Sunday: Baptized Into Moses
Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-11. What did Paul want to communicate to his readers in Corinth when he referred to “examples”?
The Greek term used in 1 Corinthians 10:6 (and also adapted in a similar form in 1 Corinthians 10:11), translated as “example” in most English translations, is typos. In English the word type is based on this Greek noun.
Image © Kim Justinen at Goodsalt.com
A type (or example) is never the original but some kind of symbol or representation of it. It is a model of something else.
Hebrews 8:5 offers a good example of this kind of relationship: “They [the priests of the Old Testament temple service] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain’” (ESV).
This passage in Hebrews highlights the direct link between heavenly and earthly realities, and then it quotes Exodus 25:9, where God told Moses to build the wilderness sanctuary “according to … the pattern” that he had seen on the mountain. The point is that the earthly sanctuary, with all its rituals and procedures, were “examples,” symbols, models of what is going on in heaven, with Jesus as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.
With this in mind, we can better understand what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 10. In these verses Paul revisits some of the key experiences of God’s people in the wilderness on their way to the Promised Land. “Our fathers” refers to their Jewish ancestors who left Egypt, were under the cloud, passed through the sea, and, thus, were all baptized into a new life of freedom from slavery.
Paul considers these important stations of the wilderness journey as a type, or an example, of individual baptism. In the footsteps of Paul’s logic, the reference to “spiritual food” must refer to manna (compare with Exodus 16:31-35). Israel drank from the rock, which Paul identifies as Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Think of Jesus, for example, as the “bread of life” (John 6:48) and as the “living water” (John 4:10), and this all makes perfect sense. Thus, what we see here is Paul’s use of Old Testament history as an example of revealing spiritual truths that can be applied to individual Christians today.
| Think back about the experience of the Israelites in the Exodus. What spiritual lessons can we learn from their “examples,” both the good and the bad that they left us? |
(26)
Plato devevloped the "Theory of Forms" where he postulated that what we see and interact with are shadows or copies of the true rational reality. He described us as watching shadows on the wall of a cave, where those shadows were reflections of the real world outside the cave. While many have made a lot more metaphysical (and theological) milage out of Plato's ideas it is not as esoteric as it sounds. If we come back to the illustration I gave yesterday, the flat piece of wood with marks on it is really an instance of the idea or abstraction of a ruler. We recognise many devices as rulers or instances of the idea of a distance measuring device. We could ask ourselves, which is the most important, the devices we use, or the idea and concept behind the devices.
Obviously, both are important, we cannot measure anything with an idea. We need the concrete instance to do something useful.
In Hebrews, Paul uses this Platonic idea of "forms" to draw the parallel between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. (I am not inviting comments on the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christianity here. That it a whole topic in itself) The idea is that the earthly sanctuary was a shadow or an instantiation of the principles and ideas of the Kindom of Heaven.
There are two traps we can fall into
1. We could become so focused on the instance that we fail to recognise that big picture idea behind the instance or model.
2. We could build for ourselves a second "heavenly" model limited by the restrictions of the "earthly" model.
Both pitfalls potentially limit our understanding of what God is trying to teach us.
For those of us who have to look up the meaning of the word instantiation, it means a mental representation, or if you prefer a mental object. Now I more fully understand Christ object lessons, or parables if you prefer. A instantiation and parable sticks much better in the mind. Proof that God knows us from neurons to dendrites to neurons to brain, and our whole being. He knows how we think. Knowing this draws us to Him, as we become cognegent of His love. Lamentations 3:22, Romans 5:5, 1John 4:9.
God originally created us with the capacity to learn the principles upon which reality is based and then apply those principles wisely in each situation in accordance with the specifics of that situation. Unfortunately the entrance of sin into our world and its consequential detrimental impacts upon our capacities resulted in rules being introduced at times to people who were not yet up to being able to understand and apply principles. Nevertheless, the aim of human development is to hopefully grow with practice in our ability to understand and apply principles.
Today's lesson states that "This passage in Hebrews (ie Hebrews 8:5) highlights the direct link between heavenly and earthly realities...". It is important to note that this direct link is at a principle level - not a literal-reality-level because at the literal-reality-level there is very little in this earthly reality that is the same as heavenly reality - as I briefly proposed yesterday.
The above is crucial to keep in mind when contemplating both the Sanctuary and the sanctuary system. First and foremost we need to consider the principles that these two related 'types' were intended to help us 'see'.
Sanctuary (Hebrew miqdash), at a principle level, refers to a special 'place/space' where the experience of dwelling, meeting and/or refuge take place. Under our sin-impaired state, we as humans need visual cues to remind us of the existence of otherwise unseen realities - but again keeping in mind it is the principles of those unseen realities that we are limited to 'seeing'. We see this reflected in the cloud/pillar of fire that God initiated for Israel upon their exodus from Egypt to help them understand and remember that He, though unseen, was leading, guiding, sustaining and protecting them. Unfortunately we also see this human tendency expressed in the Israelites request to Aaron for a golden calf as a visual representation they could focus their attention on when Moses was absent upon Mt Sinai for longer than the Israelites were able to cope with.
With respect to the sanctuary system, each aspect was designed to illustrate various facets of sin and salvation - at a principle level. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate and start you thinking/investigating for yourself:
* 'sin', contrary to how it seems, by its inherent nature can only lead to destruction and ultimately death - including destruction and death of others who are 'innocently' impacted by a person's sin (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25; Romans 6:23). Therefore sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is by its inherent nature a big deal.
* we are incapable of fixing the sin problem ourselves (eg Romans 5:6). We needed an 'innocent outsider' (due to Romans 5:12-14) who is willing to undertake what was necessary to fix the actual terminal sin-condition of humanity (as per Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14,15; Philippians 2:7-8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). How? This is where the Son of God and of Man who "will save His people from their sins", the "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" and the 'second Adam' intersect (Matthew 1:21; John 1:29; Romans 5:14). Jesus as the innocent outsider became a valid member of humanity and 're-traced' the path of the first Adam without failure (ie holding on to self-giving love no matter the temptation to instead resort to self-seeking/self-preservation/self-indulgence). In doing so, this innocent outsider necessarily needed to lay down His own life (because of those who were out to kill Him) in order to not let go of self-giving love which is the basis of connection with eternal life (as per the principles of John 15:13; Philippians 2:5-8; Revelation 2:7). These principles are consistent with the most succinct summary of the focal point of the Day of Atonement 'symbolic ritual' as outlined in Leviticus 17:11. Blood is symbolic of life. And shed blood is symbolic of the willingness to lay down that life in other-centered-giving love. Thus, Jesus's holding on to other-centered-giving love for the sake of others no matter the cost to self is what actually fixed the 'terminal heart condition' that occurred within the human species at Genesis 3:1-7: actual restoration of what was broken.
I invite you to dig deeper into other principles that are reflected in the sanctuary system and let me know what you discover...
Thanks for your insightful commentary. I agree with the view exposed. However, in my opinion, "type" and rituals, as symbols or shadows, are not merely illustrations with a pedagogical intent. There is a profound experience, a living narrative that it is designed to imprint a pattern of behavior leading into a what it may be called a "sanctified" life, more akin to the Calvinist code of conduct than to the sacramental or liturgical, guilt-ridden Catholic model. In that sense, I see "type" or "example" as a powerful tool to transform lives.
Hi Jamie
Thanks for your input.
Yes, on the one hand principles can be taught or held as nothing more than intellectual knowledge - mere mental ascent or a set of 'doctrines'. On the other hand, applied principles (living doctrine) can drive and guide experience. It is the latter that I am referring to - powerful tools to transform lives as per Romans 12:2 principle.
Phil - Whereas I agree with your general depiction of the principles related to the Sanctuary and its services, as well as learning the 'principles upon which reality is based and then apply those principles wisely in each situation in accordance with the specifics of that situation', I cannot see how to apply this principle to the Sanctuary type and its services.
I think this model was designed to 'discourage/dissuade' sinning but lead to licensed sinning covered by ritualistic forgiveness - or, was its original design to point out the cost of sin and God's forgiveness by His Mercy and Grace?
Was the Sanctuary and its services' 'type/design' incapable of producing results based on this 'true' purpose, or was its true purpose designed to point to/produce that which is essential for our relationship with God - LOVE -, but those under the law missed this?
Recorded in Psalms 51:18-19, David states that the true sacrifice 'is a contrite spirit, a broken and repentant heart God will not despise.' In my opinion, because the Sanctuary services were based on the shedding of the blood of an 'innocent outsider', an animal, (which could/should have diminished the frequency of sinning based on pity, but not necessarily established the love for the Lawgiver), this type/form of 'service by obedience to the letter of the law' engendered a certain license to sin - no pity/remorse/no personal accountability due to 'easy/painless' forgiveness of sin.
What might the true focus of the Sanctuary services have been since these rituals would not stop people from sinning? I think its true focus was the core-principle which governs man's relationship with our heavenly Father - reciprocal love. To establish that, the Creator had to, again and again, reach deep into His own heart's treasure of long suffering Grace and Mercy, always forgiving the shortcomings of mankind, but eventually He just had to tell it as it was - Isaiah 1:11-14; Heb.10:4-6.
I see this record in Scripture to show how much the Creator longed for the simple form of worship - faith, trust and adherence to His guidelines governing spiritual life by loving Him and treating each other with kindness.
Usually, the study of the Sanctuary or the sanctuary's services do not point out its shortcomings; this Truth might still need to be established to help fully appreciate God's Grace and Mercy and long-suffering, loving faithfulness.
Hi Brigitte
I am using the term/concept of principles in its broadest possible extent. Absolutely every aspect of life and living involves the 'activity' of principles - cause and effect, action and reaction/response dynamics.
Yes, you are correct that there are multiple dimensions being illustrated by the Sanctuary and the sacrificial system including:
* that sin is a very big deal - even it if is unintentional
* the wide-ranging impacts and effects of sin - including upon innocent others
* the means by which the sin issue would be 'fixed' - again including involvement of an innocent other that would unfortunately 'pay the price' for getting involved in repairing something they had nothing to do with breaking, so to speak
In light of this, I agree that the ritual was also intended to deter and discourage rather than minimise and encourage sin.
And I agree that much of what it was intended to teach got lost and instead became something completely other than it was supposed to be - hence Jeremiah 6:20; Isaiah 1:11–15; Amos 5:21–23.
Phil - thank you for replying to the points I raised. Considering the diverse topics we study, when peeling back the onion skins, do they not all boil down to their essence, the nucleus of Truth and Life - learning to love the heavenly Father and loving one's fellow man; everything else we need in life will be added as we seek to do so?
As we study Scripture, which is a good thing, we want to always be careful not to let our heads grow bigger than our hearts! 1Cor.1:1-13.
Essentially, yes, everything does boil down to the nucleus of agape love (beneficence) being the foundational Truth of Life. All evidence points to there being no other viable alternative basis and way of living - which is consistent with Jesus claim in John 14:6.
Satan suggested that self-seeking was a better option - and we can see where that is getting us.
Phil, my final reflection - Do you think it then just as important to learn how to love and maintain this love for the Father and one another? I find with all the study of the Scripture, which is good for knowing 'that' we need to love, we seem to neglect to also focus on learning 'how' to love the Father and one another. I am concerned that we learn all that is to know 'about' the Father, but neglect to learn how to love the Father by loving one another; learning that it is the humble, loving disposition - being lowly in heart -, would be our aim to then be put into practice.
Hi Brigitte
I agree with you that mere intellectual awareness of the significance of love is alone insufficient and that actually loving is what is necessary.
What do you think/observe gets in the way of the 'theory' becoming 'practice'?
Phil - What is getting in the way in my opinion is spiritual superficiality; not wanting to grow up into spiritual maturity. Familiarity with scripture text without necessarily grasping its reviving, spiritual aspect; focusing teaching and learning on the written word but not the spirit embedded in its message; focusing on how much one knows to the expense of caring how deep the learned truth will/can/should changed the person’s perception and conduct; focusing study on doctrinal relevance instead of inspired revelation.
Sadly, what I experienced most in Christian circles is the spirit of convenience. I see a lack of commitment to deliberately walk in the overarching Truth that God is expressed love - committing oneself to always remember this when interacting with our fellow man. Behaving kindly and caring should be the reflection of the changed heart - this testimony is missing in the conduct of many Christians I encountered in my life.
Thanks Brigitte
What you say is true - and there is a further layer underpinning what you have said. Why do people not change, or grow and mature? Most typically it is because what they already have - in their eyes - is sufficiently working for them. Until our ways stop sufficiently working for us consistently enough, we as humans typically have a powerful bias towards maintenance of the status quo and are therefore resistant to change.
As a generalisation, this is one of the most significant factors that inhibits theory transforming into practice - as per your original observation.
Some principles/truths I've learned from the Sanctuary:
God provides propitiation for sinners by the blood/life of Jesus, which frees the repentant sinner of the death they earned(as a wage) allowing them to come to Him, now justified/faultless, to receive His power(via the Holy Spirit, who cannot dwell with sin) to live the sanctified life, thus providing a fitness for dwelling with God and holy beings who have never sinned.
Filled with God's Spirit, the justified one becomes sanctified by Truth, and as a Light in the world, their witness is enabled by feeding on the Truth and communing with God in the name of Jesus who's righteousness enables this communication to be acceptable, allowing God to respond according to His will on behalf of the formerly rebellious soul that now lives by faith in the Surety for his soul, devoted to know and obey the "good, acceptable, and perfect will of God. The law/will/character of God is written upon the very heart, transforming the new life as a partaker of the Divine Nature.
Regarding the blood, it is more than a symbol of life, scripture tells us that "the life of all flesh is its blood"(Lev 17:14). Blood = life. Jesus gave His very life on behalf of repentant sinners. Yet His blood has no efficacy for the unrepentant.
Hi Robert
I am trying to understand propitiation from your point of view. Would I be correct in assuming you understand and believe that:
(a) sin must be punished by death in order for there to be justice because the law demands this, and
(b) therefore the only way a sinner can escape this is for someone else's death to be substituted - otherwise God wouldn't be just if there wasn't a death penalty being applied?
Consequently, it is the death itself that is required and therefore provides propitiation?
Your comment sums up the sacrificial system doesn't it Phil? It also unpacks passages such as John 3:14-16, Rom 5:1,6,8, etc, and 1 Cor 15:3, to mention a few.
It would be worthwhile to mention Rom 3:24-26 on this point as well.
How do you read these passages in regard to this topic of the meaning of propitiation and why Jesus had to die for sinners?
Hello Robert,
Just a question to both you and Phil. Who is being propitiated and why? Jesus' parable in Matthew 21:33-46 seems applicable.
Richard
The best way to answer this question is to follow the blood on the day of Atonement, and see where it is offered. This offering of the blood of the Lord's goat is the atoning blood that allows the sins transferred from the sinner by the daily sacrifices to be removed/cleansed from the sanctuary, and placed upon the scape-goat, and thus separated from the camp of the saints forever(Lev 16). This blood propitiates(satisfies/appeases) the "wrath" that the sinner earned(as a wage) which fell upon the Lamb of God so that God could be just in justifying sinners who have repented and believed in the propitiating blood of Christ(Rom 3:24-26, Isa 53:10,11).
Therefore, I believe the "who" is the Sovereign God, His "perfect" law, His government, which includes the inhabitants of the sinless worlds. Why are they satisfied? Because repentant sinners have been saved, the law magnified, and God glorified through the revealing of His mercy and grace through Christ, and by the good works of those sanctified(Matt 5:16, and they all rejoice over every sinner redeemed from sin(Luke 15). The result will be a kingdom of perfect peace established in righteousness for eternity.
Hello Robert,
“God provides propitiation for sinners.” Yes, I agree and that propitiation is Jesus. God the Father provides Jesus his Son to sinners as a propitiation to them to win their hearts back to him. “In this the love of God was revealed in us, because God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation concerning our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10, MKJV. See also 1 John 2:2 and Romans 3:21-26,25.)
Because God sent his Son to be the propitiation, the point of view that Jesus was making a propitiation to God does not make sense. Similarly, a propitiation cannot be made to something that is not sentient, that is, it also makes no sense to propitiate an object or an idea. For example, one might try to make propitiation to a judge (a bribe, if you will) but it would make no sense to propitiate (bribe) the law by which the judge makes his decision. Hence, the sacrifice of Jesus can never satisfy the demands of the Law because the Law is not a person, and only persons can be propitiated.
In the mind of God, vividly demonstrating his character to mankind through his Messiah was his means of superseding the false picture the Devil had deceived and deceives them into believing. In this way, he strives with every person’s heart – calling them out of the Devil’s delusion (Babylon’s false worship) – in an attempt to win them into an eternal loving relationship with him. (Philippians 2:5-10; John 17:3.)
Knowing the hearts of mankind and of the prince of this world, God fully understood the risk in his propitiation to man, but in his love for us, he was utterly willing to make this sacrifice. He provided a Lamb to take away the sin of the world – that sin being our unbelief, that is, our choice (in Adam) not to believe his Word, the revelation of his character (in the flesh) to mankind.
I agree that the wage of sin is death, but it is sin that pays out that wage – not God – through the law of natural consequences. The foundation of God’s Law is Love (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18) and sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), that is “lovelessness” – broken dysfunctional relationships of the sinner with both God and his fellow man. Those who practice sin worship at the feet of the self-created idols of fear and lust. It is their heart worship of these idols that compel them to steal life from others, and to murder and destroy others through selfish acts of commission and omission, all the while justifying their sinful words and actions.
As you point out, when God called Israel out of bondage and slavery to Egypt, he gave them a sanctuary and its related services to preach to them the gospel before they were to enter his promised rest, the land of Canaan. In your comment on September 10, 2021 at 4:56 pm, you postulate a model of the sanctuary in which sin is transferred from the repentant sinner through the sanctuary rituals (specifically, the blood) to Holy Place (HP), where it accumulates, and is then removed from Most Holy Place (MHP) by the High Priest through the annual Day of Atonement ritual. I agree that the sanctuary rituals speak to God’s propitiation; however, I do not see how it fits the model you propose.
This model does not appear to be consistent with what I understand from the book of Leviticus. There are four basic types of ritual blood sacrifices in this book: burnt, fellowship, sin and guilt. The blood of the burnt, fellowship and guilt sacrifices is splashed against the sides of the altar of burnt offering and does not enter the HP. In the case of unintentional sin by a leader or common person, some of the blood of the sin sacrifice is applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering and the rest is splashed against the sides of the altar of burnt offering. This blood is never applied in the HP. Sacrificial blood is applied in the HP only if the High Priest or the whole congregation sin unintentionally. This type of unintentional sin by the High Priest and congregation would occur very infrequently.
For these reasons, it is completely unclear to me how sin is transferred to the HP through these rituals. So the model you have proposed of sin transfer does not make sense to me. I would very much appreciate your explanation of how this sin transfer occurs through the blood of these sacrifices when practically no (sin-contaminated) blood enters the HP.
Thanks for taking the time to provide answers to the above.
Richard
Hello Richard, while I may not be able to answer all your points right away, let me first ask: how do you interpret Lev 16, and why? What do you see taking place on that day in type, and how does it translate into what will actually take place in heaven and on earth?
I will address your other points as I can.
Hello Richard - thank you for providing your easy to follow outline of what you believe to be the correct understanding/application of the word 'propitiation'. It has helped me tremendously to sort out what is often confusion when trying to understand theological terminology.
Your first paragraph explains what the Father did when giving us 'Christ Jesus, His Son, to win our hearts back to him'; I agree wholeheartedly. This is His Way, His Plan of Salvation for mankind! Your comment provides a clear scriptural outline of the only reason the Father decided to send His Son - to make a way for us to come home by faith and through His Love; again, I agree.
Yes, John 4:9-10KJV says it all: "... God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might LIVE THROUGH HIM. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (covering) for our sin."
God gives/uses His Mercy and Grace to cover the fallen state of the repentant sinner, so allowing the repentant heart to be brought back to life by His Son's faith.
I, too, think the whole of our Salvation is founded on God's Love for man, its principle working to restore life in the living soul and so rescuing man from certain death.
When our eyes are opened, and with a willing and repentant heart, we see that we followed the law of death - self-centered lawlessness -, and accepting in its stead the Law of God's Love - selfless lawfulness. The fifth paragraph of your comment spells this out so clearly.
I very much appreciate you sharing the Father's love with us by taking time to explain.
God bless! -
Hi Richard
Not sure if you saw it or not but I had replied to your question above in my combined response to you and Robert further down. However, I thought I would also say that I agree with what you have outlined above re what propitiation functionally is.
I also thought I would mention that from what I can see, while it is widely believed that part of the process of sacrificing an animal involved transferring sin to the animal via the offerer placing their hand (singular) on the head of the sacrifice before killing it, I believe that this assumption is not as valid as it is assumed to be.
I note that there is only one instance in scripture (that I can find) where it is explicitly mentioned that sin was confessed over the head of the animal and that was done only once per year on the Day of Atonement with the High priest placing both hands (plural) on the head of the goat of Azazel (removal). And this was done AFTER atonement had been made by the slaying and blood-shedding/sprinkling of the sacrificial goat.
I do not believe that sin can literally be transferred (eg how can a murder committed by someone be transferred to someone or somewhere else?) but I do find that the goat of removal metaphorically reflects that because of atonement, the associated sins will be remembered (brought back into focus) no more because they are no longer relevant by virtue of atonement-restoration. The reason for this is due to actual atonement whereby:
1) Jesus as the successful 2nd Adam/Saviour achieved atonement between humanity and abundant life via unwaveringly holding to (Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:8) self-giving/sacrificing love (which is one of two prerequisites for abundant life - the other being correspondingly remaining in union with God who is the source of the breath of life), and
2) every human individual who is willing (which involves believing in such and correspondingly embracing), also partakes in that atonement via re-birth into the offered inheritance of the 2nd Adam (as per John 3:3-6). Consequently their heart is re-aligned back from self-seeking ('sin' state) to self-giving (abundant life state) as per Ezekiel 36:26 and Psalm 51:10.
I believe that the laying of a hand (singular) on the sacrificial animal was intended to reinforce to the 'sinner' that dealing with sin (as per Genesis 3:15) was unfortunately going to necessitate involvement of an innocent other (as per Isaiah 53:5 in conjunction with Romans 5:19 & Philippians 2:8).
Hello Robert,
My apologies for this delayed response. This last week has been extraordinarily busy.
Richard
=============
How do you interpret Lev 16, and why?
This is my understanding of the Day of Atonement’s purpose. The purpose of the sanctuary in the midst of Israel was so that the Lord could dwell among his people (Exodus 25:8) and that they might love him completely (Deuteronomy 6:5) as he loves them. In the closeness of that loving relationship, God's objective was to become one with his people and they were to become one with him.
In the Day of Atonement ritual, God preached the gospel (good news) to his people that they would be accepted into his presence where they could find rest and delight on their journey to and in his promised land, which is a type or example of the restoration of the Garden of Eden, a land flowing with milk and honey (Deuteronomy 27:3).
Of note is when this ritual occurred: in the fall season, which is the start of the New Year of the Jewish civil calendar, Rosh Hashanah. It began with the Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:23-25; Numbers 29). This Feast was a sabbath, a dedicated time set aside for his people so that they could ensure their hearts were one with his. In this Feast period, God’s people were to “afflict their souls” (Numbers 29:7).
The Day of Atonement capped the period of the Feast of Trumpets. On that Day, God called his people twice more to afflict their souls (Leviticus 16:29-31). This repetition was made to emphasize the importance of this action.
On the Day of Atonement, God’s stated purpose was atonement, that is, oneness with his people, that he might cleanse their hearts and souls. The question is: Of what were they to be cleansed and what was to be the actual focus of this time that started their civil New Year?
The prophet Isaiah answers this question loud and clear (a trumpet call, so to speak) in chapter 58 of his book. It is not a navel-gazing self-focused “what must I do to get into God’s good graces” time with a strong “me” focus. Instead, it was a time to take the focus off of “me,” put “work boots” on the souls of the congregation and focus on the heartwork of serving others. Israel as a congregation was in a sense called to “put on” the robe of God’s righteousness (covenant love) by serving the needs of others, that is, the poor, the naked, the hungry, the homeless, those oppressed by injustice, et cetera. And if they did this, God promised he would work on their hearts (cleanse them) and change them into his image.
Unfortunately, Israel lost sight of the meaning of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, and ended up in Babylon. Because of this, God had to promise them a “new” covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
This is my understanding of the symbology in the mechanics of the sacrificial rituals. Blood from the guilt, burnt and fellowship offerings is never applied in either the Holy or Most Holy Place or on the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering. But for all of these offerings, the supplicant lays his hand (singular) on the head of the animal before he slays it. Since the burnt and fellowship offerings do not involve sin, no transfer of sin can be implied from laying the (single) hand on the head of the animal.
Instead, for all blood sacrifices, laying the hand on the head of the sacrifice symbolizes identifying and becoming one with the sacrifice which symbolizes the Messiah (the Lamb of God). In every case, the laying on of the hand is directly linked to atonement (being made one with God). The gospel message in this is that there is no forgiveness of sin and guilt, no real devotion to God and no true fellowship with God or man unless the supplicant is fully identified (in union) with the One that the sacrifice represents in type.
The atoning blood of the sin offering is applied in the sanctuary service to the extent that the sin of the supplicant has penetrated to the presence of God. The greater the position, the more influential the role of the one who professes the name of God, the further their sin infiltrates to defile God’s sanctuary. However, if person confessed their sin, God was faithful and just to forgive (blot out) their sin and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. Confession of sin and guilt in accord with the merit of the sacrificial blood cleanses the sanctuary and supplicant of sin and results in atonement, the restoration of relationship between God and the repentant supplicant. (Leviticus 5:1-6, 14-19; 6:1-7.) Sin does not accumulate in the sanctuary.
Normally, if the High Priest or the congregation were commanded by God to make a sin offering for ceremonial or purification purposes, no blood was brought into the Holy Place. Instead, the blood was applied to the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering and the remainder splashed against the sides of that altar. (See Leviticus 9 for example.) Only when the High Priest or the congregation inadvertently trespassed a commandment was the blood applied inside the Holy Place. (Leviticus 4:1-21.)
However, on the Day of Atonement, for both the High Priest and the congregation, blood from the sin offering was applied in the Most Holy Place to the mercy seat, in the Holy Place to the Altar of Incense (Exodus 30:10) and in the courtyard to the Altar of Burnt Offering, cleansing and consecrating from any unconfessed and unknown uncleanness. In the person of their High Priest, the congregation was by faith brought into the presence of God, where they could find rest for their souls. By this public ritual, the High Priest and the congregation affirmed their trust in God and his Way, his Truth and his Life to deliver them from the Evil One.
In summary, the Day of Atonement ritual was the culmination of the Feast of Trumpets. The Feast and Day taught that humble service in the Lord’s name would bring the community of worshippers in union (at-one-ment) with the Lord in his presence through the sacrificial ministry of their High Priest.
What do you see taking place on that day in type?
Rest is what you find when you are one (yoked) with God and labour with him to serve others. (Matthew 11:28-30.)
How does it translate into what will actually take place in heaven and on earth?
In antitype, the Day of Atonement points to the ascension of Jesus after his resurrection to the presence of God. (Hebrews 9:11-12, 25.) By faith, we follow him into God’s presence, that we as the body of Christ may display God’s character in love and good works to the world. (Hebrews 10:19-25.)
Richard, in your reply of September 19, it seems you have a different understanding of the sacrifices that what I have come to understand concerning them.
The laying hands on the sacrifice was to surrender the offering to God, and to acknowledge guilt for which the animal will be a substitute for the sinner. How else could there be "atonement" through the offering? (I checked several different commentaries and this was the unanimous understanding.) While the blood of every offering does not get sprinkled in the the holy place, several of them do, the others upon the horns of the brazen altar and the side. Wherever it is applied, the blood remains within the linen walls of the courtyard, while the repentant sinner goes out justified by faith in the blood applied on his account for his sin, which is "the transgression of the law"(1 John 3:4).
Within these confines the record of wrong is kept until the day of atonement. It is this record that is cleansed and placed on the scape-goat which is removed from the camp, thus signifying what God promises in Isa 43:25, and confirmed in Jude 1:24.
There is no atonement for sinners without this blood on the sinners behalf. The offering for sin on the day of atonement has no laying on of hands, thus no sin attached with it, representing the spotless life of the True Lamb of God in paying the ransom for sinners, and this blood is sprinkled 7 times upon the propitiatory(mercy seat) to propitiate on the sinners behalf by His sinless life. God, the holy law, and justice is thus "satisfied"(propitiated) and repentant sinners cleansed from all record of wrong, and presented before the Lord as "faultless"(Rom 3:24-26, Jude 1:24).
God provides this propitiation through Christ on the repentant sinners behalf, allowing God to be just in justifying(pardoning) the sinner. The sinner now owes no debt to God and His broken law, this debt having been paid by the blood/life of Christ for him(1 Cor 15:3).
In summary: the soul that sins(violates the commandment of God) must die, which condemned Adam and Eve in the day they transgressed God's commandment, but a Sinless Substitute took their place and thus propitiated(satisfied) the demand of the broken commandment which required their life, allowing them to be justified and reconciled to God.
Hello Robert,
"I checked several different commentaries." Would you please provide the names of commentaries and the referenced pages?
Thank you.
Richard
Hello Richard,
go to biblehub.com, find any verse and click on the verse number(e.g. verse "8"), which will open a page with that verse in every translation(English). Scroll down the page until you find the commentary notes, depending on how many are shown, below that you will see "Parallel Commentaries ...", click on this to read as many as you wish.
Richard, you wrote: "In antitype, the Day of Atonement points to the ascension of Jesus after his resurrection to the presence of God."
I do not agree with this conclusion, since the day of atonement was the last day of the year(in type), typifying the final act of Jesus on the behalf of sinners of all ages. This is the specific work of determining the Kingdom of God before Jesus returns, when the sins of all the faithful are removed in judgment. When Jesus ascended He stood as our priest in the daily ministrations, but this last work did not begin until the time appointed, and is the final work which will end probation on earth. Daniel's prophecy speaks of this day in Dan 7:10,13,14, 26,27; 8:14. This takes place before Jesus returns(Rev 22:11,12).
Hi Richard
Can you unpack how you see the Matthew 21:33-46 parable as applicable to your question? This will enable me to better tailor my response to your question.
Thanks
Hello Phil,
In the context of 1 John 4:9-10 and this parable, it looks like those who claim to be God-followers are the object of the God's propitiation, that is, he sent his Messiah to win them over – "They will respect my son." Instead of respecting his son, they murdered him to secure God's vineyard as their possession.
Your comment to Robert seems to imply that this murder provided a propitiation, that is, murdering God's son was the propitiatory gift of the religious, which they gave to him in return for his propitiary gift to them of his son.
How this takes care of the sin problem (the broken relationship between God and man) is a mystery to me, hence, my question.
Richard
Hello Richard, while I am in the process of replying to your longer comment above, I also check the daily notices and wish to make a brief reply to this shorter comment, as it seems related.
You cite 1 John 4:9,10, which states that "God...sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins"(vs 10). Don't we understand how this happens if we keep in mind the sacrificial system which began in Eden after the fall? You mention that God is propitiating man, while the Bible clearly states that the propitiation is for OUR sin. What is sin? "Transgression of the law". Who's law? God's law, and thus God Himself, is the offended party, and this is why the blood of the Lord's goat(Lev 16) is taken into the presence of God and sprinkled 7 times upon the propitiatory(mercy seat) "for our sins"(1 John 4:10).
Keep in mind Jesus' own words, speaking of His soon death: "No man taketh it(His life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father"(John 10:18). Jesus was not a hapless victim of murder, but actually came into this fallen world as a willing sacrifice, given to save sinners from death(John 3:16) by propitiating for our sins against God(Rom 3:24-26). He is the Lamb of God(Rev 13:8).
God has never offended sinners, and does not need to propitiate man. We offended God, and must justly die for our sins(Eze 18:4, Rom 6:23, John 8:24). Yet God provides a redeeming sacrifice for sin which allows forgiveness to any repentant sinner. This clear theme is throughout scripture starting in Genesis 3. Without the blood/life of Jesus "for our sins" we would perish, and justly so due to our guilt of breaking the "perfect" Law of the Sovereign Lord. Only one equal to the Law could propitiate "for our sins".
Robert, you are correct, the Word of the LORD is clear, the whole sacrificial system is all about atonement - sacrifices - to forgive people for their trespasses.
I believe propitiation - atoning sacrifice - reconciliation are describing the same process of restoring the relationship between the LORD and His people as per the Covenant.
The word atonement is mentioned 49 times in Leviticus (per e-sword)
Lev_6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
Rom 5:8-11 KJV But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Jesus said: Mat 26:28 ISV because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.
Yes Shirley, and I believe the key point is the difference between reconcile and propitiate.
The former is becoming in agreement with God after repenting/confessing, the later "satisfies" the just demand of a holy God and His eternal law in which God declares that the sinner must die for his violation of the Sovereign will. The blood of Jesus is accepted in the place of ours IF we repent and allow God to work in us to will and do of His good pleasure.
Hello Robert,
Thank you for your questions and ideas of your post of September 16, 2021 at 5:46 am. In past, I found this issue of propitiation very confusing and tried to figure out why. What I found is that I had a collection of proof texts that supported the theology I had been taught. But other people had similar collections of proof texts and interpreted them very differently. The question is how could this happen from the same proof texts?
What dawned on me was that both others and me were supporting our biases and preconceived notions rather than letting the context of the bible narrative tell us the meaning the words of the writers was really conveying. For this reason, I do not want to just exchange proof texts embedded in propositional logic with you because I have not found that productive. So it is my hope that you would please bear with my longer contextual replies.
What is sin? You ask this question and then quote 1 John 3:4, KJV, “sin is transgression of the law.” The KJV poorly translates the Koine Greek, likely bringing the translators’ bias to their work. A literal translation of the text reads, “Everyone practicing sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” (LTHB.) Many Bible versions translate similarly: ASV, AMP, CSB, DARBY, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NRSV, RSV, TLV, WEB, YLT.
There is a big difference between “transgression of the law” and “lawlessness.” “Transgression of the law” focuses on the symptom, that is, rule breaking; whereas, the apostle John’s words on “lawlessness” focuses on the cause, that is, the heart of a person.
As I pointed out in a previous post, God’s law is founded on his character, that is, God is Love. So one might well translate this text as “Everyone practicing sin also practices lovelessness, and sin is lovelessness.” We know this is what the apostle John had in mind because of the context of 1 John 3:4.
In 1 John 2:28-29, the apostle John makes this point: If God is our Father and we are in his Son, we will be like his Son and practice righteousness. The very next sentence (in the next chapter) tells us what the foundation of that righteousness is. “See what sort of love the Father has given to us.” (3:1.) Love is that foundation. John then goes on in the rest of his letter to repeatedly make the point that dysfunctional selfish behaviour is nothing more than a symptom that a person does not have God’s love in his heart.
So practicing “lovelessness” is a very different idea than “breaking the rules.” The problem of sin originates in the heart. In this context, sin (selfish dysfunctional destructive manipulative behaviour) is merely the active symptom of a broken relationship with Love personified, that is, God.
Loving relationships are built on time, trust and truth. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden attacked the core of Eve’s relationship with God by insinuating that God had lied to Adam and her, and that he was deliberately withholding knowledge from mankind because he selfishly did not want them to have the power this knowledge would bring. Eve chose to believe the Great Deceiver’s lies about the character of God and Adam followed her lead.
Sin is caused by believing lies about God’s character of Love. The instant Adam and Eve believed the Devil’s lies about God’s character, God’s truth was cast down and trust was broken. Dysfunctional relational actions (“transgression of the law”) followed as a matter of course.
You point out, “God Himself, is the offended party.” But God is not like man, demanding retribution in the name of justice, that is, that the offender “pay” for his sins until the last gram of suffering has been extracted from his wretched agony for his sin. (By the way, this is defined as torture, not justice.) This idea is founded on pagan human culture and was incorporated by the Roman Catholic church into christianity.
If mankind “offends” God because they have been duped by the Great Deceiver into believing lies about God, exactly what kind of “payment” would be just? I once asked an evangelical friend of mine, how can a god of love torment people in a burning hell for eternity? His answer was “God is god, we just have to accept that what he does is right because he is God.”
God contradicts this view of himself. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9, MKJV.) Read the context of this quotation from Isaiah and I think you will see why God sent his son as a propitiation to us: it was to win the hearts of those who offended him because they have been deceived into believing lies about him. And he accomplished this through his love expressed in the person of his son.
But in case you do not see this, let me ask this question: What kind of person would demand that his son would have to die to “pay” because someone else had offended him? This is not a rhetorical question. My wife’s atheist cousin expressed this opinion about such a god, “Don’t tell me about your vindictive petty god, who sends his son (that he supposedly loves) to do his dirty work.” As she points out, this kind of god has a character of something other than love.
You point out that God as the offended party requires blood (by your analogy, “the blood of the Lord’s goat”) of his Son “for our sins.” (1 John4:10.) The word translated from the Greek as “for” is much more nuanced than a simple causative. It has more the sense of “with respect to” or “concerning.”
So I would look at this symbology very differently. God was willing to pay an infinitely high price to show us the depth of his love for us, that is, Jesus was sent as a propitiation to us. The goat’s blood represented the life of Jesus. God was showing us that he was willing to love us even to the death of his Son that by this demonstration of his love, he might convince all who look on this sacrifice of his love for them. This is why if Jesus is lifted up, he will draw all mankind to himself. (John 12:32.)
The blood of the goat applied to the sanctuary’s mercy seat was to symbolically applied to blot out (atone for) anything that stood in the way of re-establishing a loving relationship between God and mankind. That is the whole point of God’s propitiation to man. That is the point of Love.
How we perceive God’s character dictates our interpretation of his actions. And in the case of translators, it also affects how they translate the Bible, which has significant ramifications. As the apostle John emphasises, theology and doctrine must be determined through this fundamental: God is Love.
You stated “God has never offended sinners.” But the gospels tell a very different story. The Pharisee, Sadducees, scribes and other very religious people were very offended by Jesus, God’s son. (Read the context in which Matthew 13:57 and 15:12 are found, for example.) That is why as Jesus demonstrated God’s character in the flesh, they slandered his character, misrepresented his motives, opposed his ministry, and scrutinized his every word and action so that they could find an excuse to kill him. The “problem” with Jesus is that in the light of his pure love in action, religious hypocrites were exposed for what they were: the sons of the Serpent. (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 23:33.)
”Jesus was not a hapless victim of murder.” I agree with your statement. Genesis 3:15 tells us that this world is a war zone after the fateful decision of the parents of mankind. God knew the risk and counted the cost of sending his Son as a gift (propitiation) to mankind. The parable Jesus spoke in Matthew 21:33-46 makes it clear that God hoped for the best, but plans for the worst. The story of God’s love and mankind’s decisions are what we see in the bible narrative played out over and over again.
God is not a micromanaging control freak. As we live our lives, he comes to each one of us in the person of his Son Jesus. Will we see him as he truly is and believe what he has revealed of himself through his Son? Will the Love that is the mind of Christ be the mind that is in us? (Philippians 2:1-11, especially 1, 2 and 8.)
There are three frightening parables in Matthew 25 that point to key deficits in how religious people view God. (I view myself as a religious person.) This is why I am struggling to understand this issue of propitiation because the standard view does not appear to be congruent with God’s revealed character of Love.
These three parables harken back to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:23, “I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!” (MKJV.) It is that Greek word that translates directly as “lawlessness”. The one that links directly to the foundation of God’s law: Love. I want to “know” that Love, that Love may know me eternally. That knowing seems to focus on Jesus Christ whom God sent as a propitiation to us to win our hearts and minds. (John 17:3.)
I am sorry this reply took so long, but I am a slow thinker and this was a lot to think about.
Richard
Thank you for this thoughtful explanation, Richard.
To complement your thoughts on "What is sin?" I see that in Romans 14:23 Paul writes that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I believe that corroborates your point that sin is a heart issue, a love issue, because "faith" is a relationship word. We "have faith," that is, trust God implicitly, because He has demonstrate His love towards us and thus awakened faith in our hearts. Through Ezekiel God promises a "new heart" to those He will gather into the Promised Land - a promise we inherit as spiritual children of Abraham. (Ezekiel 36:26-28 ) This is similar to the New Covenant promise found in Jeremiah 31:31-33 in which God says that "I propitius "favorable, gracious, kind, well-disposedwill put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." According to Paul in 2 Cor. 5:17, this results in becoming "a new creature."
Our historical interpretation of "propitiation" as something to appease an offended God does not seem to fit well with the concept of fixing what is broken - the trust relationship with God. It seems that "propitiation" and "reconciliation" may be used interchangeably in the Bible, and it seems possible, as one source suggests that the meaning of "propitiation" being an offering to appease an offended God comes to us through the Latin translation and the heathen connotations attached to "propitiation." The word root "propitius" meant "favorable, gracious, kind, well-disposed." And we need to ask whose heart needs to be changed - is it God's heart or ours? I also see that
I confess I'm still struggling with the usage/meaning of the word in Scripture. But texts like Romans 3:25 and 1 John 4:10 don't sound as though God's attitude towards sinners needs to be changed in order to be "favorable."
The "mercy seat" has the word "mercy" right in it. It is the place of "atonement"/"at-one-ment" or reconciliation. Who has mercy? Whose attitude needs to be changed?
Again, thank you for taking the time to clearly explain your understanding. I think it may be time for us to re-think long-held beliefs whose origin is a bit murky.
I believe I understand your application of this parable to the question Richard. The owner of the vineyard was offended(not pleased/satisfied) by the stewards, appointed to oversee the work and bring him the results, in how they abused his messengers and even killed his son, keeping the fruit of the vineyard for themselves which he required of them. These wicked, unrepentant men earned(as a wage) the punishment justly brought to them.
Or do you apply it in some other way?
Hello Robert,
This Sabbath has been busy for me and Sunday will also be busy. I wanted to take time to explore this question more deeply, but that will have to be during this coming week.
My brief response is: God made the propitiation primarily to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. The propitiation was the gift of his Son, Jesus the Christ.
Unfortunately, at the time, most of the very religious despised God's gift – they murdered Jesus.
God loved us to the death of his son (see Philippians 2).
Richard
Hello Richard,
I understand about time constraints.
To your brief reply, wasn't Jesus offered, by a promise and in type, the day Adam and Eve sinned, long before there would be any Jews(Gen 3:15, Rev 13:8, 2 Tim 1:9)?
Robert,
You are correct. The Seed was first offered to all of mankind, not one particular ethnic group. Thanks for pointing that out.
Richard
So Christ propitiates on behalf of humanity to God through His life/death/resurrection?
How do you read John 3:14-16 Jon? Does that help to answer your question? For me, the story of Genesis 22 also helps to answer that question.
As the passage of Romans 3 points out, the only ones propitiated are those who repent, exercising "faith in his blood".
Hello Jon,
To me, Romans 3:21-26 answers your question. It indicates that God is the one who propitiates. His Christ is the agent of that propitiation and its focus is humanity.
The question is: Do we believe (have faith in) what God revealed about himself through the life/death/resurrection of his Christ?
Richard
Richard Ferguson - again, thank you so very much for sharing your detailed explanation of how you see God's Love at work in our heart and soul, and I agree. I also share your understanding that we often 'support our biases and preconceived notions rather than letting the context of the bible narrative tell us the meaning of the words the writers are really conveying.'
I agree with your understanding of 'propitiation'. Paraphrasing 1John4:10: - 'In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us, demonstrating this by allowing/giving His Son as the propitiation for our sins.' - Acts 4:12. "Christ is the life-giving/restorative agent of the Father's propitiation" for sin.
The act of allowing/sending/giving us His Son, expresses the Father's Love toward us. His Love includes/accepts/expresses His willingness to be appeased as He gives us His Son which is the active agent of His Love; source of God's appeasement power.
Mankind still needs to receive Him, still needs to believe Him, still needs to apply His teachings, but these acts are all based on faith - the gift of God without which no exchange of love, 'pleasing' God, is possible; nothing is given into our hands but faith and love - just as it was at the Beginning.
Therefore, my focus is on the act of God's LOVE, His Wisdom and Grace, allowing His Son to be available to us, teaching us their Way of Life - Love. Only by their faithfulness to apply their loving kindness, and our acceptance of their unconditional Love, can we be cleansed of our unrighteousness - faithlessness/lovelessness.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to focus attention on learning to applying/living God's Love in our daily lives instead of learning its theological meaning in a theoretical way.
Learning to love God with all one's heart and soul - loving the Father, loving His Son our Savior, loving each other - trusting that theirs is the message of Love unto Life, when believed and lived, saving mankind from its lost estate and reinstating us as sons and daughters of God.
Thank you for your input Robert and Richard - and Jon.
How I understand things, and therefore how I view the passages you mentioned Robert, is as follows.
My reference point for how I interpret things is a convergence of:
1) The apparent basis for abundant life with the most foundational elements appearing to be (a) the necessity of maintaining ongoing connection with God, the source of the breath of life and (b) living in harmony with the mechanisms/protocols/principles/'laws' that 'govern' life and living.
2) The nature of the fall of Lucifer and subsequently Adam and Eve from their former abundant life to their resultant consequential state.
Putting these together, the fall of Lucifer and Adam and Eve was functionally a disconnection and departure from the above necessary elements for life. Unless there is intervention to this situation, the outcome is inherently terminal.
There are essentially two views as to the nature of the above and therefore as to the corresponding 'solution'. One view is that Adam and Eve were disobedient and sinful and therefore consequences must be applied - a penalty meted out if you like. The underpinning premise to this view is that if a penalty (ie death) is not applied, then it is not fair and just. In this view fairness and justice are contingent upon and therefore involve application of a fair and just penalty. Therefore, under this view propitiation is the application of a fair and just penalty that satisfies the demands of penalty-based justice. Only by the payment of the penalty can atonement be regained and therefore this view subscribes to penalty-based atonement.
The other (or another) view is that there is an inherent cause-and-effect reality in play whereby Adam and Eve - and by extension all subsequent humanity and the natural environment of which they had dominion at the time - became 'disconnected' from abundant life (the only actually viable form of life and living) as a consequence of now being out-of-harmony with the above-outlined essential requirements for abundant life. Under this view, death is the unavoidable inherent outcome rather than a penalty that is required to be applied. Consequently, because it is being out of harmony that is producing the terminal state, atonement involves once again reinstating the human back in harmony with the essential requirements for life. Under this view, justice is restoration back to the state that things ought to be (ie righteousness) - abundant life. Thus, justice and righteousness are essentially synonymous. Under this view, propitiation is the actual repair of the root cause underpinning the resultant outcome - actually fixing what got broken. Thus, it is not a who is propitiated as much as a what was propitiated (ie actually fixed/redressed). I have recently outlined the specific dimensions of this salvation/restoration/atonement process in an earlier comment.
Please note that the above is a succinct summary of what I have said previously across ssnet and therefore, for the sake of brevity at this point in the ongoing conversation, I have not re-included specific biblical passages that I propose substantiate what I have outlined at this point.
Phil, I find your first of the two views you presented to be close to what I believe, with a few clarifications. Your second view I do not find in perfect agreement with scripture as far as I am able to understand it.
From God's word I have learned that unbelief resulted in transgression of God's law, and for guilty sinners, brought separation from God as far as face-to-face communion, but not from the Breath of Life and all the gifts God provides for "the just and the unjust"(Matt 5:45) which sustain life, as well as a path to reconciliation through a propitiating sacrifice promised(Gen 3:15). As a result of the fall, mankind was banned from access to the tree of Life lest they remain immortal while sinners(Gen 3:22-24), which led to experiencing the first(temporary) death for Adam and every descendant of his fallen race(Gen 3:19), both the righteous(by faith) and the wicked(by unbelief), which will be followed by two resurrections, each of these taking place following the completion of one of the two judgments to take place.
The second(eternal) death will come upon all who have remained unrepentant, and takes place after the judgment of the dead(Rev 20:11-15), where every work will be judged(Eccl 12:13,14) followed by the death of the finally impenitent who "must die in [their] sin"(Eze 18:4, John 8:24), and thus propitiate for their transgression of God's Law by their own blood/life, and they will be no more(Ps 37:10,20). According to God's Word, this second death will be executed upon the wicked as a fire from God, which is "prepared for the devil and his angels", into which the wicked will also be "reduced to ashes upon the earth"(Eze 28:18, Matt 25:41, Rev 20:9).
All those who have received Jesus and believed on His name(John 1:12), will by faith be justified through His propitiating blood(Rom 3:24-26) and sanctified by the Truth(John 17:17) and receive the eternal inheritance promised in God's everlasting covenant(Act 20:32, Gal 3:29). The propitiating blood of Christ is the means of justifying sinners because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission/forgiveness" of sins(Heb 9:12).
Hi Robert
Thanks for taking the time to outline your perspective and the basis for such.
In reflecting upon what you have outlined, there are two key things I wonder about.
1) If your view of Genesis 3:22 is correct - that Adam and Eve could have eaten from the Tree of Life and actually become immortal* sinners - then it would appear that Satan's statement to Eve in Genesis 3:4 was infact truth - you can sin and not surely die because you can still access the tree of life (unless God stops you doing that too) and still live. Consequently, it would also seem that Satan's implicit underpinning belief would also be truth - that there are other forms of viable existence available outside of what God has 'allowed' and therefore that God is an arbitrarily prohibiting His creation from accessing alternative options that viably exist (as reflected in Isaiah 14:13,14).
2) If unbelief and subsequent associated transgression of God's law inherently only results in separation from God as far as face-to-face communion and not also from the Breath of Life and all that maintains life, why did God warn Adam and Eve that in the day they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die (Genesis 2:17)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I note that the word in Genesis 3:22 for "forever" (leolam) can mean for eternity but that is not inevitably its meaning. The core meaning of that word essentially refers to an extended period of time, but the duration of that extension is specific to the situational context where the word is used (eg human vs divine being). For example, in Exodus 21:6 a servant could choose to remain bonded to his master for leolam. In 1 Kings 1:31, Bathsheba greets David with the phrase "May my lord king David live leolam".
Hello Phil,
Satan's claim against God's statement of sin being punished by death was concerning the punishment by death through intervention of the Sovereign God who gave them life, and law as citizens of His government. This means, if we consider the verse you bring up in question, that Adam and Eve, in their perfect health fresh from the Creator giving them immortal life, that they would need to be executed in order to fulfill the decree of God "in the day you eat". What else would have led to their death that same day if the fruit was not deadly of itself, except intervention from their Creator who gave them life? Keep in mind that God's government is a Theocracy, and the "law of the Lord is perfect...".
However you might define the word leolam, the meaning of God was clear to Adam and Eve, and does not suggest some gradual self-destruction without any involvement from the Sovereign Lord. Rebellion/treason/insurrection against the Sovereign command would justly result in forfeit of life "in the day you eat". God alone has the right to give or take life, and if not for His mercy, grace, and long suffering through the Gospel, the guilty pair would have perished on that day, and justly so. In violations of law in Israel which called for death, executions took place on the day guilt was established(e.g. see Joshua 7). Consider also that when deprived of the Tree of Life, Adam still lived 930 years. While sin may lead to destruction, it is not sin that of itself brings that destruction, or the eviction from Eden would not have been needed, and Rev 20:9, as well as many other passages in scripture, would read differently.
Satan's claim was that God lied in order to hide the "truth" from them, and intended them to "obey" from fear, but God does not lie, and lying is all that Satan knows. What God essentially told them was that sin is transgression of the law, and the wages of sin is death, "in the day you eat of it".
Concerning your 2nd question, Adam lived for 930 years. How is that done without the Breath of Life and God's blessings of sun, rain, seed time and harvest? All these because Jesus offered Himself.
Thanks again Robert for unpacking your view and basis for such.
I can understand what you are saying because as I read what you wrote, I remember that I used to see things pretty much that way.
Phil, I acknowledge that this topic has become a matter of division in our world fellowship, and as I have mentioned in the past, I have been confronted with it since the early 1980's, and have given much reflection to the tenets which have been promoted by those who have found a different understanding of God's wrath, and wish to see it another way, possibly due to how it has been misunderstood and misapplied too often. The arguments have been the same, and I could probably name some of the influences you have been exposed to.
I find the Bible plainly written, and the "certainty of the words of Truth" is there to be understood, and it remains a mystery to me that there can be opposing views of something so clearly stated, yet it exists just as disagreement of which day is the day of Rest, or the state of man in death, among the wider circle of Christianity, while having the same Word of God. Yes, there are many more topics of division, and I can only say I am grateful that we have been given a "Lamp for our feet and a Light for our path", which will expose every falsehood to the Wise.
We cannot be surprised by all these divisions when Jesus, prophets, and apostles have warned us of such divisions to come, which have come and continue to increase among all those who claim to believe the word of God. I have read that this state of things will continue until Jesus "descends from the heavens with a shout". I pray each of us will submit to the "good, acceptable, and perfect will of God" and allow Him to "instruct...and teach [us]" as He has promised to all who will yield fully to His leading in all their ways. All who seek the Way, the Truth, and the Life, will find Him if they seek Him with all their heart.
In 1 Cor 10, Paul is highlighting the constant danger of those who have seen the evidence of God's mercy and grace, only to fall again into temptation and sin against God, as seen in the account of Israel after being wonderfully delivered, then rebelling against the One who delivered them. All must remain vigilant against the wiles of Satan who is always on our track to lead us astray through every enticement to unbelief, and thus sin against God, who would save us.
Regarding the lessons to be learned from Israel in the wilderness; from James: “submit to God...resist the devil...draw near to God...cleanse your hands...purify your hearts...”, from Paul: “walk not after the flesh...walk after the Spirit”, from Jesus: Take my yoke upon you, learn of me” and “deny self, take up [your] cross and follow Me”, and from Peter: “add to faith, virtue...knowledge...temperance...patience...godliness...brotherly kindness...charity.
Teachings about type and anti-type took me a while to understand. I still do not understand why the original is named the 'anti-type'.
Though, to make sure I understand it correctly, I looked up the word *type*: 'A person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.' (Oxford languages). I also had to look up *type and anti-type*: 'A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate [report or represent in outline] something higher in the future, which is called the anti-type. (Dictionary.com)
Could one understand 'Baptized into Moses' as the type, and baptized into the Holy Spirit is the anti-type as He conveys the essence of the law? The Jewish ancestors were 'baptized' into the law of Moses, and we, after Christ Jesus, are 'baptized' into the 'Covenant of Faith'; 'type and anti-type' - "baptized by the power of the Holy Spirit into a new life of freedom from spiritual errors which can lead to a type of slavery".
I asked myself, what are we to do to help us see the 'symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics' of something that is of a spiritual nature? To help introduce spiritual Truth, Christ Jesus used parables to reach the listener's heart and mind! I suppose parables 'symbolize or exemplify' spiritual Truth, becoming the type/model/example/vehicle of/for Truth; still, some may not understand spiritual Truth taught in this form.
This is why our Savior and Teacher Christ Jesus gave all who seek to understand spiritual Truth a sure help to lead into all Truth - the Holy Spirit! John14:16;26, John16:7.
My answer to the question: 'What spiritual lessons can we learn from their "examples": I learned that no matter how far or how long one has to travel by faith on the journey to the Promised Land, God's faithfulness, long suffering and loving kindness sees to it that His children find the Door open when they come home!
Brigitte, "anti" means "in place of". Jesus' death replaces the types, which only represented the sacrifice Jesus would make for sinners. In the same way, "anti Christ" is one who claims to be "in the place of" Christ, or, as standing upon the earth as Christ's representative. Some would say, "the Vicar of Christ".
Truth is progressive, and being baptized "into Moses" was present truth in that day, since there was no John or Jesus. Baptized into John or Moses did not mean they looked to John or Moses as their savior, but were rather acknowledging their sin against God by repentance, and trusting in the "lamb of God" who would take away their sin, as John and Moses taught. Today we are baptized in the name of the Godhead, which still is to demonstrate our repentance and belief in the Gospel, of which being baptized into Moses or John was a type. In every era, it was the Lamb of God which provided the means of justification upon repentance.
Robert, I agree with you the AntiChrist will try to take the place of Christ in the temple/church of God.
Eph 2:19-22, 1Cor 3:16-17, 1 John 2:18-19
2Thess 2:3-4
3Let no one in any way deceive or entrap you, for that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first [that is, the great rebellion, the abandonment of the faith by professed Christians], and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction [the Antichrist, the one who is destined to be destroyed], 4who opposes and exalts himself [so proudly and so insolently] above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he [actually enters and] takes his seat in the temple of God, publicly proclaiming that he himself is God. Amplified Bible
I also agree the LORD's truth and His Plan of Salvation has been progressively revealed since the beginning as His people have spiritually matured.
Heb 5:12-6:3
Thank you Robert - I cannot find the meaning of 'anti-' to be 'in place of' in any dictionary I consulted, and found the prefix 'ante-', meaning 'before' to be the more fitting prefix in the context of 'type and ante'type'.
'Anti-' is defined as 'against, 'ante-' is defined as 'before'. I will be using 'ante-' instead of 'anti-' when writing about ante-types from now on.
I do not agree that truth is progressive. In my opinion, revelation of truth or understanding of truth is progressive, but not truth itself, otherwise it could not be called 'Truth'; especially not spiritual Truth.
I do not think there to be a present truth or later truth, its either truth or error. If it is a false or incorrect truth, it is still error. Respectfully, I can agree with your thinking only in the context of one's understanding of truth.
Hi Brigitte, If I may join this conversation to add a bit of etymology here. You are quite right in your understanding of the prefixes "anti-" and "ante-". But this is where a bit of etymology explains how we arrived at the current meaning of antitype. Historically it comes from the Greek word "antitupos" (and later Latin "antitypus") where the word meant "copy", "equal", "representing" and "print impression". If you separate the word into the modern prefix and root, you lose some of the meaning contained in the ancient use of the the word antitype.
I understand that theologically the word entered into our vocabulary through the Greek branch of the developing Christian Church around the 6th century AD. So the history of the word use, predates our prefix-root analysis.
I hope that helps your understanding.
Maurice - thank you for helping to shed etymological light on this. I do not want to unduly belabor this point, though after looking into the background you provided about its origin, I think it was a grave mistake to establish the spelling 'anti-' to express that which was previously spelled using 'ante-' and so to establish the use of a word which means just the opposite of what Christians use it to mean.
The meaning of these two prefixes still remain wholly separate. Only two words are mentioned in the English language - 'anticipate and antique' - which contain the basic, original meaning of the prefix 'ant-'/'ante-'- before -, but are spelled 'anti-'.
It is beyond my comprehension that the ecclesiastical community accepted this miss-use of the prefix and does not reach back to the correct, original spelling of this prefix - 'ante-' and so with express the proper meaning of 'ante-type'. One letter and logic is turned on its head, making it extra confusing to understand the true meaning of 'ante-type'.
Did you mention "6th century A.D.' - hmmmm!?
Actually it is the other way around Brigitte. Anti-, Greek came before Ante-, Latin and also has roots going as far back as Sanscrit. As you can probably appreciate there are elements of both current meanings in the origin. I think antitypos was originally associated with patterns use for design where the antitypos was the original that produced the typos (copy). The fact is that the pattern had the cutouts through which the dye or ink made its way to the cloth or papyrus and was therefore considered "opposite".
We cannot blame the early theologians adopting the terminology and it has stuck with us to the present day, Whereas the prefixes "anti-" and ante-diverged to their current associations. Yes it would be nice if we could change the terminology now but that is the nature of modern languages. They are not static. If I wrote in unfiltered Australian English you would have a whole lot more terminology to deal with.
Sorry I'm late to reply Brigitte, but I see that Maurice has given an excellent response.
(I never got to my email all day yesterday and am just seeing this now.)
I have a question. Moses was shown a pattern? Is a pattern a real thing? Did he, Moses, really see the sanctuary in heaven or he was just shown a model to base his construction? Please help me understand. Thank you.
Hi Cywel
In accordance with, for example, Hebrews 8:5 it is my belief that Moses was shown something along the lines of a set of 'builder's plans' to guide the building and setting up of an earthly tabernacle. The 'pattern' (think a dressmaker's pattern) he was given was real - but that pattern was a "shadow-copy" of heavenly realities. A word study search of these two key words and their other uses by Paul in his writings (shadow: skia; copy: hypodegimati) reveals that these terms reflect likeness in-principle rather than merely in exact concrete form.
Consequently, the earthly tabernacle was an "object lesson" designed to help the Israelites grow in their understanding of heavenly realities at a principle rather than literal level. We see the same thing when Jesus was on earth trying to teach us about heaven. He would say "to what shall I compare the Kingdom of God?" (Mark 4:30). Then he would use metaphors like mustard seed, etc. He was not saying that heaven was a literal mustard seed, but that the principles of how heaven functions can be illustrated in the principles of the initial size of the mustard seed that though starting out so seemingly small and insignificant progressively grows to benefit a large population.
We also see this same thing with Bible prophecy where strange objects and creatures are used to represent principles of things, not their literal form.
That is what I believe and some of the evidence for why I believe that. Hope that helps your investigations...
The sanctuary is not a miniature copy of a physical humongous building in heaven but a visual or physical representation of spiritual things which is Jesus sacrifices, his death and earthly ministry in redeeming man from sin. Rev. 21:22 reveals that there is no physical temple in heaven but God and Jesus are its temple. The sanctuary tent built by Moses was replaced by the temple of king Solomon and all its rituals was eliminated by the fulfillment of the type by the anti-type which is the work of Christ only once and for all. There is no need for Christ to be repeating this rituals in heaven as some believes but figuratively sitting in the right hand of God interceding for the cause of man.
Cywel, beginning in Exodus 25, we see exactly what Moses was shown, with precise dimensions for every article that was to be constructed for the sanctuary. The order in which these plans/instructions are given is interesting, and begins with the Ark of the covenant, followed by the "propitiatory", now called "mercy seat"(since the 16th century), then proceeds through the holy place(minus the altar of incense which would be later down on the list), the walls, curtains, etc. Whether or not there were drawings/illustrations, we just don't know, but all the descriptions and dimensions are detailed, which Moses either remembered or wrote down. Moses was shown what they were to build, and from this "model", we can understand the gospel in beautiful ways that we might miss without it, and we have a glimpse of the heavenly realities as Phil pointed out.
One interesting detail is that the mercy seat/propitiatory(or "place of propitiation") is the same elevation as the grate of the brazen altar where the sacrifice was offered(1 1/2 cubits each). In this we understand that God's justice and mercy are regarded by Him equally. We also will regard them equally as we become partakers of the Divine Nature(2 Pe 1:4).
Wow! What a thread! Best in years of reading, well done scholars, we are definitely approaching the coming of Christ.