The Sin-Bearer: Free at Last!
Without question, one of Owen’s favorite themes in the atonement is that of Christ as the Sin-Bearer. Owen quotes 1 Peter 2:24 and Isaiah 53 throughout much of his book. This concept undergirds his whole concept of the atonement, but I think Owen’s understanding of Christ’s bearing sins is mistaken.
Owen organizes his thoughts on Christ’s bearing sins as follows:
1. The elect’s sins transfer to Christ, making Him the Sin-Bearer
2. Christ carries the elect’s sins on the cross
3. God justly punishes the Sin-Bearer in our place
Owen mistakenly conflates the sacrificial aspect of the atonement with the sin-bearer. Thus Owen relates the sin-bearer with punishment, even going so far as even going as far as equating “sin-bearing” with undergoing punishment. But scripture teaches a different concept for sin-bearer: taking away sin.
In opposition to Owen’s concept of sin-bearer, I will offer my own.
1. Christ offers Himself as Sin-bearer
2. Christ intercedes for the believer
3. The Father accepts the offering
4. Christ carries away the sins of the believer
Notice what’s missing from my explanation. Anything about sacrifice, or death or punishment… Fundamentally, the biggest difference between Owen’s view of the sin-bearer and my own is that Owen mixes the concepts of sacrifice and sin-bearing and I keep them separate. I see the sin-bearer as a distinct aspect of the atonement and Owen sees it as an intermediate step in the processes of penal substitution. In my view, the sin-bear represents Christ’s liberating us from sin by carrying our sins away.
What Does Scripture Teach about the Sin-Bearer?
Leviticus 16:5, 20-22: "He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.
20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
This key passage explains how the sin-bearer worked in the OT atonement system. Aaron took two goats for one offering. Aaron sacrificed one goat and offered it, but this goat didn’t bear sin. Aaron offered the second goat without sacrificing it. He then confessed the sins of the people with his hands on the head of the scapegoat. The sins of the people transferred onto the scapegoat and it carried Israel’s sins way.
The scapegoat wasn’t sacrificed or punished. Its function was to carry sins away. The penal substitution aspect of the atonement can be seen in the sacrificed goat, not the scapegoat. The wages of sin is death, Christ died for us, so His death is a substitute. So the sacrificed goat, who died, represents the penal satisfaction aspect of the atonement and the scapegoat, who lived, represents the removal of sins.
Aaron offered both goats which together constitute one offering. This unity in offering can be seen in Isaiah 53, which talks about both Christ’s sacrifice and sin-bearing, albeit distinctly. Mathew 8:14-17 and 1 Peter 2:24 quote Isaiah 53’s sin-bearing aspect. Mathew tells of how Christ’s touch healed people’s infirmities, which confirms our understanding of a living (not sacrificed) sin-bearer. Peter provides the imagery of Christ, as Priest, carrying His own body onto the altar of the cross, confirming that the sin-bearer is offered. John also speaks of Christ as the sin-bearer, in 1 John 3:5, confirming Christ takes away sins.
The Gospel of John describes Christ as both the Door and the Way. Do we conflate these concepts and say Christ is the way to the door? It might sound nice at first, but no we don’t. These are two distinct metaphors for Christ, and we don’t want to mix metaphors. The two goats in the Old Testament were both symbols for Christ. But they were distinct symbols. Saying the goat carries our sins so he can be punished for them, sounds good, but that’s not what the bible is saying. The sin-bearer symbolizes Christ’s liberating us from sin, and the sacrificed goat represents Christ’s dying for us.
In the process of mixing the sin-bearer with the sacrifice, Owen has to modify the concept of sin-bearer to come to his conclusion. Thus he transforms the biblical concept of “carrying away sin” to “bearing punishment for sin”. Owen exchanges the biblical finality of liberation for the intermediary step of taking on sin for the purpose of punishment. But passages such as 1 John 3:5, are too clear to allow such interpretations.
Problems with Owen’s View
If we understand Owen’s step 1 such that our sins are gone, does it matter if Christ dies in step 2? Are we not already freed? In other words, Owen has two options. 1) deny that Christ’s sin-bearing takes liberates us from sin (which contradicts scripture) or 2) deny that Christ death matters (because He already liberated us by taking away our sin).
Owen organizes his thoughts on Christ’s bearing sins as follows:
1. The elect’s sins transfer to Christ, making Him the Sin-Bearer
2. Christ carries the elect’s sins on the cross
3. God justly punishes the Sin-Bearer in our place
Owen mistakenly conflates the sacrificial aspect of the atonement with the sin-bearer. Thus Owen relates the sin-bearer with punishment, even going so far as even going as far as equating “sin-bearing” with undergoing punishment. But scripture teaches a different concept for sin-bearer: taking away sin.
In opposition to Owen’s concept of sin-bearer, I will offer my own.
1. Christ offers Himself as Sin-bearer
2. Christ intercedes for the believer
3. The Father accepts the offering
4. Christ carries away the sins of the believer
Notice what’s missing from my explanation. Anything about sacrifice, or death or punishment… Fundamentally, the biggest difference between Owen’s view of the sin-bearer and my own is that Owen mixes the concepts of sacrifice and sin-bearing and I keep them separate. I see the sin-bearer as a distinct aspect of the atonement and Owen sees it as an intermediate step in the processes of penal substitution. In my view, the sin-bear represents Christ’s liberating us from sin by carrying our sins away.
What Does Scripture Teach about the Sin-Bearer?
Leviticus 16:5, 20-22: "He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.
20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
This key passage explains how the sin-bearer worked in the OT atonement system. Aaron took two goats for one offering. Aaron sacrificed one goat and offered it, but this goat didn’t bear sin. Aaron offered the second goat without sacrificing it. He then confessed the sins of the people with his hands on the head of the scapegoat. The sins of the people transferred onto the scapegoat and it carried Israel’s sins way.
The scapegoat wasn’t sacrificed or punished. Its function was to carry sins away. The penal substitution aspect of the atonement can be seen in the sacrificed goat, not the scapegoat. The wages of sin is death, Christ died for us, so His death is a substitute. So the sacrificed goat, who died, represents the penal satisfaction aspect of the atonement and the scapegoat, who lived, represents the removal of sins.
Aaron offered both goats which together constitute one offering. This unity in offering can be seen in Isaiah 53, which talks about both Christ’s sacrifice and sin-bearing, albeit distinctly. Mathew 8:14-17 and 1 Peter 2:24 quote Isaiah 53’s sin-bearing aspect. Mathew tells of how Christ’s touch healed people’s infirmities, which confirms our understanding of a living (not sacrificed) sin-bearer. Peter provides the imagery of Christ, as Priest, carrying His own body onto the altar of the cross, confirming that the sin-bearer is offered. John also speaks of Christ as the sin-bearer, in 1 John 3:5, confirming Christ takes away sins.
The Gospel of John describes Christ as both the Door and the Way. Do we conflate these concepts and say Christ is the way to the door? It might sound nice at first, but no we don’t. These are two distinct metaphors for Christ, and we don’t want to mix metaphors. The two goats in the Old Testament were both symbols for Christ. But they were distinct symbols. Saying the goat carries our sins so he can be punished for them, sounds good, but that’s not what the bible is saying. The sin-bearer symbolizes Christ’s liberating us from sin, and the sacrificed goat represents Christ’s dying for us.
In the process of mixing the sin-bearer with the sacrifice, Owen has to modify the concept of sin-bearer to come to his conclusion. Thus he transforms the biblical concept of “carrying away sin” to “bearing punishment for sin”. Owen exchanges the biblical finality of liberation for the intermediary step of taking on sin for the purpose of punishment. But passages such as 1 John 3:5, are too clear to allow such interpretations.
Problems with Owen’s View
If we understand Owen’s step 1 such that our sins are gone, does it matter if Christ dies in step 2? Are we not already freed? In other words, Owen has two options. 1) deny that Christ’s sin-bearing takes liberates us from sin (which contradicts scripture) or 2) deny that Christ death matters (because He already liberated us by taking away our sin).
Comments
Thank you for commenting. I humbly suggest that the banishment to the wilderness is somewhat tangential and not the main point. The main point of the scapegoat is the freedom we have because our sins are carried away. For example, Mathew 8:14-17 doesn't talk about banishment, but it does talk about Christ as the Sin-Bearer. Again, the main point is freedom.
As for the banishment to the wilderness, I would suggest that represents the fact that based on what Christ has done our sins are gone, gone, gone!
God be with you,
Dan
Thank you for your thoughtful response, but I fear that my mind is still clouded by all of this. It seems that you wrote that Owen has to modify the concept of sin-bearer…thus he transforms the biblical concept of “carrying away sin” to “bearing punishment for sin”. you also wrote that Owen relates the sin-bearer with punishment, even going so far as even going as far as equating “sin-bearing” with undergoing punishment., but is that not what Isaiah 53 is about? Are you saying that you do not think that Isaiah 53 should have been used by Owen when discussing atonement? Even 1 John 3:5 points to Isaiah 53:11,12 when it says to take away sins. Yet those verses talk about “bearing our iniquities” and “bearing the sin”, these do not talk of “carrying away sin” to me. It seems they talk of “bearing our sin” and taking the punishment that the “sins” and “iniquities” demand.
So is your argument that Isaiah 53 should not be viewed as relevant to the atonement debate or that Isaiah 53 was misinterpreted by Owen?
Magnus
Isaiah 53’s relevance to the atonement goes without saying. I do think Owen misunderstood it. He made the subtle shift from bearing sin to bearing punishment for sin. What a minor switch, eh? But a minor change in directions can take one off the road and into left field.
But I respectfully suggest that:
1) Isaiah 53 doesn’t say bearing punishment, it says bearing sin
2) Isaiah 53 reads perfectly fine, understanding the sin-bearing as liberating one from sin by taking it away
3) If one reads Leviticus 16 as inbound context and Mathew 8:14-17 as outbound context for Isaiah 53, one will see that understand the sin-bearer as “liberating” is straight through the middle of Isaiah 53 and “bearing punishment” is just off the mark.
God be with you,
Dan
Thank you for that clarification on Isaiah 53, it would be a switch and I will read Isaiah 53 again. What do you make of “smitten”, “wounded”, “stripes” and “crushed”. To my feeble mind they seem to carry the meaning of punishment. I will pray about this and thank you again for your time and patience.
Thank you for commenting. Those terms relate to the sacrificed goat, which represent Christ’s death as a penal substitute. Isaiah 53 speaks of both goats, without conflating the two. The two goats go together (just as they do in Leviticus 16). Perhaps it’s fair to say the scapegoat emphasizes that our sin are gone, and the sacrifice goats emphasizes how our sins are gone. But there’s no need to merge the two together.
God be with you,
Dan
Thank you for your gracious response to a slow thinking seeker. I think my problem becomes clearer from your last response. It seems that we agree that Isaiah 53 references both goats, the problem I have is that both are shown in Christ. When I look at the 4 bullet points that you provided I only see one goat represented. It seems to me that when we look at the OT usage of the goats that you cannot separate the two, meaning there is no point or use for a scapegoat without the sacrificed goat. So while it would be improper to merge the two into one it would be equally improper to view them as autonomous events. Also, would it be fair to say that the how our sins are gone comes about before the that our sins are gone part? Oh well, it is late and I must go, but I thank you again for this discussion that has blessed me by going to Scripture to read some of these verses that may not be as familiar as they should be to me. May God bless you and your work in all things.
Magnus
You said: Also, would it be fair to say that the how our sins are gone comes about before the that our sins are gone part?
Yes. Absolutely!!! But look back at Owen's explanation. He has Christ's sin-bearing as prior to Christ's sacrifice. And that's the problem. Put more formally:
P1: In Owen's system, Christ's sin-bearing is explanatorily prior to His death
P2: Scripture teaches that that sin-bearing removes our sins by carrying them away
C1: Therefore, in Owen's system, the removal of sins is explanatorily prior to Christ's death
P3: But Scripture teaches that Christ's death is the foundation for the removal of sins
C2: Therefore, Owen's explanation is unscriptural.
Do you see where I am coming from?
God be with you,
Dan
You are surer than me on this; I fear that I am not in a position to label Owens’s view as unscriptural. I am still wrestling with Leviticus 16 and what it means. I have tried to look at several commentaries and other resources. The thing that is confusing to me is the "scapegoat" and its relevance in all of this. It does not help that the word that we have translated as “scapegoat” does not seem so clear cut in the literature on this. Also while thinking and praying about these things I keep going to the scripture that states that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. No idea what relevance that has on this, but it has come to this pea brain of mine and it refuses to let me discard it.
I also struggle with the point of when was our sin imputed unto Christ? It seems that it would have to be on the cross, but also before his death. If that is the case then perhaps your criticism of Owen is a bit unwarranted. Not sure yet though.
When it comes to these things I am rather on the weak bulb side, I will need to keep simmering on these things and if something new comes to me I will run it by you. I thank you though again for your blog and your letting me interact with your writings. Again, may God bless and keep you in all things.
I think the comment in Hebrews about the impossibility of the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins is saying the OT sacrifices symbolized (but were only a symbol) how Christ removes sin.
As for Owen, which of the premises do you disagree with?
As for your other comments, I would invite you to take a look at my recent post on justice.
God be with you,
Dan