Jesus and the "Scapegoat"

From their earliest ages, Christians are taught that Jesus’ death on the cross brings about our salvation.  But around the time we get to middle school a question occurs to us:

“Why?  What does the crucifixion of the Son of God have to do with my forgiveness?  How does one cause the other?”

In the [past] I laid out the most common Catholic answer to that question.  Namely, Jesus made of Himself a sacrificial offering to God.  He gave His life, suffering, love for humanity, and love for God as an infinitely meritorious gift to atone for the sins of the world.

But that isn’t the ONLY answer to the question.  In fact, most non-Catholic Christians have been taught a very different theory, called “Penal Substitution”.  Many, being unaware of the Catholic understanding, will simply call it THE doctrine of the atonement.  (As if it’s the only one)

Today I want to describe the doctrine and examine one aspect of it – the scapegoat.


Spelling Out Penal Substitution:

Let’s begin with a brief sketch of the doctrine of Penal Substitution.  It works like this:

1: God is obliged by His own justice to punish sin.  And if nothing were to intervene, this would result in the damnation of every human being.

2: However, God – in His mercy – desires to save a certain subset of humanity.  These people, who are destined for heaven, are called “the elect”.

3: Jesus, the son of God, took upon Himself the guilt of the elect, suchwise that God regarded Jesus as guilty of their sins.

4: Jesus was then reprobated by God and takes the divine punishment in their place.

5: The wrath of God having been satisfied in the punishing of His son, the elect can escape the punishment due to them.

The Scapegoat:

People see this model of the atonement reflected in the “scape goat” ritual found in the Old Testament.  In the description of the Day of Atonement, the following is to be done with two goats:

“[Aaron] shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.  Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat.  And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering.  But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness.

[] Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.  The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.” - Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-22

Again, many people who subscribe to Penal Substitution see in this ritual a reflection of what they believe Jesus did.  But there's one issue with this comparison… the scapegoat isn't killed.

In fact, it would seem the actual atonement is accomplished with the goat which is killed.  And then the second goat is meant to symbolize the sins of the people being cast far away from them.  As the Psalmist says:

"As far as the east is from the west, so far has He has removed our transgressions from us." – Psalm 103:12

Total Bull:

Alright, the scapegoat doesn't map onto Jesus very well by itself. 

So what people then do is combine it with another ritual we read about at the beginning of Leviticus.  Early on in the book we read instructions for offering a bull as sacrifice to God:

“And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the young bull before the Lord.” – Leviticus 1:4,5

See the similarity with placing one's hand on the animal?  Kinda like the scapegoat?  This leads folks to combine the two rituals like this:

"In the Old Testament when you killed a bull you had a place your hand on its head first.  That was done to transfer your sins to the bull.  Then you would slaughter the bull in your place - because that is what you deserve.  And THAT is what happened to Jesus on our behalf."

Alright, there are some issues here as well.

First... the text doesn't say you're placing your hand over the bull to put your sins upon it.  Nor does it say the bull is being punished in your place.  That is an interpretation which is being imported onto the text.

In fact, there are good reasons to think that -isn't- the case.  First, the text actually specifies why the sacrifice does its job.  It doesn't  say the sacrifice lets God get the wrath out of His system.  It says:

"It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord." - Leviticus 1:9

Also, right after the sacrifice of bull is described, the author then describes how to offer birds and grain:

“If the offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, you are to offer a dove or a young pigeon. The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. He is to remove the crop and the feathers and throw them down east of the altar where the ashes are. He shall tear it open by the wings, not dividing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is burning on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord." - Leviticus 1:14-17

“When anyone brings a grain offering to the Lord, their offering is to be of the finest flour. They are to pour olive oil on it, put incense on it and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial portion on the altar, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” – Leviticus 2:1-2

Here there is no mention of someone placing one's hand over the sacrifice.  So when does the imparting of guilt happen?  Also, are we to believe God is punishing grain?  That seems... odd.

No, it makes far more sense to say these offerings aren't about transferring punishment, but about offering something of value to God.  That’s why King David, when he was offered a free cow for sacrifice, replied:

“I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing.” - 2Sam 24: 23

If the sacrifice was just about punishing a victim, it wouldn't matter how it was procured.  King David’s response only makes sense if he imagined himself giving up an offering.

And that’s what’s really going on with Jesus.