I am very glad to be here as I am an adult going through the process of re-thinking the very things these kids are asking and dismantling PSA theology. I see more clearly the why Jesus had to die and the reasons stated make more sense in terms of the whole Bible. Where I get tripped up is the blood and sacrifice part. So the verse that popped to mind is Hebrews 9:22. I have a feeling this has been taken out of a broader context and then used to prop up the PSA or other such ideologies. Anyway, how do I reconcile what the "text plainly says (side eye)" with what you said in response to the kid question? OH, and also in my early learning the provision of "coverings" in the Garden has been used to support that God demanded or needed blood to be spilled as this is him making a sacrifice, to literally cover the humans? It's confusing.
Well, okay then, we're jumping in with the easy questions, I see! (I'm kidding, this is exactly one of the things I hope we can do more of in the comments, and this is a great question, and thank you for asking it). Let me start with Adam and Eve here, because it's easier. Yes, I have heard that too, but it's a good example of what has happened on this topic over the centuries, which is that people have so much assumed penal substitution (that God HAS to punish sin) that they start to see it everywhere, even when it's not necessarily there. That meaning for the animal skin coverings isn't in Genesis. If you start from the assumption of penal substitution, I suppose you could read it into Gen 3, but that meaning has to come entirely from outside the story itself. When I read the story, I see God providing for and caring for the people in a practical, everyday way, even though they have just turned away from God and don't "deserve" God's help at all. I'll get to Hebrews in the next comment so this doesn't get too ridiculously long.
Ok, so, Hebrews. Hebrews is a weird book in lots of ways, and not one that I can say I've studied a ton. The verse you mention says that "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." I guess I'd say a couple of things here (hopefully briefly!). First, there are lots of examples in the Old Testament of God forgiving without sacrifices, or of caring more about repentance than sacrifice. So whatever this verse from Hebrews means, one thing it can't mean is that God simply *can't* forgive without blood, because God *does* forgive without blood.
This is kind of like the time in 1 Corinthians where Paul says that women can't speak in church even though a few chapters earlier he was talking about HOW women ought to speak WHEN they speak in church. There's something more complicated and nuanced going on here at the very least.
The second thing to say is kind of similar to the Adam and Eve thing, actually. This verse says blood is necessary. It doesn't say that punishment is necessary. If we think there's no difference between the two it's, again, partly because the assumption of penal substitution has been so dominant in recent centuries. When the Old Testament lays out the sacrificial system, it isn't terribly clear about the meaning behind the sacrifices. And, while blood is a part of the rituals involved, the meaning of the blood isn't really spelled out. It's a symbol of something, but punishment isn't necessarily it.
One more thing- I've got some super fun and hopefully helpful Hebrew thoughts. I'll post those separate for you.
Ok (and thanks again to John Goldingay's giant three-volume Old Testament Theology for this) so Leviticus talks about what is often called the 'Sin Offering' and the 'Guilt Offering'.
In both the Sin and Guilt offerings, one of the Hebrew words that show up to say what the sacrifices are doing is 'kipper'. It means something like 'wipe clean' or 'cover over'. The idea is that in some way the sacrifice symbolically removes the stain or blemish of Sin from the person who has knowingly or unknowingly done something wrong. It doesn't actually say HOW this works, though, and it certainly doesn't say that the animal is punished on our behalf. Sin creates a problem that needs to be addressed, and the sacrifices symbolically do that.
To say that God does not *have* to punish Sin is not to say that Sin doesn't matter. Sin is serious, and can seriously affect not only our relationship with God but also our relationships with one another. In the Old Testament, the sacrificial system is one way of addressing this problem.
Paul, in Romans 8, calls Jesus a 'sin offering', referring back to Leviticus. And what Paul says happens is that in Jesus God condemns Sin. *Not* God condemns Jesus, which is what we would have expected if Jesus is being punished on our behalf.
So in both the Old and New Testaments, sacrifices do something to symbolically remove or cover over Sin, but we don't need to connect this with the idea of punishment, just like with the animal skins in Genesis 3.
Thank you so much for these thoughtful and thorough answers!
All of these are really helpful ways to think about this. The part that needs to be let go of for me is the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins. Maybe provision is a better word? I think I just assumed because something or someone died, it was a punishment for them but not for me because of the idea of the wrath of God? Man this feels like a Gordian knot.
Absolutely, it's so much a paradigm shift. But one that fits better with the whole picture of God we get in the Bible, a God who is far more often wanting to set aside wrath than to bring it. I think one of the keys to cutting through is seeing death as one of the inevitable consequences of Sin rather than a punishment God brings because of Sin. Like any other time when the choices we make have consequences, often without a person actively bringing those consequences upon us. You choose a path and it leads where it leads.
I feel like I want to walk this out a little further. You said in the original post that Jesus was condemned to die because in his lifetime, talking out against political and religious leaders would naturally have lead to death--not just for Jesus, but for other people of the day. Which is to say, Jesus knew he would die (even though he was blameless) because he was speaking out against injustice, oppression, and religiosity (among other things). So if Jesus isn’t dying “for our sins” but his death was an inevitability of the culture he inhabited, doesn’t that make his resurrection even more powerful? He’s essentially dying because of the sins of the world--because of oppression and power and brokenness, and his ability to “defeat” death through his resurrection is truly miraculous. I can’t tell if I’m on to something or on a wild tear. 😂😂😂
“Jesus died BECAUSE of Sin not For our Sin” that has been a huge paradigm shift but has brought so much more depth to my understanding. From this perspective his death is powerful because he chose the other way. He could have easily overthrown the government with force. He could have chosen to gain power and influence just like the rulers of his day but instead, he showed us a new way, a new kingdom life.
I grew up with the understanding that the only reason Jesus died was to save us all from hell. One of the first posts I saw on IG by Meredith was her belief that hell wasn’t real and my mind was blown. I broke down and cried because that concept alone, the possibility that hell isn’t an actual place, ended up bringing so much more depth to my understanding of the cross.
I’m so excited to be a part of this Substack community ❤️
And I agree that considering the way Jesus walked through death, and what that shows about who God is and what God's up to... that's been huge for me too.
Talking about Jesus’ death and resurrection is so complicated. I was raised with all the typical reasons for them, and I don’t know that I’ve fully landed on how to talk about them as an adult. This first series is going to be revolutionary for me, I’m sure of it. I have been drawn so much to the life of Jesus and what it teaches us, so I’m hoping these ideas will tie in and help me talk about Easter with my kids in a way that fully encompasses the life of Jesus, not just his death and resurrection.
Katie, Yes!--your point about Jesus' life is so important. I can remember when folks started nudging me that it should be (and is) all one cohesive thing. But I'd sort of internalized the idea that there was Jesus' life and it meant certain things, then his death/rising was wholly different. Uniting them was so helpful for me.
Same here, Katie. Most of my memories about the Easter season involve pretty graphic sermons and illustrations of the cross, celebratory worship music on Easter Sunday, as well as dying and hunting eggs. :) As my faith evolves, I find it odd that the resurrection felt more of an appendix to the Easter story, instead of parts that go hand in hand. My husband and I just had a really fruitful conversation about this and I’m excited for the next additions. As I learn more about my identity as someone who God loves, about the bigger picture of his redemption (that four-part salvation), I am pressing in to the hope of resurrection life. It’s really beautiful, and I hope my kids can see it without the baggage I had to sift through.
I am very glad to be here as I am an adult going through the process of re-thinking the very things these kids are asking and dismantling PSA theology. I see more clearly the why Jesus had to die and the reasons stated make more sense in terms of the whole Bible. Where I get tripped up is the blood and sacrifice part. So the verse that popped to mind is Hebrews 9:22. I have a feeling this has been taken out of a broader context and then used to prop up the PSA or other such ideologies. Anyway, how do I reconcile what the "text plainly says (side eye)" with what you said in response to the kid question? OH, and also in my early learning the provision of "coverings" in the Garden has been used to support that God demanded or needed blood to be spilled as this is him making a sacrifice, to literally cover the humans? It's confusing.
Well, okay then, we're jumping in with the easy questions, I see! (I'm kidding, this is exactly one of the things I hope we can do more of in the comments, and this is a great question, and thank you for asking it). Let me start with Adam and Eve here, because it's easier. Yes, I have heard that too, but it's a good example of what has happened on this topic over the centuries, which is that people have so much assumed penal substitution (that God HAS to punish sin) that they start to see it everywhere, even when it's not necessarily there. That meaning for the animal skin coverings isn't in Genesis. If you start from the assumption of penal substitution, I suppose you could read it into Gen 3, but that meaning has to come entirely from outside the story itself. When I read the story, I see God providing for and caring for the people in a practical, everyday way, even though they have just turned away from God and don't "deserve" God's help at all. I'll get to Hebrews in the next comment so this doesn't get too ridiculously long.
Ok, so, Hebrews. Hebrews is a weird book in lots of ways, and not one that I can say I've studied a ton. The verse you mention says that "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." I guess I'd say a couple of things here (hopefully briefly!). First, there are lots of examples in the Old Testament of God forgiving without sacrifices, or of caring more about repentance than sacrifice. So whatever this verse from Hebrews means, one thing it can't mean is that God simply *can't* forgive without blood, because God *does* forgive without blood.
This is kind of like the time in 1 Corinthians where Paul says that women can't speak in church even though a few chapters earlier he was talking about HOW women ought to speak WHEN they speak in church. There's something more complicated and nuanced going on here at the very least.
The second thing to say is kind of similar to the Adam and Eve thing, actually. This verse says blood is necessary. It doesn't say that punishment is necessary. If we think there's no difference between the two it's, again, partly because the assumption of penal substitution has been so dominant in recent centuries. When the Old Testament lays out the sacrificial system, it isn't terribly clear about the meaning behind the sacrifices. And, while blood is a part of the rituals involved, the meaning of the blood isn't really spelled out. It's a symbol of something, but punishment isn't necessarily it.
One more thing- I've got some super fun and hopefully helpful Hebrew thoughts. I'll post those separate for you.
Ok (and thanks again to John Goldingay's giant three-volume Old Testament Theology for this) so Leviticus talks about what is often called the 'Sin Offering' and the 'Guilt Offering'.
In both the Sin and Guilt offerings, one of the Hebrew words that show up to say what the sacrifices are doing is 'kipper'. It means something like 'wipe clean' or 'cover over'. The idea is that in some way the sacrifice symbolically removes the stain or blemish of Sin from the person who has knowingly or unknowingly done something wrong. It doesn't actually say HOW this works, though, and it certainly doesn't say that the animal is punished on our behalf. Sin creates a problem that needs to be addressed, and the sacrifices symbolically do that.
To say that God does not *have* to punish Sin is not to say that Sin doesn't matter. Sin is serious, and can seriously affect not only our relationship with God but also our relationships with one another. In the Old Testament, the sacrificial system is one way of addressing this problem.
Paul, in Romans 8, calls Jesus a 'sin offering', referring back to Leviticus. And what Paul says happens is that in Jesus God condemns Sin. *Not* God condemns Jesus, which is what we would have expected if Jesus is being punished on our behalf.
So in both the Old and New Testaments, sacrifices do something to symbolically remove or cover over Sin, but we don't need to connect this with the idea of punishment, just like with the animal skins in Genesis 3.
Thank you so much for these thoughtful and thorough answers!
All of these are really helpful ways to think about this. The part that needs to be let go of for me is the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins. Maybe provision is a better word? I think I just assumed because something or someone died, it was a punishment for them but not for me because of the idea of the wrath of God? Man this feels like a Gordian knot.
Absolutely, it's so much a paradigm shift. But one that fits better with the whole picture of God we get in the Bible, a God who is far more often wanting to set aside wrath than to bring it. I think one of the keys to cutting through is seeing death as one of the inevitable consequences of Sin rather than a punishment God brings because of Sin. Like any other time when the choices we make have consequences, often without a person actively bringing those consequences upon us. You choose a path and it leads where it leads.
I feel like I want to walk this out a little further. You said in the original post that Jesus was condemned to die because in his lifetime, talking out against political and religious leaders would naturally have lead to death--not just for Jesus, but for other people of the day. Which is to say, Jesus knew he would die (even though he was blameless) because he was speaking out against injustice, oppression, and religiosity (among other things). So if Jesus isn’t dying “for our sins” but his death was an inevitability of the culture he inhabited, doesn’t that make his resurrection even more powerful? He’s essentially dying because of the sins of the world--because of oppression and power and brokenness, and his ability to “defeat” death through his resurrection is truly miraculous. I can’t tell if I’m on to something or on a wild tear. 😂😂😂
“Jesus died BECAUSE of Sin not For our Sin” that has been a huge paradigm shift but has brought so much more depth to my understanding. From this perspective his death is powerful because he chose the other way. He could have easily overthrown the government with force. He could have chosen to gain power and influence just like the rulers of his day but instead, he showed us a new way, a new kingdom life.
I grew up with the understanding that the only reason Jesus died was to save us all from hell. One of the first posts I saw on IG by Meredith was her belief that hell wasn’t real and my mind was blown. I broke down and cried because that concept alone, the possibility that hell isn’t an actual place, ended up bringing so much more depth to my understanding of the cross.
I’m so excited to be a part of this Substack community ❤️
I'm so excited you're here!
And I agree that considering the way Jesus walked through death, and what that shows about who God is and what God's up to... that's been huge for me too.
Yay, Meredith! I’m so excited to be here!!!
Talking about Jesus’ death and resurrection is so complicated. I was raised with all the typical reasons for them, and I don’t know that I’ve fully landed on how to talk about them as an adult. This first series is going to be revolutionary for me, I’m sure of it. I have been drawn so much to the life of Jesus and what it teaches us, so I’m hoping these ideas will tie in and help me talk about Easter with my kids in a way that fully encompasses the life of Jesus, not just his death and resurrection.
Katie, Yes!--your point about Jesus' life is so important. I can remember when folks started nudging me that it should be (and is) all one cohesive thing. But I'd sort of internalized the idea that there was Jesus' life and it meant certain things, then his death/rising was wholly different. Uniting them was so helpful for me.
Same here, Katie. Most of my memories about the Easter season involve pretty graphic sermons and illustrations of the cross, celebratory worship music on Easter Sunday, as well as dying and hunting eggs. :) As my faith evolves, I find it odd that the resurrection felt more of an appendix to the Easter story, instead of parts that go hand in hand. My husband and I just had a really fruitful conversation about this and I’m excited for the next additions. As I learn more about my identity as someone who God loves, about the bigger picture of his redemption (that four-part salvation), I am pressing in to the hope of resurrection life. It’s really beautiful, and I hope my kids can see it without the baggage I had to sift through.