Monday: Sin, Sacrifice and Acceptance
Hebrews 9:22
The divinely appointed way for the Old Testament sinner to rid himself of sin and guilt was through animal sacrifices. The Israelite sacrificial offerings are detailed in Leviticus 1 through 7. Careful attention was paid to the use and disposal of the blood in the various kinds of sacrifices. Indeed, the role of blood in sacrificial rituals is one of the unifying features in the Israelite sacrifices.
Image © Pacific Press at Goodsalt.com
The person who had sinned — and thus had broken the covenant relationship and the law that regulated it — could be restored to full fellowship with God and humanity by bringing an animal sacrifice as a substitute. Sacrifices, with their rites, were the God-appointed means to bring about cleansing from sin and guilt. They were instituted to cleanse the sinner, transferring individual sin and guilt to the sanctuary by sprinkling blood and reinstituting communion and full covenantal fellowship of the penitent with the personal God who is the saving Lord.
How do these concepts, expressed above, help us understand the questions at the end of yesterday’s study?
What prophetic significance was there in the animal sacrifice? (Isaiah 53:4-12, Hebrews 10:4).
The Old Testament animal sacrifices were the divinely ordained means for ridding the sinner of sin and guilt. They changed the sinner’s status from that of guilty and worthy of death to that of forgiven and reestablished in the covenantal God-human relationship. But there was a sense in which the animal sacrifices were prophetic in nature. No animal, after all, was an adequate substitute in atoning for humanity’s sin and guilt. Paul states it in his own language: “It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4, RSV). Thus, an animal sacrifice was meant to be a looking forward to the coming of the divine-human Servant of God, who would die a substitutionary death for the sins of the world. It is through this process that the sinner is forgiven and accepted by the Lord, and the basis of the covenant relationship is established.
| Put yourself in the position of someone who lived in Old Testament times, when they sacrificed animals at the sanctuary. Remembering, too, just how important livestock was to their economy, culture, and whole way of life, what lesson were these sacrifices supposed to teach them about the cost of sin? |
(35)
Our talk about the sacrificial system has a very sanitized view of what really goes on. The illustration of the priests dressed in white standing around a sheep with a bowl to catch the blood is almost a caricature of reality. I don't know how many of you have been involved in killing an animal. I grew up on a farm in an era when most farmers butchered their own animals and although we were vegetarians, we, not infrequently, had to kill sheep that were sick. The traditional way of doing this was to slit their throats with a sharp knife. I witnessed my father and grandfather do this many times. I never got used to it. It was a bloody, messy business. Blood spurts everywhere and the animal kicks quite violently as its brain loses control. I was usually given the task of holding the animal and invariably we would get blood on ourselves in the process.
It was always a source of amazement to me that animal sacrifices became associated with cleansing and purification. For me, it illustrated the messiness of sin and the idea of cleansing and purification would have come from the necessary washing of both body and clothes after the sacrifice to remove the stench of death.
I grew up on a farm as well, and I wonder whether the sheep's violent kicking in dying is the same reason that chickens run around wildly with their heads cut off ... If it is the same, as I believe, the sacrificial scene could look quite a bit different.
I understand that animals appear to struggle in death because the adrenaline in their system causes the muscles to twitch. At a scene of butchery, there is fear in the air, and the animals are stressed and loaded with adrenaline.
It seems to me that the scene you describe, Maurice, would not allow the lamb or sheep to represent the Savior who met His death submissively. Consider the implications of this story my husband relates:
He was working for a Filipino couple who owned a senior facility, and once in a while he saw the man carry around a chicken, speaking softly to it and stroking it. Then he saw him sit down, still speaking softly and stroking it, but he had a razor-like knife in his hand. When next he passed by, neither the man nor the chicken was there. So he asked the man why he carried around the chicken, talked to it and stroked it. He replied that when you butcher a chicken, cutting its head off in the "normal" way, it runs around headless in fits and starts for some time. But when the chicken is relaxed and peaceful, slicing its throat does not have the same effect. "It dies like a lamb."
Could it be that the Israelites were taught to treat the sacrificial animals like pets. Note that the Passover lamb was to be separated from the flock and "kept" from the 10th of the month to the 14th. (see Ex. 12: 3-6) Where was it "kept"? I'm guessing it was kept in the home and treated as a pet. That would make its death all the more poignant, and it would also likely make the death more calm for the same reason that the chicken was calm. It would also make the lamb a more fitting representation of our Savior.
Of course, the people forgot the significance of the offerings and much of the teaching that went with it, so it's very possible that for much of Israel's history animals were butchered heedlessly and used to "pay for sins," just as in heathen cultures, and your description of the offerings would fit those times.
But that was never the Lord's plan.
For both Maurice and Inge, the typical scene where animals are butchered for market is much different than a lamb of 1 year being brought by its owner/caretaker quietly isn't it? I heard an interview concerning the subject of animals being processed in ways that removed their fear, which was rather interesting to learn.
For the sacrifice, no long journey in a crowded cattle car, being herded through chutes while hearing/sensing the fear in the animals around them, etc. I wonder if the animals being sacrificed died as violently considering the circumstances?
We know Jesus yielded Himself peacefully, and could have freed Himself without needing to struggle violently, and could have calmly walked away.
Today's lesson states "The Old Testament animal sacrifices were the divinely ordained means for ridding the sinner of sin and guilt. They changed the sinner’s status from that of guilty and worthy of death to that of forgiven and reestablished in the covenantal God-human relationship."
This is unfortunately not true. For as the lesson goes on to state, Hebrews 10:1-4 emphasises the point that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats - animal sacrifice - to take away sins.
The comments by today's lesson reflect a common but mistaken understanding of what sin is all about - and what it's core problem therefore is. If we go back to the very beginning where sin entered humanity, we will be reminded that the problem of sin is not the 'sinful act' - the 'sinful act' is the outcome of the core problem. The core problem of sin is wrong heart motive that puts the 'sinner' out of harmony with what is essential for life. Linking to what I wrote in yesterday's lesson, wrong heart motive puts the 'sinner' outside of Covenant. David understood this - which is why he asked for a new heart and right Spirit to be re-created within him (Psalm 51:10). This is why David was a man after God's own heart - David understood the core role that heart-orientation plays to Covenant life and living.
Consequently, the 'sinner' is not "guilty and worth of death" - the sinner is dead already! Paul affirms this in Ephesians 2:1-5 when he unpacks that until we are re-made alive in Christ, we are in fact actually, already "dead in our trespasses and sins", "dead and separated from Him because of our sins" - even though we seem to be alive when indulging the self-seeking passions of our flesh. Thus, we are not waiting on death-row - we are in fact already nothing more than 'dead man walking'.
This truth is similarly echoed back at the beginning when God accurately informed Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would die (Gensis 2:16,17). God's language is precise - He did not say they would need to be put to death. He said they would die. It was the heart-change from self-giving to self-seeking that resulted in them eating the fruit. And it was this letting go of a heart motive of self-giving that also involved letting go of their connection with the only viable basis of life - covenant union with The Source of life whilst living in harmony with the 'laws'/principles of life.
Because of this, the sacrificial system was never about animals actually atoning for sin. Rather, the sacrificial system was:
(a) a perpetual reminder of the existence of the sin problem (Hebrews 10:3),
(b) an 'object lesson' unpacking that sin is no small thing (that it is extremely messy - like Maurice's post mentioned above) and that it impacts the innocent, and
(c) as the lesson acknowledged, a prophetic pointing forward to the innocent One who would need to step in to actually repair the broken covenant relationship and in doing so, would be 'slain' in the course of manifesting unwavering self-giving love (Philippians 2:8).
If we see sins as nothing more than bad deeds that need to be punished, we miss understanding what the sin problem actually is. And then we misunderstand the actual solution to the sin problem. But when we realise that 'sins' are the outcome of broken Covenant - hearts that have let go of self-giving beneficence and instead embraced self-seeking - then we, like David have our eyes opened to what the real issues are and what the real solution involves.
Love is the center of the Everlasting Covenant which is the Good News. The LORD's love for humans and their love for Him. Because He loves us He offers to change our hearts so we can love Him and when our hearts are full of His love we can love others. We are unable to change our own hearts from selfish to unselfish we need the Holy Spirit in our hearts to re-create them to be like the LORD's - abundant in lovingkindness!
Exo 34:6-7 ASV And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, the LORD, the LORD God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin;
The LORD through Moses gave this Principle:
Deut 6:4-6 KJV Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.
And Jesus Christ repeated that Principle and added love to one's neighbour plus explaining that - on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Having to give away/sacrifice a living thing that meant economic resource/survival must definitely not be an easy thing!
But sin is much worst!
Sin takes human lives, it takes families apart! Sin can make a person disgusting, dirty, specially while it is cherished in the heart, bringing unhappiness not only to those who cherished, but also to those around them! Sin is a disease, almost incurable, to which the cure depends totally on the choice of the sick, a choice for Jesus as the only mediator and Savior, the only One Who can cure this horrible and bloody ulcer! How come, we can live with something that is fetid as sin, and still hang on to it!
Many say the payment Adam and Eve received is too much for the crime. But the Lord wants to teach us, humans, that despite our little sin or our big sin, sin is such an awful thing in the sight of the Creator. Because sin is so awful, it requires nothing but the blood of the Creator to rid it of its awfulness. Sin brings eternal death.
When we got married we agreed to be devoted to each other, sometimes one of us did something that upset the other but we were still married and forgave each other.
However when he committed adultery the result was we got divorced because he chose to love someone else.
Adam & Eve chose to believe Satan rather than the LORD.
When we enter into a covenant with the LORD we are committing our life to Him wholeheartedly. If we intentionally or accidentally stray from the Way of the LORD and are sorry He will forgive us. However if we rebel or reject Him and His Principles we are breaking the covenant and that is our choice not a punishment. If we study the history of Israel as a group didn't get into trouble for breaking the commandments as much as for worshipping another pagan god or rebelling against the LORD's Principles.
Remember what Joshua said -
Jos_24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
And Elijah on Mt Carmel
1Ki_18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
“The divinely appointed way for the Old Testament sinners to rid themselves of sin and guilt was through animal sacrifices.”
This is NOT true. Sinners are only rid of sin and guilt by faith in what the sacrifices promised in Messiah/Christ. In Genesis 22, Isaac was not saved by the ram caught in the thicket, but by the promised Messiah. This is what Jesus taught concerning Abraham isn't it(John 8:56)? All of this comes from the original covenant promise in Gen 3:15, and the promised Seed of the woman who was promised to save sinners FROM their sins(Matt 1:21, John 8:24), which the lambs, rams, bullocks, red heifer, etc, only pointed to in ritual promise.
The nation of Israel, because of sin, lost sight of the meaning taught by these ritual sacrifices and placed their trust in the rituals, while rejecting Jesus when He came to fulfill the law.
The only way for sinners to be joined to the Lord is by being justified and sanctified according to the promise of God through Messiah/Christ.
The animals possessed no merit to save, and only illustrated the promise of the Seed of the woman who would bruise the head of the serpent, and put enmity between the sinner and Satan.
I can't imagine being concerned about the economics of offering sacrifices IF not forgetting WHY. Besides, it is God who provides all we need if we trust and obey Him. That God allows a propitiating substitute for me should bring forth thanksgiving and praise, along with whatever He asks of me.
You forgot Isaiah 1:11-17.
What has to be kept in focus in this discussion about the Sanctuary services and sacrificial offerings to atone for the sinner’s iniquities is that this ‘physical’ observation of rules, these doctrinal aspects of Christ’s Religion of life by Faith, are to prompt a change in the heart and mind of the sinner – a desire to change toward the Way of Life which the Commandments admonish man to live by, has life in.
That God demonstrates through example - the sacrificial system - that sin and iniquity exists in man’s life causing death - is obvious. It does not matter whether the person lived in Eden, at the time of Sinai, the time of the tribes of Israel as a nation, or after Christ Jesus’ coming to earth to teach and instruct about living the Way of Truth and Light - the person is directed to turn away from the old way, his way of sin and iniquity in order to *live*.
Christ Jesus many times said to the listeners: ‘he who has ears to hear, let him hear’ – meaning, desire a life according to the Will of the Father and you will live – Luke8:8KJV.
I am concerned that many who study this topic might ‘get lost in the weeds’, so to speak. I think this Truth of ‘Sin, Sacrifice and Acceptance’ goes far beyond the theological exercise of knowing with one’s mind what the right interpretation of these interrelated, implied circumstances are.
This Truth can only be spiritually discerned, hopefully leading to humbly desiring to have one’s sin-nature changed into the new nature guided by the Holy Spirit, happily accepting this guidance so with eliminating ‘sacrifice’ to atone.
Let us go to the heart of what their appearance implies, as they are only representative of the spiritual Truth of the need to be cleansed from our iniquity; let us wholeheartedly submit our old sin-nature to the Will of God to be cleansed of all unrighteousness.
Perhaps we can see why Jesus message centered on "Repent, and believe the gospel"(Mark 1:15)?
Belief is demonstrated in actions of obedience(Heb 11, etc).
Robert - I understand Jesus' message to center on 'Believe and faith' only. Once the believer becomes established in what he believes in, he discovers the areas needing to be addressed by the Holy Spirit for cleansing and establishment in righteousness.
I understand Mark's statment of 'repent' to be saying 'repent from unbelieve' - 'acknowledge that you need redemption'.
We do not know our sins unless they are revealed to us or found out by reading and studying the Scriptures.
Motive, intent of the heart are the areas which the Holy Spirit addresses. It is the Holy Spirit which points out those very private but important 'sins' originating in the heart for which we seek cleansing from.
True faith/belief results in actions, such as repentance, sorrow for sin, humility, and seeking remedy. This leads the sinner to Christ who bids "come unto Me and I will give you Rest". The Holy Spirit that convicts the soul of sin also points that soul to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the repentant believer.
I see Robert Whiteman has already addressed the issue, but it bears repeating:
Seldom have I found such a misleading statement in a lesson quarterly. The Bible does not record all the teaching that went along with the sanctuary services, but the New Testament sheds some light on this. In Hebrews 4:2, where we are told that the gospel was preached to the Hebrews thousands of years earlier (presumably through the sanctuary services), but it did them no good, because they did not exercise faith.
The animal sacrifices in themselves did nothing for the sinner. (Heb 10:4) Only faith in the Redeemer to come could cleanse from sin and reconcile the sinner to God. The sacrifices were only the evidence of faith in the Messiah. In fact, God made clear that He abhorred "the multitude of your sacrifices" because they were offered as payment for sins, rather than an offering of faith in the Messiah. (Isaiah 1:11-18)
The sanctuary services were designed to teach the plan of salvation. Whenever those engaging in the services regarded the offerings as "a divinely appointed way for the ... sinner to rid himself of sin and guilt," they were no better than the heathen who offered sacrifices for the same reason. Without faith, the offerings were meaningless.
The writer of the lesson makes this assertion: “Sacrifices, with their rites...were instituted to cleanse the sinner, transferring individual sin and guilt to the sanctuary by sprinkling blood and reinstituting communion and full covenantal fellowship of the penitent with the personal God who is the saving Lord.” This statement is quite confusing to me. Leviticus 4:22-35 clearly states that for leaders and common people, the blood of the sacrifice was applied only to the horns of the altar of burnt offering. The blood of that sacrifice never entered the sanctuary.
Only for the sin of the high priest or the whole congregation was the blood sprinkled before the curtain of the most holy place and then applied to the horns of the altar of incense in the holy place. So individual sin and guilt do not appear to transferred to the sanctuary. This raises the question of how the “sin-contaminated” blood of a leader or a common person gets into the sanctuary to make that transfer?
Here is something else I find puzzling. The “sin-contaminated” fat of the sacrifice was burnt on the altar of burnt offering. How can God find the smoke of this burnt offering to be a “soothing aroma” (Leviticus 4:31, NET) when it is contaminated with sin? Sin is abhorrent to God.
There are several places in scripture that describe the commission of sin defiling God’s sanctuary (Leviticus 20: 2-5; 2 Chronicles 36:12-16; Ezekiel 5:1-11; Ezekiel 23:36-39). Could someone provide some scriptural references explicitly demonstrating that the confession of sin defiles God’s sanctuary with sin?
Here is another puzzle. Exactly how is sin transferred from the supplicant to the animal? I have heard it explained that by laying his hand on the head of the animal, his sin is transferred to the animal, and then its "sin-contaminated" blood completes the transfer to the sanctuary. But Leviticus 5:5-6 and Leviticus 6:1-5 make it clear that a person must confess his sin and make restitution before he makes a sin or guilt offering. So confession of sin does not appear to be linked to his offering. Further, there is no confession of sin involved with the burnt or fellowship offerings, yet in both of these, the supplicant lays his hand on the head of the animal.
And another puzzle. 1 John 1:7 states that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. However, by extension of type to antitype, the author’s comment implies that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is somehow “sin-contaminated” during the process of cleansing from us from sin and is transferring our sin to the heavenly sanctuary. To me, this defiles the sacrifice that Jesus made at the cross and is sacrilegious. It is hard to believe that the blood of Jesus is a conveyor belt which dumps sin into God’s holy sanctuary.
So in all of this, the author’s assertion does not appear to make sense in the context of scripture. Would someone mind explaining the author’s comment?