Add new comment

It’s not merely conjectural, it’s utterly groundless, and I really don’t understand why you think it is necessary to insist that the killing of the passover lamb had atoning effect for the sins of Israel.

Joshua 24 is hardly a commentary on the passover, but in any case atonement for the supposed “sin” of worshipping Egypt’s gods, whether for the past or present generation, does not form part of his argument. Joshua does not appear to think that atonement is relevant: it is either obedience or judgment (Josh. 24:19-21).

Hooker’s argument may be correct, but it doesn’t help your case. The firstborn of man was to be redeemed by the payment of five shekels (Num. 18:15-16). The lutron is not an animal killed because of sin, it is money paid; and there is certainly no link with the passover.

The explanation given in Exodus is that the blood is a sign for the Israelites; the Lord will see the blood and pass over their houses, the destroyer will not enter (Ex. 12:13, 27); it is not the people but the houses that are protected—if anyone goes out of the house, he is not protected (Ex. 12:22-23). This has nothing to do with the sin of the Israelites, nothing to do with atonement, and nothing to do with Romans 3:21-25.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.