacrifice, are they talking about Jesus in terms of ritual purification and how it's related to the sacrificial system. So sacrifice as we find is in the books of the Torah, specifically the levitical system, not the pre levitical sacrifices we might find there. I don't know if that that sufficiently answers your question, but yeah. Well, I think I mean in the sense that like so some of our listeners will probably come in hearing well, sacrifice is about animals dying. So what do you mean by sacrifice because you have you're probably operating with a probably different broader adjacent kind of definition and of course it's as you point out in your book like there isn't actually one word for all the things that we kind of classify under sacrifices. Like sometimes it's a chateau, sometimes it's saivach, right, but saivach doesn't always apply to chateau, right? So like, how do we how do we have a category of talking about sacrifice just for the conversation going forward when you say sacrificial like what is encompassed within sacrifice that category. So yeah, I was trying to just do a broad scope like what we find in Leviticus and so what do we find in Leviticus, what's happening in when they are offering a sacrifice primarily as two being functions, but what is happening is, and I'm not sure if I make it this clear when I wrote it. However, that all David Moffitt, I think, makes is really clear where what's happening in the sacrifices you're bringing something from the realm of the common and you're bringing it into proximity to God's space so it's becoming sacred. It's crossing the boundary from common to sacred to holy. And so it's and it's generally I'm a gift, it's a gift. I think that broadly applies to the to the atoning ones, although it's it's more of an umbrella, it's not you're not typically offering gifts there because it has a different function, but but it's you're you're bringing something from within the realm of the common and bringing it into it's becoming sanctified so it could be in God's presence. And that has about what is the function of what it's doing in God's sanctuary. There's different functions so is it there to be festive and celebratory and Thanksgiving or praise or whatever or is it there to function as some sort of pregation. But what's definitely I don't think, what's definitely what I argue is definitely ruled out is you're not bringing death into the presence of God. The ritual apparatus of what's happening in the vidicus is you are you are bringing life into God's presence and that has different functions, depending on the specific blood manipulations is where the blood rituals going on and where it's place and and how it's splashed or dashed or dabbed or whatever. those have different But because of the correlation of the purity system and how that is not the same, but it coordinates with the holiness spectrum. You can't have something that's impure in in holy and sacred space or or touching sacred object. But if as I argue, I think the purity system is indicating something to do with human mortality or finitude, beginnings and endings. And so one of the major, like the most potent form of ritual and purity is death. And so that's like the last thing that bars access to sacred space and sacred things. And so the last thing you want to bring into sacred space is death. So there's the ritual function of what's happening with the sacrificial animal. I mean, also get the note for audience members who may not be familiar. You're also sometimes bringing like vegetables or grain and sacrifice and things. So so you're not it's not only ever animal like mammal stuff and blood going on. But you're definitely what so when it does have to do with the mammal, though, with an animal, the function of the ritual is to translate it from being an obvious biological death. But you're they don't conceive of themselves and bringing death into the sanctuary. And that's part of the function of the rituals is you're transforming it from a an obvious death into a sacred gift of life into God's presence. And that will have different functions, depending on the sacrifice. We'll do more about in your research and conclusions, how much the materiality of body played into how you're describing these theological concepts between animal sacrifice and the bodily sacrifice of Christ. Like what were kind of your founding definitions of body that played into your thought process. That's a good question. I actually didn't focus on like theory of a body or things like that. I'm because again, the target like it. Probably something to be explored there and I'm sure there's things to be to be learned and and gleam, but in my immediate kind of focus and trying to to limit the project and scope. It's not immediately clear to me how that would impact the the like I haven't said this yet here, but it's pretty clear. I think by now people who might be aware of the book somewhat, I don't think that would. One of one of my secondary purposes of the book is to expose the I think the overall fallaciousness of phenol substitutionary told me and so. I'm sure there could be positive like interpretive gain like what's going on like more debt going on had I focused on you know theory of body and things like that. Like more specifically so I just want to be clear haven't dealt into that. However, I'm not sure that that would like. Do anything to salvage say penal substitutionary tellment or something like that makes sense. So I, however implicitly when I talk about I do think. Body matters a lot. So I talk about the resurrection. As it has the fact that Jesus resurrection body is no longer a mortal body no longer susceptible to death and therefore everything below death as in ritual impurity. Logan your podcast with Paul Sloan highlights this really well that part of the incarnation and obviously Jesus famously dies. Therefore, he has a body Jesus famously crucified yet you know that one. Although I don't like I don't want to pretend like I know more about theory of body stuff that I do because I don't. However, thinking about the bodily implications of not just incarnation of being susceptible to death as Paul says in the likeness of sinful flesh and mortal flesh of Jesus takes on. It's the the resurrection in line of my study and other people seen this as Elizabeth strabling others and David Moffitt. The resurrection takes on it a a a an all not an alternative sorry an additional significance as it's it's a it's a it's a body that is now fully purified and impervious I would say to to impurity to because it's it's indestructible. It's no longer the kind of body that that is subject to all those impurities and pollutants and what not. Therefore, it can be in sacred space and also be in sacred space but according to Hebrews purge the the temple the temple either in the heaven or the temple which is the heavens or people want to take that and that this is this is the the ultimate purgative effect of Jesus's life. As embodied in a resurrected immortal imperishable now I'm a lighting I'm combining some some verses here but some passages but but Paul a body of spirit. A pneumatic body that is indestructible so body definitely matters on both ends the incarnation and what Christ is doing and then baptism in the spirit. I believe it is activated as ministry and able to purge all kinds and heat all impurities people from the sources of their impurities ultimately even from death and even covenant death and then being purified in a resurrected body that is not just capable of being as as he was going beyond the veil the veil flesh but also purging it and sanctifying us as well as as as priest. This priest co co high priest as I argue my Hebrews chapter so body matters and and definitely is a is a valid question and line of inquiry that hope folks take up more and definitely check out those beside leads article and see what other cool things can be added to this to the these lines of inquiry. Thanks for that Andrew you brought a penal substitutionary atonement and I'm not a biblical scholar I'm sort of more philosophical political theologian from the 16th century on so I don't really know the answer to this and I'd love to hear what you have to say about this particular question. From the outside it looks like a rejection of penal substitutionary atonement could be in a very violent way anti Jewish and again me not being a biblical scholar what what I see is you have all these sort of sacrifice narratives. Sacrifice commands and Leviticus where something's being substituted for something else there's some sort of substitution between parabis and Jesus can use can you speak to that objection that substitutionary atonement somehow undermining the teachings of the old test little bit of teachings of the Old Testament and that it might be considered anti Jewish. So I mean I just just the opposite I think my book is upholding like it is showing a very Jewish Jesus who uphold the and still believes of sacrifices function for what the tourists as they function for. So for instance when he heals someone with with lepra often translate leprosy I don't want to get into that's a different whole thing but major source of ritual in parody that does not resolve with simply a nip a dip you know ritual washing and sundown this one requires several stages of purification that culminates in any and a couple different sacrifices one of which is a is a purification is in the toning sacrifice. And after Jesus heals this person from their sort like so brings them to one stage of purity Leviticus calls uses language of purity at purification of each each stage there appear once they're once the the the ailments ceases and then they deal a couple things in their period and I can outline all that in the book. Jesus tells them all right go show yourself to the priests and do everything Moses commanded you to do so and that's a big deal for me in in the book that Jesus is functioning within the protocols of ritual and moral impurity which I'll leave undefined for now and that it's precisely by attending to what sacrifices are our form what they're what they're not that allows us I think they have a deeper understanding of a very Jewish Jesus. And that he even in Matthew we'll talk about like the altar like he got dwelling in the temple there and and and I forget the chapters of Matthew 20 or 21 or somewhere in there and and the altar sanctifying whatever it touches and things like that these are all principles directly from Exodus and so I I think Jesus is very much like my argument is this. Is establishing Jesus is consistent with the Leviticus system and all that sourcing however he does not think so. Sacrifices accomplish everything. It's not the be all end all forgiveness or anything like that. And this is clear as I argue in the book, even within the Torah itself. There's built in limitations about what can be remediated through sacrificial remedies and/or ritual protocols. Now, when it comes to bravest though, which is related, I guess, kind of separate question, I don't think this is. I don't think it's a mistake to construed Jesus as taking bravest place. For one, I think it's like bravest in the Son of the Father in Bermek. And I think there's meant to be whether historical or not a presentation of two different Jesuses, two different Messiah, two different sons of the Father of the world, which type are the people picking. However, but when we think about it in terms of, like, is this a substitute for any death? Well, both are condemned at the time. Both are condemned, readers of the New Testament are the authors, like, they're obviously biased, they don't think Jesus is condemned justly. It's innocent, but they're both condemned to crucifixion for inciting insurrection. And so, releasing one or the other is not a substitution. It just means one gets to get out of jail, free cart. Right? So, it would be a substitution if it was kind of like the Hunger Games. Like, bravest is about to be preyed and off to be crucified. And Jesus is like, "Hold up, I volunteer to tribute." You know, take me and say that's not what's going on. He pilots just kind of like, all right, crowds are here, it's Passover. People are going nuts, they've got the chief priests and everyone was bringing down the temperature and says, all right, who do you want to release them? And they choose, the crowds choose bravest. So, again, it's not Jesus substituting for a bravest. They're both about to be crucified and just one gets off. And I think really, like, in the story that the pressure's on, seeing how bravest is the kind of guy many people wanted and expected in a mis-sianic figure. Violent insurrection against Rome, and they got what they wanted. They not only get bravest, but readers of the Gospels know that that is exactly the kind of thing that then happens, and they revolt. And then as Josephus testifies hundreds or crucified around Jerusalem, or hundreds of day. But, however, again, historical records, numbers are, there was definitely a bunch of crucifixions going on in and around the city because of people like Bravis that the people wanted. And I think in the story, it functions more as that sort of choice, the choice of the crowds. What kind of Messiah are you wanting? Do you want to Bravis Messiah or Jesus of Nazareth? And I think Jesus being contrite is innocent. There has to do with not putting blame on the Jews for say, I say in the book, but a matter of the Odyssey. If Jesus really is a Messiah, how come the temple's destroyed? Like, that doesn't. The one thing the Messiah is the son of David was supposed to do is to be a builder of the temple, like Solomon and his disciples should purify it, and nothing else be a better macabien, and preserve the temple and re-consecrate it, and stay off disaster. But that doesn't happen with Jesus, the temple's destroyed. So that even goes along with my argument that Jesus isn't being construed as a substitution for Jerusalem either. It's ineffective in that sense, because he's an unsuccessful macabien as it were. He does not keep the temple from being destroyed. And that's, I think, in Matthew, it has more to do with the Odyssey, because if Jesus is innocent, if it's innocent blood, it's a murder. Well, then that's one of the things that is from the destruction of the first temple. It's because of the shedding of innocent blood. This is one of the things that cannot be a ton for. So it's Jesus' murder becomes a final nail in the coffin to all the moral impurity that Jesus and John the Baptist are calling out in the people. And I think it's less about, say, like a retributive. So, actually, I have an article coming more than likely coming out. It's provisionally accepted by a journal that I won't name yet on Luke dealing with exactly this and the cup there that Jesus takes and how his death is in solidarity with the death of Jerusalem and all that. But it's not a substitution, either for Bravis or for the temple or for Jerusalem, because they both get destroyed, but they both undergo this. Covenant cursed solidarities, what I call it, in lamb of the frame. So, although I have problems with penal substituatory atonement, it's more of a framework. I actually, and this is people. I know when people read my book, when they think I have a. Like, did they get me on the gotcha? This isn't you, I'll just meet for audience with like, oh, but what about Wrath or something like that? Am I, yeah, I'm all there. Oh my god, Jesus is in full solidarity with the covenant curses, which are Wrath, which are, you know, as, you know, I have no problem with the penal side per se, as long as it's construed within the covenant framework. But Jesus is dying in curse solidarity with the people. It's just, you know, I put it on analogy to him contacting, say, you know, the woman with the flow, it's this touch that happens that affects the healing or the purification of Jesus' contacts with death as death, and not just any old death, but death as covenant death. And how the crucifixion, the gospel's narrate as a, as in solid there, it's like the destruction, the destruction of the temple in new chairs where it's that contact that then he's resurrected from, that is the salvation. So I have no problem with. And in fact, not just no problem, I believe the gospel present Jesus is dying in a covenant curse death, in solidarity with what's about to happen. In a couple generations, but then in a larger framework, that's just that's covenant curse. That's that's covenant death. And those curses of the covenant, I believe, are anchored into just the curse that everyone's under, according to the apostle Paul as he makes it clear. Like the whole world's under condemnation of curse, right? So if Jesus is dying in covenant curse solidarity, it's mosaic covenant. Therefore, it's easy to say that that's just the curse that all humanity all creation is under. Because I'm like, but it's content. Like he needs, he needs to die that kind of death. And also my article on Ephesians 2 that's out, I mean, you can download on my academia page. It's so, it's been long enough to where, you don't need to have like special access or whatever you can look it up. And I go through that as well of that kind of aspect. So I didn't really make it, perhaps, as I kind of took some bravists and I do get this question. So I'm wondering maybe there's a revised edition. There's already plenty of things I want to change now. But that might be something I spell out more carefully. So if that's the case, where did the tradition go wrong? If I can say it that way. Does it on some? Is it a medieval period? So now that's outside of my wheelhouse. So as you said before, when you're asking the question here, whatever, I do want to point out, Enzel know it, and Kurt De Helmo, one point eight, so very early on, in his, you know, Mike, that I became a man or whatever. He, he, he very explicitly, let me see if I have old notes here. He, so I want to, I want to vindicate Enzel. I don't think it starts with him. I don't really know how aware it all went wrong. And it's easy to blame Calvin. You know, he, he seems, he's, but I don't know it. Like now, it's weekend outside of my lane. But I just want to highlight that Enzel says he, he explicitly ruled out what, what we would see as, as penal substitutionary tone, but so he says, and chapter, book one, chapter eight, God the Father did not treat that man, Jesus, as you apparently understand him to have done. Nor did he hand over an innocent man to be killed in place of the guilty party. And then his imaginary interlocutor says, well, even if it was not against the will of Christ, since he, since he, that Jesus consented to the will of the Father, and nevertheless seems that the Father did chorus him through the instructions he gave him for it, for it is said in scripture that Christ humbled himself, became obedient to death. It's, he's quoting from Philippians two there. And the Sun says the same, I have not come to do my will, but to do the will of him who sent me in another place, Father, if it is possible, let this cut pass for me. Nevertheless, not in accordance with my will, but yours. Everywhere here, it is apparent that Christ endured death under the compulsion of obedience rather than through the intention of his own free will, and Enzel's reply is, you're not drawing a proper distinction that seems to me between, on the one hand, what Christ did because of the demands of his obedience and on the other the suffering inflicted upon him, because he maintained his obedience, which he underwent, even though his obedience did not demand it. So then interlocutor, I think it's Basel or something, later asserts, quote, it is evident that if the man had not sinned, God ought not to demand death from him, to which now Enzel responds, God therefore did not force Christ to die. There being no sin in him, rather he, that Jesus underwent death of his own accord, not out of an obedience consisting in the abandonment of his life, so that like Jesus wasn't obedient to the demand, man from God that he must die a substitutionary death. But, I'm back to quoting, but out of an obedience consisting in his upholding of righteousness so bravely that as a result he incurred death. So, Anson doesn't think that he died a sinner's death. Well, Christ offered to God on being managed in the half according to Anson. It's not the punishment of sin, but the honor due God through faithful obedience that is, as then he from Paul's, with the interlockers, to the point of death. He was obedient unto that point, like the command wasn't that God would kill the innocent in place of the guilty party. So, I just like, a lot of people blame Anson, or not blame and/or praise, whatever, but think that this is like, he gives us penal substitutionary torment, and he doesn't. He recoils at the fact that God would punish the son in that fashion. And so, that's all, say, on the matter, because I don't know where exactly things start going. That's not my wheelhouse. I do know that Calvin, though it's for sure, penal substitutionary torment, and, you know, you can just compare acts with Jesus, I guess, and see who folks think are more accurately describing what the neat testament witnesses say. I wonder if we can back up a little bit. I think we got into the weeds quite quickly. I'm wondering if you can just give us a summary of each of the chapters, "Grapid Fire Summary," if you guys want to table contents in front of you. And if you could just summarize, you know, give us your hot take thesis, one to three sentences of each chapter, something other than it's not substitutionary. Well, that's the first chapter. Yeah, it's not. All right, hit it, Zachary. Let me. So, for the first chapter, it's called "Understanding Old Testament Sacrifice" as part one, what sacrifice is not. And so, thesis there, there's no such thing as a substitutionary death sacrifice in the Torah. The ritual handlang, so number two, the ritual handlang is not saying, "This is me, this is my substitute, to put rather quote, this is mine. I own this and I'm giving it to God for various distinct purposes." Third, sacrificial slaughter is not itself, or is itself not focused on the biological death of the animal. Sacrificial slaughter is separated from any notion of simply being a death, and it is explicitly reconceptualized via specific ritual actions as something other than a killing of a blood-bearing creature. So, I leave it open there in the thesis forum because it's too hard to say, you know, what it is, but just trying to, again, what it's not. So, making a naked argument here, the last one for it, where chapter one, sacrificial slaughter, is not all about making the animal suffer, let alone suffer as a substitute. So, I kind of go through, it's not substitutionary death, it's not substitutionary death, and it's not suffering either in place like that, if that makes sense. So, all right, so chapter two. So, the non-atonic sacrifice is a secret. So, part two, chapter two is Old Testament sacrifice is part two, and here I discuss the sacrifices that don't have an atoning function. So, still, at this point, I'm not defining an atonement for a lot of ground control. And the reason I started the non-atonic one is because I think that they're primary. So, sorry, you can edit this out if you don't want this, but I think the sacrificial system, the atoning sacrifices come in as a solution to make sure that the primary reason for the sanctuary and the non-atonic sacrificial sacrifice can still happen. And so, these non-atonic sacrifices are about communion with God and sacred feasting. And so, yeah, so I start with them because I think they're, it's actually kind of like the main goal, the whole apparatus. So, the following theses, they're seven for this chapter that I outlined. Number one, not all sacrifices have an atoning function. There are non-atonic sacrifices that have separate rationales and functions. These are most of the burnt offerings. I say most of, because there's some caveats there, and all of the well-being offerings. The purpose of the regular, that is the daily burnt offerings, is divine attraction or invitation. So, that was the second one. Number three, the purpose of the well-being offerings is sacred feasting between God and people. Number four, the Passover is neither about atonement nor substitutionary death. Rather, it is a non-atonement well-being sacrifice commemorating God's past act of deliverance. More specifically, it is most like the Thanksgiving well-being sacrifice. Number five, the covenant inauguration and renewal ceremonies use only used non-atonement sacrifices. Six, the blood sprinkling on the people. That is an excess 24/8 when they're making a covenant. That sign is neither about atonement nor about substitutionary death. Rather, it is a way to signify and ratify the bond between two covenantal parties, which are God and Israel. Number seven, whenever blood is placed on people, it is never blood from the atoning sacrifice used to atonement or purge the sancta, which is the hatat. So that whenever blood sacrificial blood is on a person, for whatever reason, it is never blood from the hatat. The use of non-atoning sacrificial blood on people is to ritually mark specific, when I call metaphysical transitions. So that has to do with people recovering from lepreah and/or, I think, the people as a whole at the covenant ceremony. So you can read more details there. But it's affecting a minute of physical transition. However, it's important that it's not coming from the hatat sacrifice. Chapter three, understanding alt estimates. Actifying as part three, ritual cosmologies. So this one I get into the ritual and moral purity things. So here four main, these are longer, a bit longer, but there's four points. Number one, there are two binaries and Israel's priestly mapping of the world. A, holy and common, and B, pure and impure. This is Israel's ritual cosmology, as I say. So while these are distinct, that as holy doesn't mean pure, you know, a major concern within the Torah's sacrificial purity system is keeping what is holy free from contact from what is impure. Number two, ritual and moral impurity are heuristic categories that attempt to categorize overlapping at the distinct concerns within the Torah. So ritual impurity has nothing to do with sins, but moral impurity does. But what I'm saying is those aren't phrases you're going to find in Leviticus. They're going to use purity and we're just trying to categorize like different forms of a purity. Number three, ritual purity is contagious. So it needs to be removed or decontaminated from holy objects in the dwelling place, whereas moral impurity is not contagious and can never be decontaminated through a sacrificial atonement. Number four, the reason for this, this is because, in addition to the sanctuary, moral impurity pollutes both the person and the land. However, only things that can be decontaminated through ritual sacrifice are synced to holy objects in the dwelling place, not people and not the land. So I that there's a lot going into that one. But then part four, chapter four is about the atoning sacrifices and the prophets. And so here, I'm going to summarize these a bit more than what I have here because they're a little bit longer. But I've already said in the previous chapter, but I repeat again and show how the what is being decontaminated through repair, the Hebrew word there verb underneath the what we translate as atonement are holy objects in the dwelling place, not people not the land. Forgiveness, number two, forgiveness is associated with sacrificial atonement, but forgiveness is not reducible to sacrificial atonement. So forgiveness can and does happen completely apart from the atoning aspect of Israel's system there. Three and four to do with the prophetic so-called critique of sacrifice. And so these is three, the so-called prophetic critique of sacrifice is in line with the towards conception and purpose and more importantly, the limits of sacrificial atonement. So I do not think the prophets are criticizing the sacrificial system. I think they're enforcing the limits of the sacrificial system and what it means for something to be a valid sacrifice. You have to own it properly. So they get into a whole critique, I think of of like what you're offering is ill-gotten. Therefore, it can't be valid anyways for what you're doing in the whole your whole society. So corrupt like like you're not doing anything worthwhile here because you're doing the kinds of sense it couldn't be purged anyways. And so even your feasts, even the ones that aren't atoning are invalid because there's everything so messed up. So I don't think they're critiquing sacrifice. I think they're critiquing the society, the people. Forgiveness, though, they expect the restoration. And the reason I emphasize this restoration is because then to see what Jesus is doing is in line with the prophetic restoration and that the people aren't expecting, what do I say here, the prophetic expectation of restoration when utilizing cultic imagery so that I mean sacrificial ritual, so cult anything related to the temple apparatus there. When the prophets are using that kind of imagery, They appeal not to some grand act of sacrificial atonement, but rather to a divine water washing so Once we've met or get clear on the ritual purity stuff and the sacrifices and all the different things And we can understand the prophetic Announcement of restoration when they're using cultic imagery. They're not saying one day. There's gonna be a giant, you know, a Grandole, a David atonement or something It's there's going to be a water washing of the people and and that's and then we can restart the whole temple system and and really inaugurated and and these things as as Moffit clarify or uses like the a lot of Once the temple's destroyed and the people are next out of the covenant curses have come upon us You don't the sacrificial system has to do with covenant maintenance not starting it up again And so you need a you need a way of washing the people and starting it up again and then things can can can proceed But that's important because then when we get to New Testament as the next chapter is about chapter five This now kind of mirrors the progression so I go with Jesus and the non-atoning sacrifices than Jesus and the atoning sacrifices but I start out there with how John and Jesus are are I'm now saying that the time of this washing has come the time of this restoration has as come and hence the baptism Things like that the John's doing so chapter five It's called lame of the free So the the title of the book as well Jesus purity in the non-atoning sacrifices and here I have six Theses so Jesus life and ministry according to the gospels as I said to a previous question It one of my thesis is it operates entirely consistent within the Old Testament purity laws and concern for the sanctuary Number two, actually, this is something I would change now slightly based on some things Logan and and Paul you you said in your podcast and I remember Talking to Paul's son about this so what I say is Jesus was a source of contagious holiness that nullified the sources of ritual major ritual impurities as well as moral impurity I think you guys are right suggest folks to go look at your What's the title of the podcast Jesus in the law? Jesus and Jewish law. Yeah, Jesus and Jewish law Yeah, I think you know, I was following that teacens Language there and not being as as careful as I as I should have and could have been Jesus I would say is a source of contagious life as you like it I was so close in the book to do that one. I was going and looking where I use it. I'm talking about life life life all over the place But yeah, so um there. It's just a Like so the point could stand if I may just just change that uh a little bit to to like so Jesus is is his life is Is getting at the root of what causes major ritual impurities Major in the book means in ritual impurities that they need a sacrificial remedy Alongside other other things Number three, Jesus is not anti-purity and he's not rejecting the temple per se So uh number four, Jesus appropriation of the prophetic critique of sacrifice fits entirely within the framework of the grave consequences of moral impurity So like the prophet Jesus is not critiquing sacrifice per se or the temple per se but rather moral impurity Which will cause another exile and destruction of the sanctuary Fifth His followers Jesus followers are able to experience the moral purification he offers That's the whole point of him being the agent of the promised restoration Uh six the only sacrificial interpretation of Jesus death that is attributed to Jesus himself occurs at the Lord's Supper And at this meal Jesus combines two communal well-being sacrifice that is non-atoning sacrifices This is the Passover and Covenant's inauguration ceremony and these are how the earliest you know um uh the disciples So even from Paul, Paul on first Corinthians attribute to Jesus Jesus own sacrificial understanding of his death It's only related to the non-atoning sacrifices Um, all right, so that's chapter six chapter seven though is We do have texts in the New Testament that associate Jesus with the atoning sacrifices and those are first John and Hebrews and there Okay, so chapter six Jesus pergation sacrifices and the day of decontamination So by this point I've read instead of using atonement It's decontamination and things like that. So the day of atonement, day of decontamination So here there are five feces Uh number one atonement theology is not part of the gospel message Rather it is a theological innovation based on prior ingredients from the gospel So I make this point largely for again a clearing up misunderstanding So here I'm gonna explain this one a bit more because I think it's important that whatever you think about atonement Or even if you disagree with my like details I think this thing you can't disagree with is um on a descriptive level Um, when we look at the gospel presentations and acts and things like that Or the use to the gospel they're not associating it with with language of atonement Of of sacrificial decontamination So whatever you think about those things we just got to lock it And into it's another category of teaching that is that is not as he was Explicitly makes clear it's beyond the basics of the gospel What what they are presenting is they think consistent with These teachings and and and and stuff, but it is not itself the gospel mess you weren't so And there's kind of a two pronged purpose to that you don't need to be anxious about it as a Christian Getting your atonement theology correct in terms of like sacrificial atonement which Because it's not that that is that's like that's for the Bible nerds You know what like to to go to go sort out like you So therefore we shouldn't though make people think And collapse the gospel into an acceptance of a certain form of sacrificial Atonement I believe um and so I'm gonna like basically so I'm gonna summarize most of those even quicker I think that both first Shana Hebrews associated atonement which Jesus now with his death And this is made drawing on on David Moffentor but with his ascension resurrection which I touched on earlier And this has the purpose same that we learned And the my Old Testament chapters Jesus is purging sacred space For our benefit because that is the space that we are inheriting and he's doing more than that as well Because he's concentrating us Hebrews goes into this a lot more detailed first Shana is very brief But it's he's still into the presence of the Father as the hellass smoss and I think that's important Uh to note but Hebrew he rules this out and and basically associate Jesus with anything and everything into the little Physical system, but I think it maintains the distinction to what is for so the author of Hebrews will will Draw upon the washing rituals when it's talking about washing our consciences And in our hearts and things like that and cleansing people it'll draw upon the non atoning Consecration sacrifices when it's talking about us being consecrated as priests It'll draw upon the atoning sacrifices and Hebrews 9 when it talks about Jesus purging the The heavenly temple of the sanctuary in the heaven or the heaven which is say however people want to take that So one of the things that comes out of that chapter is on Hebrews Is I argue It's not not only is it not final substitutionary tumult I think it's um It's participatory atonement if you will that we are being made into not only cold high priests but Jesus But a co-purgation sacrifices. So this is something that I'm not sure is going to convince a lot of folks Just because sounds weird, but I do think this is how the dots are connected in Hebrews 13 where it talks about we have an author That you cannot eat from in quoting from the the Dave decontamination literature there Our ritual there in in Leviticus 16 and saying that our sufferings Are not additive to Jesus, but we are so united with Jesus that we are bearing his same reproach where just like the sacrificial Acarchuses on the day of decontamination are burned outside the city This is how we should conceptualize our sufferings for the sake of Christ bearing the reproach of Christ And so we're we're co-high priests and co-purgation sacrifices with Jesus So it's it's a participatory solidarity sacrificial theology there in Hebrews and then chapter seven is a very Brief in terms of some rage just a bunch of verses that I think folks have Misunderstood to be either about sacrifice or substitutionary Selfation and I make various you know arguing spending on the on the passage. Why I don't think it's either Alluding to a Levitical sacrifice or wives not to Why it is about solidarity or participation in not substitution and then chapter eight is a conclusion with a sneaky extra bit more about substitution where I Delvin more to what's really think about the substitution thing if we are saying That Jesus death is substitutionary. What does that do to our belief about his resurrection and let's also look at the grammar That's used People justifies substitutionary death based on largely the who pair preposition with regard to Jesus' death, but that's also used with regard to his resurrection. And so for us, so I don't, I try to expose that we need to have a consistent, not just in exegesis, but understanding that whatever your relationship to Jesus' death is, that's your relationship to the resurrection. And I think it's wrong to bifurcate the two exegetically and theologically. And there it is, then that's the book. So I'm a priest of a small parish in Northern Indiana. And though the issues of Atonement and these kind of things, they don't come up very often, I still wonder how to think about them, and then how to portray these ideas to my congregation, in a way that's helpful to them. And so you say it's not like a central piece of the gospel, and that seems right to me. But then how do I explain, especially around good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter, but why is it, why is it important not to get this wrong, especially during a Holy Week in Easter? Fantastic question. Gosh, I don't know how to, it's almost too good of a question. I don't know where to start. So I'd say like, I think it's important to get this right because it, I don't want to over-height the stakes here and over, but it really does matter how we are characterizing God. We have to get this right, not just for like historical purposes as a word to understand writers on their own terms. I think that's a good in and of itself. What are they saying? Even if it's nuanced, oh, that seems like hair splitting, like, well, if they're splitting hairs, let's let them split hairs. And let's let them, like, let's, let's, let's just try to understand what they're saying. They're they're geeking out, nerding out on these things. Like, why not let, why not try to understand them in their own nuance points? However, when it comes to formation of a of a people of a congregation of worshiping God, I think it's important to characterize the God that we are worshiping as accurately as possible. And I, what I mean by I don't want to over-height the stakes, I don't want to like say like you're worshiping another God or something like that. If you're missed and sure, but I do think you can misrepresent him. And when Penelope Sushar atonement for me is at least for now, maybe it has two main things that I think are are really dangerous. The first is it comes with discipleship, that it makes the cross something, it names the cross as the very thing that we're safe from. Rather than the core anchor, like, you have to have two crosses because one that you're safe from and the one that's like, oh, it's like Christ, like you're generating some of the New Testament that doesn't do. The cross is something that we are, that we join Jesus on and with and that informs so much of everything. Not just are you willing to literally be a martyr at the state of unjust state power, but does it form your entire character of life? So from Philippians 2, 5 to 11, have the same mind and attitude that was in Christ Jesus, you know, humbled himself coming into this likeness and that that character, that pattern, the cross-shaped pattern is just what it means to be a follower of Christ. It's marked by the cross, we're the cross-shaped people. And I think it's very dangerous to have a theology that explicitly names the cross as the thing you're safe from. It makes it incoherent to then say, actually, it's also, by the way, this other thing that you're supposed to be called too, and co-cruise by and all this sort of stuff. The second thing is what it does are characterization of God. It puts us as enzymes. I'm glad, no, I did read that quote. It makes us think of God in such a way that is in the New Testament, what all the unjust wicked rulers are. They're the one recruits of our Jesus. The cross displays human cruelty. The cross displays human injustice toward another human being and therefore toward God. I do believe in the full incarnation of Jesus, but I think with the Psalms and in Proverbs, how you treat other people. It's how you're treating God. And what the crucifixion is, so gospel speeches and acts, what the crucifixion is specifically a miscarriage of justice. It is the rage and wrath of the nation that is on display and there in justice and their cruelty. And God is defined not as the one who sent Jesus to die. Knowing knew it. It wasn't in caption by surprise, but the one who raised Jesus from the dead. And if we don't have that, like that's just exegetically there, how God's described in these texts. It's the one who raised Jesus from the dead. And there's several texts and Psalms that are recorded at the crucifixion of the Jesus. Jesus is like Psalm 69, that every all the suffering is from it's from the unjust rulers, from the people. And so if we have a theology of Jesus' death and of salvation that is putting God in the place of the wicked and unjust rulers, that's just bad. And again, I don't want like it is important, but I don't want to go so far as to say like anyone who ever thought that is there like you have like a different God or something like that. I don't think anyone has a perfect conception of who God is, but I do think we need to be patient and discipline our our our proclamation and our understanding of who God is rightly and to see that the New Testament characterizes the cross as Jesus enduring the wrath and injustice of humanity as he forgives. He is not doing this as a precondition for God to forgive. God needs to do this to someone to something in order to forgive. It's rather this is what it looks like when the God of love comes in to like this immortal flesh knowing full well what an unjust and wicked humanity will do to him. That's how it demonstrates God's love. So everywhere else like John 3, first John, this is how we know what love is Romans 5, this demonstrates God's love. It's always a demonstration of God's love, never God's wrath. It's always a demonstration of God's love, but it's precisely because it's God loving us in and through, suffering human wickedness and injustice. So I think it's important to get it right at a good Friday in Easter not for the sake of discipleship and the for the sake of our understanding of God that if you can't tell us as a demonstration of God's love and the only way to do that is to kind of have this pretzel theology of twists and turns where well it's God's love because he's decided to be really angry and mad at someone else instead of you. Like that's abusive. Like we see this like I'm going to punish you are you know you're sibling or whatever if you don't do this like then you're responsible for what I like I'm punishing them and setting you you know at it's worse that's what it is. But it's really it's really interesting Joel Green mentions this in the Sussex recently he kind of goes through just Jesus' death and in my book a little bit. But he highlights what's that sake? I was like oh that's a good like I wish I said it that way and I can't quite remember how he did it but he he he says like you're it's oh I lost my trance out I was Joel Green saying he says I can't I lost it damn it oh well whatever I don't know where I was it's important to to understand who God is toward us oh that's what he said okay so he says all these sea legends about people some teachers tell me say those are characters that those that that's a mischaracterization that's a caricature of our belief like it's not divine child of you it's not that he says well why is it that it's so prevalent in the actual pews then and when we're teaching and our students come up and they say these things they don't have these nuanced views of whatever and so that's why it matters not just in like it's not just a matter of well if you have it in this way in this nuanced way it sounds better and it's all good it's like but but it is that even true to the exit Jesus like that's where I'm getting like is that even true to the exit Jesus like should I might be more palatable but I'm not sure that's even true to the exit Jesus at the same time I don't think anyone's getting that I don't think most people in the pews are getting this nuanced package thing because I I have them as students people are ministering in churches you hear what what they're what they're thinking and they constantly would depict what is the salvation of Jesus how does the cross work they depict it in terms that are the grotesque horrid form so whatever there's some sort of disconnect there even between the so-called nuanced more palatable versions and what people are are actually gravitating towards so that way for me it's like well it's both let's just go with the text then and if the text says this is the demonstration of God's love and if the text says God is the one who raised Jesus from the dead and if it's it's the if the text is saying it's the wicked and unjust ruler it's like it's it's on full display their rage and their wrath and their injustice and their cruelty why don't we just stick with that that seemed pretty good to me like like why do we even need this whole other framework when everything else is kind of fitting in the place without it so and also then for the sake of discipleship now we no longer have to like speak on both sides of our mouth when it comes to joining Jesus on the cross and a cross shaped life. We are called to conformity to the image of Christ and, as Paul says, that's specifically participation in the likeness of his death. Well, Dr. Rilar, you've given us a lot to think about. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for this book. The Lamb of the Free. We hope our listeners check it out. Appreciate your time. Now, thank you for having me. [Music]