PDA

View Full Version : Why was the Day of Atonement special?



Nihil Obstat
Apr 5th 2008, 08:27 PM
What's the difference between Lev. 4:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204:13-21;&version=50;) and Lev. 9:7ff (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%209;&version=50;), and Lev. 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016;&version=50;)? I guess I'm unsure of the significance of the Day of Atonement, since all of Israel could have their sins atoned for any day, and not just once a year? By the way, I'd really rather stay clear of how Jesus fulfilled this and that; I really just want to stick with the OT. Thanks! - Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Apr 6th 2008, 03:59 PM
ECHO! Echo! Echo! echo!

Anyone out there? This is a discussion forum, right?

Nihil Obstat
Apr 8th 2008, 01:48 PM
Why did the *high* priest have to go into the *Most* Holy Place to atone for the sins of Israel *once* a year (Lev. 16) when *any* priest could do this *outside* the inner most room *any* day of the year (Lev. 4:13-15; 9:7)??? Am I missing something obvious?

Br. Barnabas
Apr 8th 2008, 02:17 PM
I am no Jewish theologian, scholar of the Law, or anything, but I would have to say that the Day of Atonement was different from just the average atoning for sins because the people did not have to scarfice anything on the Day of Atonement, only the priests. Other then that the Day of Atonement was a catchall, if the people had sinned and not realized it or did not have the funds to make a sacrifice then this day gave them forgiveness for the sins they did not know about or the ones they could not afford to make atonement for. After a while doves and other animals can get pretty expensive when all you do is farm or herd sheep. I hope that helps.

Nihil Obstat
Apr 11th 2008, 03:27 AM
Well, even if they didn't have the means to sacrifice an animal, they could bring fine flour (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=121194). And I don't think that it's a "catch all", because the first two references are very similar to Lev. 16's special day in that very way. Anyone else?

brakelite
Apr 11th 2008, 10:03 AM
Hi there.
I will try to explain as clear as I can. During the religious year, the people daily brought sacrifices as an atonement for their sins. As they confessed their sins over the head of the animal and killed the sacrifice, the sins of the penitent were transferred to the blood of the victim. This blood was then taken by the priest and transferred to the sanctuary where it was sprinkled upon the altar of incense before the veil. Thus the sins remained upon the altar in the Holy Place.
Each subsequent sacrifice repeated the process for each and every person of Israel. Thus the sins of the whole nation was laid upon the altar by the end of the religious calender year.
On the day of atonement, the time came for the sanctuary to be cleansed. A sacrifice of a bullock was offered for the High Priest, and a goat for the sins of the nation,another which was presented live before the Lord.
The blood of the goat and the bullock was taken into the Most Holy Place and was sprinkled before the Ark of the Covenant. This had the symbolic effect of cleansing the entire sanctuary and the people of all the sins that had been deposited there throughout the year.
The High Priest then carried that sin and confessed them upon the head of the live goat which was then led into the wilderness to die a natural death.
Thus all of the nation, and the sanctuary, was clean. It was so important that everyone show up and confess and repent of sin that day. They were cut off from Israel if they did not. It was the most solemn day of the religious calender, a day of mourning and repentance. Jewish tradition refers to it as a judgement day.
As you allude to, there is a antitypical day of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary.This is the last act by Jesus before the second coming. But I will go no further with this to keep your OP on track as you desired.

Nihil Obstat
Apr 11th 2008, 02:00 PM
Hi there.
I will try to explain as clear as I can. During the religious year, the people daily brought sacrifices as an atonement for their sins. As they confessed their sins over the head of the animal and killed the sacrifice, the sins of the penitent were transferred to the blood of the victim. This blood was then taken by the priest and transferred to the sanctuary where it was sprinkled upon the altar of incense before the veil. Thus the sins remained upon the altar in the Holy Place.
Each subsequent sacrifice repeated the process for each and every person of Israel. Thus the sins of the whole nation was laid upon the altar by the end of the religious calender year.
On the day of atonement, the time came for the sanctuary to be cleansed. A sacrifice of a bullock was offered for the High Priest, and a goat for the sins of the nation,another which was presented live before the Lord.
The blood of the goat and the bullock was taken into the Most Holy Place and was sprinkled before the Ark of the Covenant. This had the symbolic effect of cleansing the entire sanctuary and the people of all the sins that had been deposited there throughout the year.
The High Priest then carried that sin and confessed them upon the head of the live goat which was then led into the wilderness to die a natural death.
Thus all of the nation, and the sanctuary, was clean. It was so important that everyone show up and confess and repent of sin that day. They were cut off from Israel if they did not. It was the most solemn day of the religious calender, a day of mourning and repentance. Jewish tradition refers to it as a judgement day.
As you allude to, there is a antitypical day of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary.This is the last act by Jesus before the second coming. But I will go no further with this to keep your OP on track as you desired.

Thank you thank you thank you! That makes SO much sense!

Now... was Barabbas, the rebellious murderer, the scapegoat? Or does Jesus fulfill both goats, as well as the high priest?

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 11th 2008, 03:12 PM
Yom Kippur is still the most holy days of the Jewish Year. This is a very interesting thread, i never thought about Barrabas being the scapegoat to go into the wilderness to die a natural death.
I once read something about what the name Barabbas means, and that may clarify it some more. I will see if i can find it.

Shalom,
Tanja

brakelite
Apr 12th 2008, 12:49 PM
Thank you thank you thank you! That makes SO much sense!

Now... was Barabbas, the rebellious murderer, the scapegoat? Or does Jesus fulfill both goats, as well as the high priest?

No, Barabbas was not the scape goat. Barabbas is a type of you and me. Though guilty, he was set free. Though innocent, Jesus died. No sins were laid on Barabbas, they were laid upon Jesus.

Jesus, as our High Priest, now ministers in the sanctuary in heaven. He, just as the High Priest was in the OT, acts as Mediator between the Father and Israel, the church. He was the sacrifice yes, but not the scape goat.

When He finishes His mediation and returns to earth for His purchased and redeemed possession,He comes with all the sins of mankind symbolically in His possession. And as the High Priest on the day of atonement laid them all upon the scape goat, so Jesus will lay all the sins upon Satan, who will be bound and led away to bear his responsibility for all that has taken place since his rebellion, and will finally be cast into the lake of fire at the end of the 1000 years.

BHS
Apr 12th 2008, 05:02 PM
Sorry, I have to disagree with Brakelite. The Israelites' sins were forgiven each time they offered an individual sin offering (which was not necessarily every day for every individual, but when necessary) and when God accepted their offering. The regular priests placed the offering upon the altar. It was the elevation offering (Tamid offering) that was offered both morning and evening, but it was not for sin. The Day of Atonement is different in the sense that the Cohen HaGadol (the High Priest) was only allowed in the Holy of Holies one day of the year, which was the Day of Atonement. It was the Cohen HaGadol that more specifically represented Y'shua and His role being the sin sacrifice once and for all. Only His blood and only He could enter the Holy of Holies to present His sacrifice for cleansing. The Day of Atonement, rather than being a day was for all individuals to finally have their sins forgiven was a day for all of Israel to stand before God as a corporate nation and ask for forgiveness for the sins of the whole community.

Blessings,
BHS

brakelite
Apr 12th 2008, 09:56 PM
I agree that individuals were forgiven as they repented and offered sacrifice. However therecord of their sins were not removed til the Day of Atonement, when they were placed upon the scapegoat.
We also are forgiven, but the record of our sins still remain upon the books of heaven until the consummation of all things. We are forgiven the moment we accept and believe and trust in the atoning sacrifice of the 'Lamb of God'. Jesus still bears our sins however; so long as He remains in the sanctuary, we have opportunity for forgiveness. Once He leaves and returns to earth to gather His bride from all corners of the globe, His role as High Priest will have ceased, the sanctuary will be closed to further mediation, and there will be no further opportunity for those still in their sin to find salvation. That is why these last days are such a solemn time for all the inhabitants of the earth. That is why we must share the gospel with all we can. We are living in the antitypical day of atonement, our High Priest will soon be leaving the sanctuary and returning to earth . His role as Mediator and Priest will cease and He will return as King of Kings.

BHS
Apr 13th 2008, 12:12 AM
Again, I disagree, but further comment will have to come later if you are interested. God took great pains to keep the children of Israel from defiling the Tabernacle. This was the purpose of the mikveh (washing) and some of the offerings. Therefore, I do not believe their sins were carried into the sanctuary waiting for the Day of Atonement to expunge the record of their sin or to cleanse the Tabernacle from them when God's purpose was that it not be defiled at all!

Blessings,
BHS

BHS
Apr 13th 2008, 08:26 AM
What's the difference between Lev. 4:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204:13-21;&version=50;) and Lev. 9:7ff (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%209;&version=50;), and Lev. 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016;&version=50;)? I guess I'm unsure of the significance of the Day of Atonement, since all of Israel could have their sins atoned for any day, and not just once a year? By the way, I'd really rather stay clear of how Jesus fulfilled this and that; I really just want to stick with the OT. Thanks! - Lk.11

Leviticus 4:13-15 3 ¶ 'Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error and the matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and they become guilty; 14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting. 15 'Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be slain before the LORD.

Chapter 4 deals with sin done unintentionally either by the whole assembly, an individual leader or by a non-leader. Theses are sins done in error, inadvertently or done by mistake. This is not the sin of one who purposefully, out of a spirit of rebellion, breaks a commandment. It stems more from undisciplined obedience where the person may incorrectly carry out a command or neglect it. And therefore the passage describes the type of offering called a guilt offering.

Leviticus 9:7-11 7 Moses then said to Aaron, "Come near to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for the people, that you may make atonement for them, just as the LORD has commanded." 8 ¶ So Aaron came near to the altar and slaughtered the calf of the sin offering which was for himself. 9 Aaron's sons presented the blood to him; and he dipped his finger in the blood and put some on the horns of the altar, and poured out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 10 The fat and the kidneys and the lobe of the liver of the sin offering, he then offered up in smoke on the altar just as the LORD had commanded Moses. 11 The flesh and the skin, however, he burned with fire outside the camp.

Chapter nine relates the first sacrifices for the congregation of Israel by the hand of Aaron and his sons, and the appearance of God’s glory in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), including the consuming fire that burned up the offering on the altar. In this passage the priests had to become clean first themselves before they could mediate for the people.

The primary issue of chapter nine is the appearance of God’s glory to the people in connection with the sacrifices and the service of Aaron and his sons as priests. God’s purpose in redeeming Israel was that He might dwell in her midst. Fellowship was God’s goal and could only be accomplished by having their sins removed so they could be considered “holy” in His sight. The sacrificial system was first and foremost a remedy for man’s sin and also a means by which God could dwell with man.

In Leviticus 16 God reveals to Moses the instructions for Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and particularly the manner in which the Cohen Gadol (High Priest) was to perform the sacred ceremonies of the day. Given the sacrificial system had been put in place with sin offerings for the people, I think your question is – why the Day of Atonement?.

The understanding of Leviticus 16 comes from a study done by Tim Hegg. The quotes are excerpts, but not necessarily an exact word for word quote.

The Day of Atonement was one of the Festivals that taught the Israelites about their coming Messiah. It offers a picture of what took place with Y’shua’s atonement. It is an annual reminder that nothing we can do of ourselves can close the gap in our relationship with a holy Lord. I know you said you wanted to stay clear of how Y'shua fulfilled the Day of Atonement, but that is what the Day of Atonement was all about -- a way of teaching the Israelites of their coming Messiah. Since the beginning of time, mankind has believed the lie that God’s way is not the only way. The Day of Atonement teaches us there is only one way of atonement, because there is only One God, and His holiness can be satisfied in only one way, that is, through sacrifice made by the appointed mediator. The laws given in this passage are a clear and specific foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice mediated by the ultimate Cohen Gadol, the Anointed One, Yeshua.

The first law given is that Aaron is to enter the Most Holy place only on a particular day. If he were to enter any other time as an affront to God’s holiness, he would die. Here we learn that God has appointed a time for atonement. That the Cohen Gadol enters only once into the Most Holy place during this festival foreshadowed the coming of Yeshua at the appointed time to earth and once for all time become the final sin sacrifice.

“Each of the sacrifices corresponds to one aspect of Yeshua’s atonement for us. The Cohen Gadol begins by offering the bull of purification for himself and his household (v. 6). Here we are reminded that the Cohen Gadol, while a type of the coming Messiah, was nonetheless not qualified to affect the ultimate atonement, for he was himself in need of atonement. He was an imperfect representation of the Coming One Who would offer himself as atonement for His people, but Who was Himself pure and without need for personal atonement (cf. Heb 7:27).”

“With the application of the blood of the bull and the goat we are dealing with the purification sacrifices that atoned both for himself and for the people. The Cohen Gadol next offers the living goat. The two goats had already been brought before the Lord at the opening of the tent of meeting, where lots were cast to determine their respect roles (vv. 7–8). One goat was designated as the sin offering, and the other as “scapegoat.” The Cohen Gadol lays both of his hands upon the head of the goat and confesses all the sins of the people. Here we have a clear picture of the vicarious nature of the atonement. The innocent animal carries upon himself the guilt of the people.”

“The death of the sacrificial animal speaks to the payment for sin (justification = declared not guilty) while the carrying away of sin by the live goat speaks to a renewed life of holiness (sanctification). Payment for sin is not enough. God intends to redeem a people who, through His own grace, are made into a righteous dwelling fit for the King of glory.

“It is remarkable that the Cohen Gadol never contracts impurity even though he clearly transfers impurity to the scapegoat through the laying on of hands. The one who leads the goat to the wilderness, and the one who burns the remains of the sacrificial animals outside of the camp both become impure, and require bathing before re-entering the camp, but the High Priest remains pure. In like manner, though Yeshua carried our sins upon Himself in order to make atonement for us, He remained without sin Himself.”

So the purpose of the Day of Atonement was to offer the Israelites a very clear picture of Y’shua and what His work on the tree accomplished. I think our confusion of the Day of Atonement comes from modern day Jews, who believe it is their one day to have their sins removed for the sins of the prior year.

Blessings,
BHS

Mark F
Apr 13th 2008, 10:01 PM
I would disagree that any of the sins of the people prior to the resurrection of Christ were taken away until the atonement was complete.

From the earliest of times Paul explained in Acts that those who placed themselves at His mercy He would in time take away their sin.

Acts 17:30-31;
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

And Abraham believed God and He "credited" him with righteousness to be accomplished in the one atonement.

There difficiency of the law and sacrificial system is that they did not keep in the front of their minds that this pointed to a person.

Psalm 40
6 "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart.”

These things are hard to grasp, and I want to add, not say you are all wrong (just to be clear). I see that they were to be obedient to the commands and requirements God placed before them. But I cannot see where any of it actually took away sins.

With us we have been saved, we are being saved, and in the end we will be saved, based for us on the surety of a past event, and that we believe what God has said concerning His Son. (1 John 5:9-13)

I thank God we have so much revelation, I can only imagine the difficulty in understanding with the complexity of the sacrificial system.

markedward
Apr 14th 2008, 02:21 AM
I once read something about what the name Barabbas means, and that may clarify it some more. I will see if i can find it."Barabbas" simply means "son [of the] father," from the words "bar" (son) and "abba" (father).

brakelite
Apr 15th 2008, 11:20 AM
Again, I disagree, but further comment will have to come later if you are interested. God took great pains to keep the children of Israel from defiling the Tabernacle. This was the purpose of the mikveh (washing) and some of the offerings. Therefore, I do not believe their sins were carried into the sanctuary waiting for the Day of Atonement to expunge the record of their sin or to cleanse the Tabernacle from them when God's purpose was that it not be defiled at all!

Blessings,
BHS

Levit 16:15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 ¶ And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, ...

We see here that an atonement was made for the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place and the altar. Why? Because of the uncleanness of all the sins of Israel. The Tabernacle was defiled because of the sins which had been deposited there throughout the year. Sin defiles everything it touches. The following are examples of how the sanctuary was defiled.Ezek 23: 37,38 Levit 15:31 16:16 20:3 Num 19:13,20 Thus it can be seen that the sanctuary can be defiled. The Day of Atonement was designed specifically as a day of cleansing from all the sin that had been transferred to the sanctuery through the blood of the sacrifice.
The goat was offered as a sin offering, but no sins were confessed over it . It was clean blood. That blood cleansed the sanctuary. That day everything was cleansed from sin. The sanctuary, the priests, and the people..
That the day was a type of the coming work to be fulfilled by the Messiah is true. That work is taking place now in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus ministers on our behalf as High Priest.
In the OT this day began as a day of great solemnity, but finished as a day of great rejoicing because the people went home not just forgiven, but cleansed also.
And soon we also will be going home rejoicing, not just forgiven but cleansed also.

BHS
Apr 15th 2008, 11:54 PM
Of course the Sanctuary and the Altar could be desecrated. I don’t think anyone would doubt that. It is because of the sins of Israel that atonement had to be made for sure. But, though it says the Kohen Gadol sanctified (set apart) and “cleansed” the sanctuary and the altar, I do not see that you can make a doctrine of their sins being taken into the sanctuary during the year and left there only to be removed or forgiven on this one day.

How did the Israelites know that God had accepted their offering? I suggest to you, it is because when their offerings were consumed with fire from heaven, they knew they were accepted (Lev. 9:22-24). They knew immediately if their offering was accepted or not. If their sin offerings were accepted, then they knew their sins were forgiven. There are many scriptures that indicate God forgave their sins, but not necessarily after waiting for the Day of Atonement. Why would David pray to God to forgive his sins in Psalms 25 & 79, if the only time they would be forgiven was on the Day of Atonement? Seems to me he would have been wasting his breath!

Again, I would say the Day of Atonement stands out because of its significance in being an object lesson to the children of Israel regarding the work of the Messiah. The priests were the leaders of Israel who were to teach the people. Unfortunately, most only see the “Law”, (more properly understood to be the “Torah”, which means doctrines, teachings and instructions) as being merely a set of rules. No, this day was meant to teach the Israelites about the Messiah and the meaning of the sacrificial system in terms of sin. It was to be a reminder year after year. We tend to think they did not or could not understand, but I do not think this was the case. Those who had ears to hear and eyes to see, would understand and look forward to the coming of their Messiah.

True, Jews today carry on the traditional thinking that this is the one day of the year their sins can be forgiven, but they do not know the work of the Messiah. Are our sins not forgiven when we ask for forgiveness? There is not a special day we have to wait for. Jesus came at an appointed time in history, just like the Day of Atonement is an appointed time, but God was able to forgive sins for those who lived before the cross, because in the eyes of God he was “slain from the foundation of the world”, meaning his atonement was such a certain thing that God could justly forgive those who lived before the cross without waiting for the actual sacrifice on the cross to declare them “forgiven”. Also we do not have to wait for a future judgment to be declared “forgiven” from all of our sins.

Brakelite, I would be interested in scriptures that say God keeps a record of our sins? Are you referring to the deeds we will be judged by in the future? How would you square this with verses that say He remembers our sins no more? Just curious -- I don't know that I have an opinion on this.

Blessings,
BHS

Rullion Green
Apr 16th 2008, 12:14 AM
Thank you thank you thank you! That makes SO much sense!

Now... was Barabbas, the rebellious murderer, the scapegoat? Or does Jesus fulfill both goats, as well as the high priest?

As i understand it Jesus fulfilled both, as he was the sacrifical lamb and also the goat forsaken and left to die.

1. The sacrifical Lamb taken on our sins
2. The goat forsaken, as he became sin he was forsaken by the father as he Cried my God my God why have you forsaken me.

hope it helped

brakelite
Apr 18th 2008, 08:32 AM
Of course the Sanctuary and the Altar could be desecrated. I don’t think anyone would doubt that. It is because of the sins of Israel that atonement had to be made for sure. But, though it says the Kohen Gadol sanctified (set apart) and “cleansed” the sanctuary and the altar, I do not see that you can make a doctrine of their sins being taken into the sanctuary during the year and left there only to be removed or forgiven on this one day.

I agree with you that forgiveness comes the moment we ask for it. For the Jew this coincided with the offering of the lamb, for us it is the recognition of the true Lamb of God. The sins however, which were confessed over the sacrifice and transferred to it, (just as our sins became those of the
sin-bearer, Jesus) were taken via the blood into the sanctuary where they were left until the cleansing.



How did the Israelites know that God had accepted their offering? I suggest to you, it is because when their offerings were consumed with fire from heaven, they knew they were accepted (Lev. 9:22-24). They knew immediately if their offering was accepted or not. If their sin offerings were accepted, then they knew their sins were forgiven.
Not every sacrifice was consumed with such obvious evidence. The Levites theselves had to burn the sacrifice in the courtyard of the temple. The penitent received his forgiveness the same way we do, by faith.

There are many scriptures that indicate God forgave their sins, but not necessarily after waiting for the Day of Atonement. Why would David pray to God to forgive his sins in Psalms 25 & 79, if the only time they would be forgiven was on the Day of Atonement? Seems to me he would have been wasting his breath!

I agree, they did not have to wait for the Day of Atonement for forgiveness.
But there was much rejoicing on that day when they heard the bells of the High Priest as he exited the Most Holy Place thus showing that the record of their sins were removed from the sanctuary and they could all go home cleansed.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Here we see clearly that there are two seperate actions, forgiveness and then cleansing. I know now I am forgiven; I won't know I am completely and utterly cleansed until I am in heaven with my Saviour.




Brakelite, I would be interested in scriptures that say God keeps a record of our sins? Are you referring to the deeds we will be judged by in the future? How would you square this with verses that say He remembers our sins no more? Just curious -- I don't know that I have an opinion on this.

Da 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Re 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

God would not be judging fairly if a fair and accurate record was not kept of all our dealings with our fellow man. Our sins, the opportunities we spurned for repentance, the many times we ignored the pleas from the Holy Spirit to hear the gospel, as well as the good things we did in consequence of our newly found faith and the acts of kindness and love that God will use as evidence of our loyalty and faithfulness. Everything is recorded.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Eze 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Eccl 12:13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


Just an additional thought. I believe that Satan will be held to account for the part he had to play in this planet's rebellion. I believe he is the scape goat. All the sins that he incited man to commit will be laid finally upon him and he will be forced to accept responsibility. An accurate record of these must be kept for true justice to be seen to be done. Just as in any court of law on earth, witnesses will be called, evidence given, and sentence passed.
On the sinner, guilty as charged, on the redeemed,, Da 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.


Regards, Brakelite

brakelite
Apr 18th 2008, 08:37 AM
Hey astrongerthanhe, are you still following this thread? Just wondering, you're kinda quiet.:):sleeping:

BHS
Apr 18th 2008, 09:41 PM
Brakelite,

I have little problem with your post except for two things --

I believe their sins were left at the altar, rather than taken into the sanctuary to be cleansed in the future. The earthly tabernacle/Temple was patterned after the heavenly one. The blood was taken into the Holy of Holies. If what you say is true, then it would seem that Jesus carried His blood into the heavenly tabernacle along with our sins. And I do not believe our sins belong there. You can say they were a "record", which might be OK, but why confuse the issue?

The other thing is what it means to be "cleansed". The scriptural background for being cleansed related to whether or not one had come in contact with the kingdom of sin and death. But the need to become cleansed did not necessarily have anything to do with sin itself. If one was unclean, he had to first become cleansed in order to approach God. In my understanding, one is cleansed first, then forgiven.

Blessings,
BHS

Nihil Obstat
Apr 19th 2008, 12:09 AM
Hey astrongerthanhe, are you still following this thread? Just wondering, you're kinda quiet.

I'm a quiet guy. ;)

brakelite
Apr 19th 2008, 01:12 PM
astrongerthanhe, glad you're still here, hope you are getting something from this discussion.

BHS, you mentioned earlier how the sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly. I think you understand that the services were also a forerunner or shadow of that which was to be fulfilled by the coming Messiah. Thus the entire sanctuary and it's services, feast days and sacrificial offerings was a lesson to Israel with regard to the gospel.
But also within the sanctuary is shown the Christian walk. As the sanctuary is divided into 3 parts, so also is our redemption made up of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Justification is found as we approach Jesus in the outer court, (Here on earth) where He was crucified. The altar of sacrifice was in the outer court of the temple precinct. Next was the laver where the priests washed before entering the sanctuary proper. This represented our baptism, where we are washed and cleansed from sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus in which we are included.
For us, our sins are left in the water, buried in baptism, that is unless you were buried alive.
In the Holy Place were 3 articles of furniture. These represent our Christian walk and experience. Each of the 3 are essential to our spiritual health and growth. The table of shewbread (the Bread of life , the Word of God. Jesus said we must 'eat of Him' to live); the alter of incense represents our prayer life; the candlestick represents our witness. (We are to let our light shine and through the power of the Holy Spirit we share the gospel with the world).
Throughout our experience we are sanctified: our lives change day by day as we experience the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
As we enter the Most Holy Place we enter the very presence of God and this represents our glorification. What a blessing it is however that we can now, through the mediatorial ministry of Jesus, enter beyond the veil and stand before the throne of God as if we had never sinned.

I understand your reluctance to accept that our sins are transferred to the sanctuary. It is not easy to see in the scripture record.

Please try and follow the reasoning set out here:

Levit 10:16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,
17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?
18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

Aaron in this instant was being berated by Moses for not eating the flesh of the sin offering as was required as part of the service. The reason for eating the flesh Moses made clear:God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, So by eating a portion of the flesh, the priest was taking upon himself the iniquity of the congregation. This affirms that sins can be transferred from one person to another. We are in trouble if this were not so, for Christ would be unable to bear our sins. The whole of Christianity is founded on that premise. Christ the Sin-bearer.
In the service the penitent would confess his sins over the victim, the priest would sprinkle the blood on the horns of the altar, and eat the flesh. The penitent would depart a free man. The priest is symbolically representing Christ "who bear the sins of many" and upon Whom the Lord "laid upon Him the iniquity of us all". (Isa 53: 12, 6. See also vs 4,10,11.)
The parallel is quite clear I am sure you would agree.
Interestingly, the sins became his sins. Throughout the week he had eaten the flesh and ministered the blood of many sacrifices, and by doing so accepts responsibility for them, so close does he identify himself with the people. He however must make atonement for them (Levit 10:17.) This of course he cannot do by giving his own life, so he must offer a personal sacrifice for sin. Please also read Levit 17:11. The blood is that which atones for sin, but only because of the life within it. The sacrifices upon which sins were confessed had sin-laden blood, and thus when it was applied to the horns of the altar, it defiled the sanctuary. See also Jeremiah 17:1

At the end of the day of atonement, the priest upon exiting the sanctuary, having cleansed the sanctuary of all the sins that had been transferred to it via the application of the blood before the veil, (cleansed by the way of the blood of the goat over which no sins had been confessed and thus was undefiled by sin just as Jesus personal life was) then confessed the sins of the nation over the live goat. Thus the sins had to be transferred from the penitent to the sacrifice upon the altar to the horns of the alter and before the veil in the sanctuary and then to the goat.

Within Levit 16 is to be found the reason for the defilement. Notice also that atonement had to be made not just for the altar, but also the holy place and the Most Holy. The clean blood of the Lord's goat was sprinkled throughout the sanctuary to clean the entire place. And the reason for the defilement?
"Because of the uncleaness of the children of Israel".

It can be noted also that the blood of the goat was only sprinkled on items within the sanctuary which had been previously touched by sacrificial blood. The laver and the candlestick remained untouched. And there is no record of blood being applied to the veil, so the blood of the goat was sprinkled before the veil.

A long post, hope I haven't put everyone to sleep.

BHS
Apr 20th 2008, 02:42 PM
Brakelite,

It is my opinion you are making more of the "atonement" of the altar, the sanctuary, etc. than is actually meant. The followthrough of your position is that Jesus would have carried our sins into heaven where the heavenly tabernacle exists.

What I believe the "atonement" of these holy items/places are is merely setting them apart as being holy -- showing Israel these items are sacred and should be treated as such because of their importance in the sacrificial system that provided a picture of a final atonement. God by bringing "cleansing" to these items showed them how much they needed to be purified, that it was necessary to "cleanse" the tabernacle that stood in the midst of a sinful people.

Blessings,
BHS

brakelite
Apr 20th 2008, 10:01 PM
Brakelite,

It is my opinion you are making more of the "atonement" of the altar, the sanctuary, etc. than is actually meant. The followthrough of your position is that Jesus would have carried our sins into heaven where the heavenly tabernacle exists.


Blessings,
BHS

That is actually exactly what I am saying.

Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 ¶ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Here it is clear that Jesus ministers in the heavenly sanctuary not without blood.

23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heavenly things had to be purified/cleansed? This speaks not of the shadow, but the substance. This speaks of not the type, but the antitype. This speaks not of the example, but the reral actual necessity of the heavenly tabaermacle needing cleansing. And if the shadow needed cleansing because of the uncleanliness of the house of Israel, in other words, her sins, then so also is the heavenly. And the only way for the heavenly to be so defiled is that Jesus bore our sins there upon His own person. This, I believe, is what the scripture shows.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

It is not till He returns that He is without the sin that He bore for us. That is after He has cleansed the heavens and blotted out all the record of our sins in the books.
As Jesus said, "every idle word" shall come up in the judgement, and that it is by our words that we are justified or condemned (Mathew 12:36,37)
Even our thoughts and motives are recorded, for Paul says that the Lord "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts."
It would seem the the heavenly books record every minor detail of our lives, leaving nothing out that may have any possible bearing on the decision of our omnipotent Judge.

Exodus 32:33 says that God is able to blot a name out of His books. So therefore if we should choose to return to our former sinful life, repenting of our repentance, our names will be removed, our iniquities remembered and we will be judged accordingly. Read also Rev 3:5. Thus, when at the final day we are found faithful, our sins are removed from the records, they are to be remembered no more, just as the blood which recorded the sins of Israel in the OT was removed by the clean goat, so are the sins removed by the spotless Lamb of God.

BHS
Apr 21st 2008, 03:36 AM
As I thought you said earlier, the record of our sin is different from the sin itself. Sorry, I guess we will just have to disagree. I can believe that Jesus "carried" his blood to the heavenly tabernacle, but not our sins.

Blessings,
BHS

Teke
Apr 21st 2008, 01:24 PM
What's the difference between Lev. 4:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204:13-21;&version=50;) and Lev. 9:7ff (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%209;&version=50;), and Lev. 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016;&version=50;)? I guess I'm unsure of the significance of the Day of Atonement, since all of Israel could have their sins atoned for any day, and not just once a year? By the way, I'd really rather stay clear of how Jesus fulfilled this and that; I really just want to stick with the OT. Thanks! - Lk.11

In the case of the bulls, though one was for Israel, the other 70 were for the nations. There is such a thing as corporate sin. Here, Lev. 4:13-21, the whole congregation of Israel sins (see also Num. 15:22-26).

This typifies the Church. Why? Because God holds his people accountable, individually and corporately, and even if unknown, sin still has consequences. When sin becomes known, there must be an offering, because the poeple of God have a responsibility to represent God to the world. Their failure would be a disaster to the world around them. Which is why Paul says, "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom. 2:24)

The two goats represent the two natures of Christ. The lot of the priesthood cast, so to speak.;)

BHS
Apr 23rd 2008, 01:28 AM
Brakelite, does the Scripture say man's "sins" were brought into the earthly tabernacle or the heavenly tabernacle? No! That is your interpretation.

Blessings,
BHS

brakelite
Apr 23rd 2008, 01:42 AM
Brakelite, does the Scripture say man's "sins" were brought into the earthly tabernacle or the heavenly tabernacle? No! That is your interpretation.

Blessings,
BHS

The priest was the type of the coming Lamb of God 'who taketh away the sins of the world.' The Lamb of God is the sin-bearer, Jesus. The sacrifice bore the sin until the priest ate it, then the priest bore the sin.
Jesus, the sacrifice and the priest, bore our sin.

In the OT the only time when the sin is shown to have been borne anywhere else is when they were confessed over the live goat and the sins then borne into the wilderness.

There is no indication that our sins were left behind at the cross. If they were, where do the sins come from that Jesus confesses over the scapegoat when He comes?

Regards
Brakelite

BHS
Apr 23rd 2008, 01:54 AM
Brakelite,

There is no reason to believe that the sins had to be taken into the tabernacle. The cleansing was simply a consecration with the blood to declare it holy, meaning that it was set apart, dedicated to the service of God. The blood does not transfer their sins, but is the cleansing agent.

And I think you are also making more of the priests eating the flesh of the sin offering than is in scripture. It was the innocent animal that was sacrificed that bore the sins of the people. And Jesus was the innocent "Lamb of God" who alone was eligible to be the ultimate and final sacrifice. There is no reason to think the priests are innocent or eligible to bear any sins. This is one reason Jesus was a superior priest. This is why even the Kohen Gadol had to make atonement for himself before he could offer atonement for the people on the Day of Atonement. God set the priests apart to be mediators between Himself and man, but they were not the sacrifice to bear their sins.

God allowing the priests and their families to eat the meat was a way of being provided for. What meat the priests were not entitled to belonged to God.

Blessings,
BHS

Teke
Apr 23rd 2008, 12:30 PM
The priest was the type of the coming Lamb of God 'who taketh away the sins of the world.' The Lamb of God is the sin-bearer, Jesus. The sacrifice bore the sin until the priest ate it, then the priest bore the sin.
Jesus, the sacrifice and the priest, bore our sin.

In the OT the only time when the sin is shown to have been borne anywhere else is when they were confessed over the live goat and the sins then borne into the wilderness.

There is no indication that our sins were left behind at the cross. If they were, where do the sins come from that Jesus confesses over the scapegoat when He comes?

Regards
Brakelite

Hmm, why would sin need to be confessed if it wasn't forgiven, but instead was put "on" some animal.
The meaning of sacrifice of animals was for that time to bring Israel out of their pagan origins. Animals don't bear sin. They are just food for the priesthood. And what does the NT tell us about food, that it's just food.

As to Jesus being the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that relates to the Lamb who saved them from death. That doesn't mean that people don't have to confess their sins any longer.

But we're getting off subject now, as the original poster asked about the OT only. And there really isn't much we can say about that except in relation to Jesus Christ. As even Israel failed to understand the meaning after their captivity in Babylon.

brakelite
Apr 24th 2008, 01:26 AM
Brakelite,

There is no reason to believe that the sins had to be taken into the tabernacle. The cleansing was simply a consecration with the blood to declare it holy, meaning that it was set apart, dedicated to the service of God. The blood does not transfer their sins, but is the cleansing agent.
When the tabernacle was first set up, yes, all things needed to be sanctified. But the Day of Atonement was the climax of the Jewish calender year. During the year sacrifices had been offered, and the services held. It was holy at the beginning, so what made it unholy that by the day of Atonement it needed cleansing?
Levit 16:Le 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Le 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.



And I think you are also making more of the priests eating the flesh of the sin offering than is in scripture. It was the innocent animal that was sacrificed that bore the sins of the people. And Jesus was the innocent "Lamb of God" who alone was eligible to be the ultimate and final sacrifice. There is no reason to think the priests are innocent or eligible to bear any sins. This is one reason Jesus was a superior priest. This is why even the Kohen Gadol had to make atonement for himself before he could offer atonement for the people on the Day of Atonement. God set the priests apart to be mediators between Himself and man, but they were not the sacrifice to bear their sins.
You are reading for too much into what I am saying. I am not claiming that the priest was a sacrifice, nor am I suggesting that Israel was to look to the priest for forgiveness.
The priest was a type.
The sacrifice was a type
The transfer of sins to the sacrifice was a type.
The transfer of sins to the priest was a type.
The entire sanctuary service was a type.
It was a pictorial illustration to Israel of the gospel.A showpiece or theatre if you will of what in fact took place when Jesus fulfilled the old testament covenant. The whole thing was a ritual to demonstrate to Israel the future work of the Messiah. It was a pictorial prophecy.
When the priest ate the flesh it was essential that he be ceremonially clean. Just as the sacrifice had to be without blemish. Just as Jesus was perfect in His life and thus a worthy sacrifice.
But it is abundantly clear that the sinswere transferred via the blood to the sacrifice and to the priest in type.

17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?



God allowing the priests and their families to eat the meat was a way of being provided for. What meat the priests were not entitled to belonged to God.

Blessings,
BHS[/QUOTE]

BHS
Apr 24th 2008, 11:38 AM
Brakelite,

I understand very well that the sacrificial system was a "type" or a picture of what was to come and that has been my point. God became very angry with anyone who distorted that picture. What I have been trying to get across is that I think you have read into the meaning of the sacrificial system some things that I do not think are valid. I did not say that the priest was a sacrifice, but that I do not believe they "bore the sins" of Israel. How could they when they were not innocent themselves?

Perhaps my translation and this verse will help explain what I see --

Leviticus 16:16 16 "He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Leviticus 16:19 19 "With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it.

It was "because" of their sins -- the priests made atonement for the holy place, the altar, etc. Again, the blood atonement of them was to consecrate them, rather than cleanse them of sins that defiled them from the blood. The blood cleansed, rather than defiled. In my opinion, the sins were not carried from the altar by the blood into the holy place. It was "because" of the necessary atonement that the priests ate of the meat. It could have been consumed by fire, as it was at times, and at other times the priests were allowed to eat it. I cannot see in the picture that the priests were eligible in any way to "bear" their sins. They could not "bear the sins" for the Israelites. It was the Kohen Hagadol that represented Jesus on the Day of Atonement presenting the blood before the Lord in the Holy of Holies. You say you are not saying the priest is a sacrifice, but it is the sacrifice that bore the sins. And nothing/noone other than the sacrifice could do that.

Blessings,
BHS

Teke
Apr 24th 2008, 02:01 PM
When the tabernacle was first set up, yes, all things needed to be sanctified. But the Day of Atonement was the climax of the Jewish calender year. During the year sacrifices had been offered, and the services held. It was holy at the beginning, so what made it unholy that by the day of Atonement it needed cleansing?
Levit 16:Le 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Le 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.



You are reading for too much into what I am saying. I am not claiming that the priest was a sacrifice, nor am I suggesting that Israel was to look to the priest for forgiveness.
The priest was a type.
The sacrifice was a type
The transfer of sins to the sacrifice was a type.
The transfer of sins to the priest was a type.
The entire sanctuary service was a type.
It was a pictorial illustration to Israel of the gospel.A showpiece or theatre if you will of what in fact took place when Jesus fulfilled the old testament covenant. The whole thing was a ritual to demonstrate to Israel the future work of the Messiah. It was a pictorial prophecy.
When the priest ate the flesh it was essential that he be ceremonially clean. Just as the sacrifice had to be without blemish. Just as Jesus was perfect in His life and thus a worthy sacrifice.
But it is abundantly clear that the sinswere transferred via the blood to the sacrifice and to the priest in type.

17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?




Brakelite, I believe your reading to much into the traditional rituals. Perhaps understanding smaller pieces at a time would make better sense to you. The priesthood of Levi was to "bear the iniquity of the congregation" because they represented all the first of Israel, and all the first of everything was dedicated to God.

In essence, God took Levi who was cursed by his father, and made his tribe the priesthood to represent the first fruits to God.


Num 3:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

Num 3:13 Because all the firstborn [are] mine; [for] on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I [am] the LORD.



Deu 18:1 ¶ The priests the Levites, [and] all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel:

brakelite
Apr 25th 2008, 01:46 AM
Brakelite, I believe your reading to much into the traditional rituals. Perhaps understanding smaller pieces at a time would make better sense to you. The priesthood of Levi was to "bear the iniquity of the congregation" because they represented all the first of Israel, and all the first of everything was dedicated to God.

In essence, God took Levi who was cursed by his father, and made his tribe the priesthood to represent the first fruits to God.


Num 3:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

Num 3:13 Because all the firstborn [are] mine; [for] on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I [am] the LORD.



Deu 18:1 ¶ The priests the Levites, [and] all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel:

Yet they were called for a purpose....

Heb 5: ¶ For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

And the rituals and ceremonies also had a purpose....

Heb 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

brakelite
Apr 25th 2008, 02:22 AM
Brakelite,

I understand very well that the sacrificial system was a "type" or a picture of what was to come and that has been my point. God became very angry with anyone who distorted that picture. What I have been trying to get across is that I think you have read into the meaning of the sacrificial system some things that I do not think are valid. I did not say that the priest was a sacrifice, but that I do not believe they "bore the sins" of Israel. How could they when they were not innocent themselves?
After the high priest made atonement for himself, and ensured before he even entered the sanctuary that he was ceremonially clean, then he was, in the sight of God, innocent. If he were not, he would have been struck down the moment he entered the tabernacle.


Perhaps my translation and this verse will help explain what I see --

Leviticus 16:16 16 "He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Leviticus 16:19 19 "With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it.

It was "because" of their sins -- the priests made atonement for the holy place, the altar, etc. Again, the blood atonement of them was to consecrate them, rather than cleanse them of sins that defiled them from the blood. The blood cleansed, rather than defiled. In my opinion, the sins were not carried from the altar by the blood into the holy place. It was "because" of the necessary atonement that the priests ate of the meat. It could have been consumed by fire, as it was at times, and at other times the priests were allowed to eat it. I cannot see in the picture that the priests were eligible in any way to "bear" their sins. They could not "bear the sins" for the Israelites. It was the Kohen Hagadol that represented Jesus on the Day of Atonement presenting the blood before the Lord in the Holy of Holies. You say you are not saying the priest is a sacrifice, but it is the sacrifice that bore the sins. And nothing/noone other than the sacrifice could do that.
That innocent blood cleanses, on that we agree. But sin defiles. The sin is confessed over the victim. The blood is then sprinkled before and around the altar and placed upon the horns of the altar and then taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the veil. If this blood cleansed, then why was there need of further cleansing on the day of atonement? After a year of such cleansing as you maintain, what need would there be of any more?
No, I believe that the blood throughout the year in the daily ministrations defiled. And it defiled because it carried the sin of the people.

As for the priests, here is a further quote from Levit.6:
25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.

This occasion for eating was not a form of provision of food. It was not a part of the allocation as priests of the temple. This was wholly different and unique, and had the sole purpose of transferring the iniquity of Israel to the priest.

The allowance or provision of meat for daily meals came from other offerings as follows
Levit 7:8 And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.
9 And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the fryingpan, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it.
10 And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
11 ¶ And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD.
12 If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.
13 Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
14 And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.
16 But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:
17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.

But the reason for the eating of flesh in the holy place was as follows:
Levit 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?


I am not reading anything into this , but simply accepting what it says.

Brakelite

Teke
Apr 25th 2008, 12:49 PM
Yet they were called for a purpose....

Heb 5: ¶ For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

These Hebrews verses are basically explaining that the priest is a vicar of God. As you've pointed out they are "called for a purpose" by God, or IOW set apart (holy) for God.
This is also why the sacrifices are seen as "vicarious' offerings.


And the rituals and ceremonies also had a purpose....

Heb 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Yes, they are the liturgical service of the priest.

As the Hebrew 5 verses demonstrate, to qualify as a priest in the OT one must be "taken from among men" (v1) ie. be fully human, be "appointed for men" (v1), specifically for liturgical service, offer "sacrifices" (v1), have compassion (v2) and be "called by God" (v4).


vicarious, vicar, in the sense of ecclesiastical
Def. from Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary - (Eng. Eccl. Law) The incumbent of an appropriated benefice.

Christ assumed and fulfilled the OT priesthood (5:1-4), like Melchizedek (v6). But He doesn't sin and His sacrifice is the human sacrifice of Himself. His perfect priesthood continues in the Church to this day.

This is all to clarify His position of divinity to us.:)

BHS
Apr 25th 2008, 01:24 PM
Again, we will have to disagree and I guess that is where it will stand. I will concede that it is possible that God considered the Sanctuary desecrated in a "spiritual" sense by simply being in the midst of a sinful community. But the "sanctuary" in this passage refers to the Holy of Holies that was entered only one time of the year and so could not have been defiled by the previous years' offerings. I still do not believe the sins were carried in with the blood and therefore contaminated it. I have searched several commentaries and none so far come to your conclusion.

jeffj
Apr 25th 2008, 01:38 PM
When you look at the way God had Isreal do all these things, it was drawing a prophetic picture of Christ. Notice that when Jesus came into Jerusalem for the passover and went to the temple and overturned the tables and ran off the merchants. He was cleansing the temple for the passover sacrifice (himself). As far as the Levites, the way I see it thier inheritance was God, and he sustained them. When they entered the promised land, they didn't get a portion as the other tribes.