A Review of LAMB OF THE FREE by Andrew Rillera

 Rillera, Andrew R. Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus's Death. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2024. 

Reviewed by Kelly D. Liebengood

Jesus saves. But how? And in particular, what did Jesus accomplish in his death? Historically, most Protestant traditions have replied that he died to offer himself as an atoning sacrifice. That is, in his death, Jesus stood in the place of sinners (substitution) and took upon himself the punishment for sins (penal) that they committed in order to appease God’s wrath, to satisfy his justice, and to secure forgiveness of sins (atonement). In Lamb of the Free, Rillera disassembles the building blocks for this prominent interpretation of Jesus’s death (often referred to as penal substitutionary atonement [henceforth, PSA]), and replaces them with an account of the saving significance of Jesus’s death that is coherently aligned with the logic of Old Testament sacrifice and the prophetic expectations that were to accompany Israel’s deliverance from exile.

Though not explicitly stated, the working assumptions of Lamb of the Free appear to be twofold: (1) that interpretations of sacrifice in the New Testament must necessarily align with the logic of purity and sacrifice in the Old Testament; and (2) that there is a conceptual straight line that can be drawn from Leviticus through the Prophets to the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament writings. Accordingly, for Rillera, the foundational problem of PSA is that it is built upon significant misunderstandings about how purity and sacrifice functioned in Israel’s ritual cosmology. These misnomers have led to significant misrepresentations of key texts in the New Testament that offer an interpretation of the meaning of the death of Jesus in a sacrificial register. These two working assumptions serve as the basis for Rillera dedicating half of his study, chapters 1-4, to reexamining the logic of purity and sacrifice in the Old Testament. These four chapters, functioning in many ways as a comprehensive, well-articulated reference resource, may prove to be his most enduring contribution.

Drawing heavily on the work of Jacob Milgrom, Rillera simultaneously deconstructs commonly held assumptions about the meaning of Levitical sacrifices, while at the same time also assembling a cogent, exegetically-rooted alternative framework that more often than not offers compelling explanatory power. Chapter 1 begins this four-chapter ground clearing by underscoring what sacrifice is not: it has nothing to do with punishment, retribution, or substitution. He does this by making four important observations. First, he notes that in the Torah there are no sacrifices that can remedy an offense that demands death as the fitting punishment. Second, he shows that the hand laying gesture that is at times part of the process of sacrifice, contrary to prevailing assumptions, does not intend to communicate substitution or transfer of sins from the offerer to the victim. This observation is strengthened in part by noting that some non-atoning sacrifices (e.g., “well-being sacrifices [Lev 3:2, 8, 13]) require hand laying, while certain atoning sacrifices do not. Rillera, instead, posits that hand laying is most likely a way of indicating ownership of the offering (i.e., “this offering is mine”). Third, he shows that sacrifice is not about substitutionary killing. Rather, the ritual is meant to reconceptualize the death of the animal such that it becomes a presentation of life (see esp. Lev 17:11, 14) for the purpose of offering a sacred gift to God or for purging contaminated holy spaces from the forces of death. This leads Rillera to conclude that whatever we might say about atoning sacrifices, we cannot assume that they are about killing, and thus not about “substitutionary death”. Finally, he notices that sacrifice is not about suffering. That is, suffering brings no value to the act of sacrifice. Instead, according to Leviticus, the sacrifice is meant to be painless, quick, and humane.

But the bulk of Rillera’s analysis (chapters 2-4) seeks to provide an overarching framework for making sense of Israel’s sacrificial rituals. In chapter 2, he establishes an important component of that overarching framework—namely, that at its core Old Testament sacrifice functions to enable sacred feasting. Rillera develops this insight by highlighting the variety of non-atoning Old Testament sacrifices which function either to attract God (e.g., “burnt offerings,” “tamid”), to enable celebration with God (“well-being” offerings), to memorialize God’s protection and deliverance (e.g., Passover), or to inaugurate or renew the covenant. Helpfully, Rillera points to a key marker for indicating when this kind of sacrifice is being offered: if the laity can eat the meat, then it is non-atoning. Within this framework, Rillera brings clarity to two well-being sacrifices in the Old Testament which will impact his analysis of New Testament interpretations of Jesus’ death. First, he demonstrates that the Passover sacrifice does not contain any notion of substitutionary death, but instead is a non-atoning, thanksgiving free-will offering that anticipates (and then later memorializes in retrospect) God’s protection and deliverance. And second, he shows that the covenant inauguration ceremony (e.g., Exodus 24) is established with a non-atoning well-being sacrifice. Importantly, he shows that the blood of that ceremony is non-atoning and instead functions to establish a covenantal bond with the people and to signify that a metaphysical transition of greater consecration (or holiness) to God has taken place.

In chapter 3, Rillera further uncovers the “ritual cosmology” of Israel’s sacrificial system by explaining the difference between ritual and moral impurity. The sacrificial and purity system of Israel seeks to keep impure things from contaminating holy places. Ritual impurity is contagious, in and of itself is not considered sinful, and needs to be removed from holy places. Atoning (kipper) sacrifices serve to decontaminate ritual impurity from holy objects in God’s dwelling place so that sacred feasting can continue. Moral impurity, on the other hand, is not contagious, is a result of sinful acts associated with sexual immorality, idolatry, and/or murder, and is not remedied through kipper sacrifice. In other words, according to the logic of Levitical “ritual cosmology,” even if Israel were sinless, there would still be need for atoning sacrifices. Understanding both the function as well as the limits of kipper sacrifices will be integral to understanding how the New Testament interprets the death of Jesus in a sacrificial register.

In chapter 4, Rillera places a discussion of atoning (kipper) sacrifices within this wider frame. Here he underscores (and addresses objections) to the central claim of these four chapters on Old Testament sacrifice, namely that kipper (atoning) sacrifices are limited in scope, designed to only remove contamination from holy objects within God’s sacred dwelling place. People, Rillera contends, are never the objects of kipper sacrifices because these kinds of sacrifices are only designed to deal with the contamination of sancta that is the result of major impurities and inadvertent sins. It follows, then, that when forgiveness (e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35) is mentioned in the context of a kipper sacrifice, it indicates that the offerers are released from their responsibility to purge the sanctuary from the contamination brought about by their inadvertent sins. In other words, “forgiveness” is the removal of their liability to clean up their mess. The Day of Atonement (Rillera prefers “Decontamination”), rather than offering forgiveness for any and all sins, instead functions to remove contaminations (caused by ritual impurity and/or inadvertent sins) in the sanctuary that have been left unaddressed by members of the community—a kind of spring cleaning. For Rillera, this illuminates how exile fits within the prophetic critique of the sacrificial system. That is, the prophets do not denigrate the Levitical cultic system when they critique sacrifices (as is often assumed) but instead acknowledge that kipper sacrifices and the Day of Atonement cannot purify sins (i.e., moral impurity) that defile the people and the land (e.g., sexual immorality, idolatry, and murder). Exile is the consequence of moral impurity, and according to the prophets, God intends to forgive these sins and restore the people from exile (and covenant infidelity) apart from the kipper system, in what is often characterized as a new or second exodus that (by the Spirit and/or divine water-washing) will bring cleansing and heart transformation outside of Israel’s sacrificial system.

In the second half of the book (chapters 5-7), Rillera leverages his analysis of the Levitical logic of purity and sacrifice to analyze New Testament texts that interpret Jesus’s death in a sacrificial register.  In chapter 5, he shows that Jesus both affirms and works within the Levitical purity system, even at times maintaining the efficacy of the temple for dealing with ritual impurity. But the Gospels also portray Jesus as working within the framework of prophetic expectations, bringing forth forgiveness of sins and restoration from exile apart from kipper sacrifice. The picture of the meaning of Jesus’s death that emerges is significantly different than the account that PSA offers. In short, Rillera contends that Jesus effects forgiveness of sins, not because his death is an atoning sacrifice, but rather because his holy, contagious, purifying life, which cannot be defiled, makes direct contact with and thus ultimately vanquishes all forms impurity and death itself (as confirmed by his resurrection). The Lord’s Supper corroborates this as the foundational interpretation of the meaning of Jesus’ death (and can be traced back to Jesus’s own self-understanding).  As a non-atoning, thanksgiving, well-being sacrifice (that is eaten by the laity), the Lord’s Supper anticipates (and then later memorializes) divine liberation from death while also celebrating God’s covenant renewal.

In chapter 6, Rillera acknowledges that two books in the New Testament explicitly portray the death of Jesus in relation to kipper sacrifice—1 John and Hebrews. But he shows that neither promotes a notion of substitutionary death, and that in both texts, the kipper sacrifice is in reference to decontaminating the heavenly temple, where Jesus presents his life as a purgation offering. For Rillera, both these texts also reveal that kipper theology is not a part of the original/early gospel message. Additionally, blood imagery in 1 John is not a reference to sacrificial atonement but rather is John’s way of reconceptualizing Jesus’ death as water that cleanses moral impurity.  Blood in Hebrews serves both kipper and non-kipper functions, but Rillera underscores that the two functions must be carefully distinguished in the text and not conflated, as is too often the case. For example, in its non-atoning sense, blood in Hebrews functions as a precursor for Jesus’ purgation offering in the heavenly sanctuary because it points to forgiveness of sins and the establishment of the new covenant actualized by Jesus’s “once-for-all,” indestructible obedient life. Jesus’s non-kipper covenant-inaugurated sacrifice, in keeping with Pentateuchal logic, must precede Jesus’s kipper offering in the heavenly tabernacle. For Rillera, tuning into these atoning and non-atoning sacrifices enable us to see that the atonement model in Hebrews does not advocate penal substitution but instead invites followers of Jesus to participate in his holy, faithful, obedient life—which can lead to shame and suffering.

In chapter 7, Rillera rebuts a handful of texts in the New Testament that seem to raise objections to his overall thesis: (1) 1 Pet 2:24 and Isaiah 53 do not promote sacrificial victims bearing sins, but instead put forth Jesus as the script for faithfulness; (2) lytron in Mark 10:45/Matt 20:28 is not about “in the place of” atonement but instead emphasizes liberation  “for the benefit of” participating in Jesus’ cruciform life; (3) there simply is no cultic imagery in 2 Cor 5:21; (4) since sacrificial victims were not cursed, Gal 3:13 is about Jesus’s solidarity with the cursed plight of Israel; (5) the sin that Jesus is dealing with in Rom 8:3 is the tyrant, “Sin,” which Paul personifies throughout Romans 5-8; (6) and finally, the hilastērion of Rom 3:25-26 is not pointing to the ark of the covenant lid but instead is best understood in its Greco-Roman context as a conciliatory gift that God has put forth to demonstrate his mercy towards his enemies. In every case, there is no suggestion that substitution, punishment, or retribution play any part in what Jesus accomplishes in his death.

Why is this study important? Rillera is adamant that any interpretation of sacrifice in the New Testament that includes notions of substitution, punishment, or retribution are not derived from the Bible itself but are rather imported with a logic that comes from outside Scripture. Additionally, he insists that his line of interpretation regarding the meaning of Jesus’ death corrects a distorted view of God and a corresponding misrepresentation of what justice entails; but also that it attunes readers to the participatory nature of salvation and discipleship that is emphasized across the New Testament: Jesus did not die instead of us, but rather ahead of us—so that we may participate in his life of contagious holiness, which at times may demand shame and suffering. The concept of “substitutionary death” obscures this participatory reality: if the resurrection of Jesus is not substitutionary, then neither is his death (2 Cor 5:15, 21).

Rillera’s provocative study could have been strengthened (and perhaps challenged as well) by engagement with Sklar’s work on kipper sacrifice in Leviticus (Sin, Impurity, Atonement), by a discussion regarding God’s wrath vis-à-vis sacrifice, by reflection on how his insights pertain to gentile audiences in New Testament writings, and by further consideration for how the logic of purity and sacrifice was developed in Jewish Second Temple literature. Additionally, he seems to unnecessarily set up a false dichotomy by contending that the significance of Jesus’ death can only be either “instead of” or “ahead of”. But Gorman (e.g., The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant) and others have shown that it is possible to both interpret Jesus’ death as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice while also emphasizing the participatory nature of discipleship. In other words, substitutionary atonement is not necessarily incompatible with notions of solidarity and participation. It can be the case that Jesus’s “instead of” death serves as the means by which his death is also “ahead of.” I highlight this to make clear that the validity of Rillera’s study does not stand or fall on this false dichotomy but instead on whether his project is faithful to the full witness of Scripture. With that being said, his bold, exegetically-grounded, and paradigm-shifting investigation merits careful engagement. In the same way that the “New Perspective on Paul” called for a reassessment of Pauline theology, Lamb of the Free is representative of an emerging “New Perspective on Atonement” that urges a reappraisal of the meaning of Jesus’ death that is more aligned with the logic of sacrifice in the Old Testament.