The aim of Lamb of the Free (Cascade Books, 2024) is to argue against penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It has become in vogue to question or to dismiss PSA, even to the point of labeling it divine child abuse. It’s true, there have been poor formulations of PSA, but the basic idea is that in his death, Jesus bore the penalty for our sins. That’s a pretty basic and fundamental understanding of one of the atoning purposes of Jesus’ death. In fact, nothing is more central to the Christian faith than the atonement which is why evaluating this book is so important.
What’s more, this book has attracted all sorts of attention, especially online among YouTubers and podcasters. In fact, just last year John Mark Comer created quite a stir when, to be provocative on his Instagram, he raised the question if this book was the final blow against penal substitutionary atonement. The reaction Comer received was so great that he had to issue a restatement and clarification on his Instagram. You can find a number of mostly positive reviews of Lamb of the Free on YouTube.
Spoiler alert: I have been spending a lot of time in the books of Exodus and Leviticus for recording the latest episodes for The Listeners Commentary. As a result, I found the reading of this book combined with the number of glowing popular reviews of it online to be a frustrating and head-scratching experience. The book makes a number of errors that seem so obvious that I find it hard to understand how those errors can be missed or ignored.
Summary
Rillera is direct from beginning to end that he wants to dismantle PSA. In fact, he believes PSA is not only wrong but a hindrance to discipleship. So the book builds a case argument by argument against PSA. The book could be described as a book of arguments, with each chapter beginning with a list of the conclusions the chapter will argue for. In that sense, the book is quite clear.
If I had to summarize the overall argument of the book, it is this: there is no such thing as substitution in the Old Testament sacrificial system as those sacrifices only provided cleansing for the tabernacle not for people. Therefore Jesus’ death is not a substitutionary atonement nor does it bring about forgiveness as an atoning sacrifice. Instead of dying in our place, Jesus died ahead of us and with us and rose again, so that we can participate in his death and follow his example.
The first half of the book explores the various sacrifices in the Old Testament. The author argues that the Hebrew word for “atonement” only means purging or cleansing and that the sacrifices in the Levitical system only provided cleansing for the sanctuary, not for people. That is, it provided cleansing from the contamination that ritual impurity and sin caused to the tabernacle and its instruments, but it did not provide people with cleansing or forgiveness of sins.
He includes in this part of the book an exploration of Passover as well, because Passover is so central to our understanding of Jesus and his death. He contends that Passover is not a sacrifice, not substitutionary, and has nothing to do with atonement (more on this later).
“The book could be described as a book of arguments, with each chapter beginning with a list of the conclusions the chapter will argue for. In that sense, the book is quite clear.”
In the second half of the book, Rillera applies his conclusions about the Old Testament sacrifices to Jesus and his sacrifice. His contention is that Jesus’ sacrifice is rarely associated with atoning sacrifices from the Old Testament. Rather, it is mostly connected to Passover, the peace or fellowship offerings, and the covenant-making sacrifices which, he believes, had nothing to do with atonement.
He does explore the book of Hebrews, as well as 1 John, which he considers the only places the New Testament associates Jesus’ death with atonement. He concludes that in the book of Hebrews, what Jesus’ atonement achieved was cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, just like Old Testament atonement cleansed the earthly sanctuary. It does not provide forgiveness or cleanse people from sin. Forgiveness, he argues, is achieved through Jesus’ obedient life which enabled him to make a new covenant; and that led to the pouring out of the Spirit, who washes us clean.
For Rillera, Jesus’ death is fundamentally not about substitution but about our participation in it with him. Participation is actually an important and good point to remember, as Jesus’ death is not only the atonement for our sins but also the pattern for our lives. But he takes this so far as to contend that those who are in Christ now participate “with Jesus as co-purgation sacrifices” (p. 358).
“For Rillera, Jesus’ death is fundamentally not about substitution but about our participation in it with him.”
Evaluation
The one key benefit of this book is that it forces us to think more carefully and precisely about the Old Testament sacrifices and how they relate to Jesus’ death. Most of us have a pretty vague and shadowy grasp of these sacrifices and we haven’t thought clearly about their role in foreshadowing Jesus’ death. So by asking what the Old Testament sacrifices teach us about the meaning of Jesus’ death, Lamb of the Free raises an important question. The answer it gives, however, is largely flawed.
As mentioned above, this is a book of arguments. Rillera builds a thoroughgoing case for his position, and within the logic of its own system, it makes sense and may even seem compelling. I have personally had several conversations with people who have found the book convincing. But once you begin to realize that a number of its conclusions are simply inaccurate or unfounded, the entire case falls apart. My analogy for it is the game of Jenga. It seems all nice, neat, and tidy until you begin pulling out individual pieces of the argument (e.g., when you realize that’s not true about Passover; there’s more to the Day of Atonement than he claims; etc.). Once you start pulling out erroneous conclusions like Jenga pieces, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Disregarding What the Text Actually Says
Exodus 12
For example, one of the major conclusions the book makes is that Passover is not a sacrifice, let alone an atoning sacrifice. This contention is then used to dismiss Jesus’ death as atoning sacrifice, since Jesus associates his death with Passover. The problem, however, is that in the original Passover account found in Exodus 12, Passover is explicitly called a sacrifice. In fact, it’s called that in the summary of the way Passover should be explained to Israelite children (see Exodus 12:26-27).
And while it’s true that Passover is not associated with atonement, it is associated with redemption. What’s more, the original Passover event was a substitutionary act by which the firstborn of Israel were spared judgment from the death angel. The lamb died so the firstborn didn’t, and the lamb’s blood provided a sign to spare them from the judgment of death. The original Passover was a substitutionary sacrifice that delivered people from death, and the annual celebration commemorated this event. This is exactly how the Israelites were supposed to explain its meaning to their children according to Exodus 12:26-27.
“The original Passover was a substitutionary sacrifice that delivered people from death, and the annual celebration commemorated this event.”
Exodus 24
Another example: Rillera argues that the covenant-making sacrifices in Exodus 24 were non-atoning, and since Jesus’ death is connected to covenant making it must be non-atoning as well.
But this ignores what Exodus 24 says. The covenant-making sacrifices were burnt offerings and peace (fellowship) offerings, and burnt offering were atoning sacrifices. Now, Rillera wants us to believe that burnt offerings were not atoning sacrifices, and it is true they can have other purposes in addition to that. But in Leviticus 1, which is the first and most thorough explanation of burnt offerings, it is straightforward that they provided atonement for sin (Leviticus 1:4). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews associates the covenant-making sacrifices of Exodus 24 with forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22), and Jesus himself associates the new covenant that he will inaugurate through his blood with forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28). And in the Levitical system, forgiveness of sins is consistently associated with atonement.
Leviticus 16
Another major contention that can be pulled out as obviously erroneous is this: Rillera argues that the Day of Atonement did not provide any forgiveness or cleansing for the people—only cleansing for the tabernacle and the objects associated with it. It is true the Day of Atonement was an annual cleansing rite for the tabernacle, but Leviticus 16 is once again clear and direct that the Day of Atonement also provided cleansing and atonement for the people. Leviticus 16:29-30 says,
“This shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you; for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the Lord.” (NASB)
These are just a few examples of where a simple reading of the text makes it plain that Rillera is in error and has disregarded what the text actually says. And once it becomes clear that his major conclusions are in error about the Old Testament sacrifices, his entire case about Jesus’ sacrifice falls apart.
In addition to disregarding what the texts actually say, here are a couple other problems with the case the book builds.
“For it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you.”
Idiosyncratic Readings of Key Texts
Lamb of the Free presents some rather uncommon and eccentric readings of crucial passages of Scripture pertaining to our understanding of the atonement.
Leviticus 17
One of these passages is Leviticus 17, a crucial passage for understanding atonement in the Levitical system. Leviticus 17:11 is the only passage in the Old Testament that gives some explanation for the role blood plays in the sacrificial system, so it’s not surprising that Rillera deals with the passage. What is surprising is the abnormal reading he offers of the preceding context and how he uses that to alter the nature of sacrifice and reduce the significance of 17:11 for understanding the atonement.
He argues that Leviticus 17:3-4 says the ordinary killing of an animal in order to eat it anywhere except at the entrance to the tabernacle is equivalent to homicide. He writes, “According to Leviticus, killing a domesticated animal is morally equivalent to murdering a human being. That is the basic ethical claim here” (p. 51-52). But that is not at all what the text is discussing. Verses 5ff. make it plain that the subject in this passage is sacrifices, specifically sacrifices being offered elsewhere rather than at the tabernacle, not simply slaughtering an animal for food. Rillera then uses his unique reading of 17:3-4 to argue that sacrifices must be understood as “not a killing” since killing an animal equals murder. And therefore, he concludes that the sacrifices have “nothing to do whatsoever with ‘death’” (p. 55). 
But no Israelite standing there watching their bull, lamb, or goat die could’ve thought it had nothing do with death. And I have read no other commentator on Leviticus who reads the passage this way.
“No Israelite standing there watching their bull, lamb, or goat die could’ve thought it had nothing do with death.”
Romans 3:26
Another key passage that Rillera explains in a unique way is Romans 3:26. The issue is the word translated “atonement” or “propitiation.” It is related to the Greek word used in the Septuagint to translate “atonement” in Leviticus 16 about the Day of Atonement. Therefore, most scholars think that in Romans 3:26 Paul is connecting Jesus’ sacrifice to the Day of Atonement in some way. Not Rillera. Rather, he thinks it should be connected with a Greco-Roman votive offering. Furthermore, he argues that since God is the one who put Jesus forward as such an offering, then this is God’s way of conciliating the enmity and anger that humans have toward God, not the other way around (see page 407ff). So he concludes that the description of Jesus’ death in Romans 3:24-26 has nothing to do with a sacrifice of atonement.
However, the problem being addressed in Romans 3:24-26, as the immediate context makes clear, is God’s wrath and justice toward sinners, not humans’ enmity and anger toward God. Furthermore, the association of the word “atonement” with blood in Romans 3:25-26 most naturally calls to mind the Day of Atonement, which is why the majority of scholars see that connection here.
Participation and Substitution Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
Another major claim of the book is that Jesus’ death is about participation. We are united with Jesus in his death (e.g., Romans 6). We are to take up our cross and follow Jesus. All of this is true. But Rillera contends that if it is participatory, then it can’t be substitutionary. He believes these two are mutually exclusive, though he provides no arguments or reasons for why they exclude each other.
The fact is, the New Testament authors have no trouble speaking about Jesus’ death in a variety of ways, some of which is substitutionary (e.g., Romans 5:7-8) and some of which is participatory (e.g., Romans 6:1-4). They don’t believe these are mutually exclusive.
“The New Testament authors have no trouble speaking about Jesus’ death in a variety of ways, some of which is substitutionary and some of which is participatory. They don’t believe these are mutually exclusive.”
Conclusion
The above evaluation offers a general survey of some of the book’s shortcomings. Since Lamb of the Free is a book of arguments, however, each argument could be appraised. If you’d like a more thoroughgoing evaluation of each of the arguments, I encourage you to look at the extensive review by Old Testament scholar Jay Sklar here.
While it’s true that there have been poor expressions of PSA and that PSA is not the only thing Jesus’ death achieved, substitution is baked into the entire Old Testament sacrificial system and into the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ death. Even Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser, not one beholden to tradition for tradition’s sake, says,
“If you’re stripping out the principle of substitutionary atonement totally from the atonement picture, you’re not understanding it the way an ancient Israelite would’ve understood it because that would’ve been the first thing that an ancient Israelite thought of with the concept of purging someone from their impurity.”[1]
The basic formulation is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3 (NASB): “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”[2] Two observations. First, his death is “for our sins,” and the word “for” here is literally “on behalf of.” I find it difficult not to see some sort of substitution in that.
“His death is ‘for our sins,’ and the word ‘for’ here is literally ‘on behalf of.'”
Second, his death is “according to the Scriptures.” In other words, Paul sees Jesus’ death as in sync with and the culmination of the message of the entire Old Testament scriptures, including its sacrificial system.
So, my encouragement is, if you want to understand the meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices and how they point toward the greater and better sacrifice of Jesus, just read Exodus and Leviticus 1-17 instead.
[1] See Michael Heiser, Naked Bible Podcast, episode 79.
[2] Ironically, in context this passage is part of Paul’s summary of the gospel and Rillera contends that sacrificial atonement was not part of the original gospel but a later innovation developed in the book of Hebrews.
For more from John, see johnwhittaker.net and the Listener’s Commentary
