Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Sin Offering
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
Exodus 13:12
The firstborn of all clean, male animals (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) were God's, and they were to be sacrificed to Him. Amazingly, these animals appear to represent the Egyptian firstborn (verse 14), and thus represent a sin offering for us.
Staff
The Law of the Firstborn
|
|
Exodus 29:10
The Aaronic priests were purified for service to God through the transferal of their sins to a bull. Similarly, when an Israelite presented a peace or a sin offering, he laid his hands upon the animal being offered, identifying himself with it and transferring his guilt to the animal. Thus, the animal was set apart by God through the laying on of hands.
Martin G. Collins
Basic Doctrines: The Laying On of Hands
|
|
Leviticus 4:20
The English word atonement appears in Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35 in reference to these sin offerings, as it does in Leviticus 1:4 in reference to the burnt offering: "Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him." This is the last time "atonement" appears in reference to the sweet-savor offerings in Leviticus 1-3. "Atonement" may mislead some because we almost automatically think of a covering for sin. Atonement for sin normally makes one acceptable before God, but sin is not present in the sweet-savor offerings. Nonetheless, the word indeed conveys the sense of acceptance but on a different basis than in the sin and trespass offerings. The basis for acceptance in the sweet-savor offerings is the offerer's perfect devotion, picturing the devoted, sinless Christ worshipping God. Concerning the sin and trespass offerings, "atonement" is used in the way we normally understand it: as a covering, payment, expiation, or propitiation made for sin. It is as though the offerer is charged just as the police charge a person with a crime. In this case, though, the offerer is charged with sin, and something must expiate it. The sin and trespass offerings, then, indicate the payment of a legal obligation to an authority, one that meets the legal requirement of that authority. To expiate sin, the payment must be in blood; a life must be given. The Authority is God, as His law has been broken. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Whenever a person sins, the law has the power to take that person's life. It has such power over us that, for our debt to be paid, a life is required. Nothing less is suitable to expiate sin. In the symbolism of the sin and trespass offerings, the life of an animal is given, covering the indebtedness and breaking the power the law has over us. In actual practice, the ritual proceeded like this: The offerer brought his animal before the priest and then laid his hand upon the head of his offering. Symbolically, a transfer took place so that the animal is understood as portraying the sinner making the offering. The animal then died, and the penalty was considered paid. In Romans 6:2, Paul writes that we are "dead to sin," and in Romans 7:4, that we are "dead to the law." The ritual portrays these truths. The sin and trespass offerings picture a convicted sinner coming before God to receive the judgment of death. However, the animal's death portrays Christ's vicarious death in our stead, for in reality, since He is the offering, our sins have been transferred to Him. In this way, we are atoned for and redeemed.
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Offerings of Leviticus (Part Six): The Sin Offering
|
|
Leviticus 16:3
The “young bull as a sin offering” was in addition to the two goats used as a sin offering for the nation on Atonement. The law of sin offerings specifies that the offering of a young bull would cover the high priest's sin (Leviticus 4:3). Of the four sacrificial animals in Leviticus 16, three of them were used for sin offerings. The three animals did not represent three different personalities, but each pointed to the Messiah in a distinct aspect or role. We may consider one or more of these animals extraneous, but God had specific reasons for each part of this ceremony. Each animal had a common fulfillment in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This sin offering for the high priest held a more meaningful purpose than the one outlined in Leviticus 4. In a typical sin offering for the priest, the blood was sprinkled “seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6). The priest also put blood on the horns of the incense altar and poured the rest at the base of the altar of burnt offering (verse 7). The blood thus provided a covering—an atonement—for those areas of the high priest's service that God considered defiled through his sin. But on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place with a cloud of incense. He did not stop at the veil, but instead went farther and sprinkled blood on and in front of the mercy seat (Leviticus 16:14). The mercy seat—where God said He would meet and speak with the leader (Exodus 25:22; 30:6)—was the point of intersection between God and Israel, through her representative. On the day when atonement was made for the nation, the cleansing began with the sacred meeting place between God and man. The first account to be settled was between God and the high priest (including his house), setting the stage for the remaining atonements. After cleansing the mercy seat (including the ground in front of it), the blood of the bull purified the incense altar (Leviticus 16:18-19). Incense is a symbol of prayer, yet even prayer can be an abomination to God because of sin (Proverbs 28:9). Thus, the priest's instruments used in the worship of the Holy God had to be cleansed because of the defilement of sin.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Five)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
The two goats of the unique Day of Atonement ceremony are first mentioned in Leviticus 16:5, which contains an often-overlooked detail: “And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering” (emphasis ours throughout unless otherwise noted). The “two kids of the goats” together are a single sin offering. That is, the two young goats are distinct elements that jointly accomplish this offering for sin; both parts are absolutely required for the offering to be accepted. A typical sin offering consists of only one animal, but this sin offering consists of two. This shows that something additional is being accomplished here, something beyond just the payment for sin. The biblical sin offering, detailed in Leviticus 4, is God's prescribed way to show sins being paid for through a death. While “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), God still required blood to be shed to remind the people that sin incurs the death penalty. A critical part of the sin offering involves the priest placing his hands on the head of the animal before it was slain to show that the animal would stand in the place of the party under judgment. The unblemished, innocent animal, representing the guilty party, symbolically received the guilt. This detail is reiterated four times within the instructions for the sin offering (Leviticus 4:4, 15, 24, 29), as well as in the initial consecration ceremony for Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:10). A sin offering is incomplete without this symbolic transference taking place. Every sacrificial animal—through the requirement of it being unblemished—is portrayed as being sinless (Deuteronomy 17:1; Leviticus 22:17-25). The Pentateuch contains at least forty injunctions that the sacrificial animals, either in specific offerings or in general, had to be without blemish or defect. In addition, Malachi 1:6-14 records God's indignation at later priests for offering blind, maimed, and diseased animals. A reason the animals had to be of the highest quality is that they were offered to God, who deserves only the best. A second reason is that every sacrificial animal prefigured the Savior, who was entirely without blemish or defect. In the symbolism of a substitutionary sacrifice, an innocent participant is chosen to bear the sins of the guilty. However, this utterly fails to apply to Satan, for his millennia of sin make it impossible for him to be pictured as unblemished or innocent. Not by any means!
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat—Satan or Christ? (Part One)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
Each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the high priest performed an elaborate ceremony consisting of four sacrificial animals (see Leviticus 16). He offered a ram as a burnt offering, a bullock as a sin offering for the high priest and his household, and two goats together as a sin offering. These two goats receive the most attention on this day. A vital detail in this ceremony is that the two goats together accomplish atonement for the nation. Notice Leviticus 16:5: "And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a [singular] sin offering" (emphasis ours throughout). This instruction is unusual, for the ordinary sin offering consisted of a single animal (see Leviticus 4:3, 14, 23, 28; 5:6-7). Why did God command two animals as the sin offering for the nation? To answer this question, we must first examine the typical sin offering, outlined in Leviticus 4. There, God commands four slightly different rituals, depending on who had committed the unintentional sin: a priest (verses 3-12), the whole congregation (verses 13-21), a leader of the people (verses 22-26), or an individual (verses 27-31). Regardless of the transgressor, though, the priest conducted the same basic procedure—one to take note of, for it helps to explain the Day of Atonement ceremony. In the standard sin offering, the guilty party first laid his hands on the sacrificial animal (Leviticus 4:4, 15, 24, 29). This action symbolized the innocent animal taking the place of the sinner, figuratively transferring the guilt of the person to the animal. Second, the animal was killed. Third, the priest sprinkled some of its blood in front of the veil, and he put some on the horns of either the golden altar (used for incense) or the brazen altar (used for burnt offerings), depending on who sinned. He poured the rest of the blood at the base of the brazen altar. Finally, select parts of the animal were burned on the brazen altar, while the rest of the animal was burned outside the camp. The procedure for the sin offering essentially ends there, but more needs to be considered. The offering has symbolically cleansed the guilty party, but is the sin truly gone? In this regard, the book of Hebrews teaches us that 1) animal blood is used for symbolic cleansing and purification (Hebrews 9:13, 22); but 2) the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). In the ritual of the sin offering, then, the transgressor is symbolically cleansed, yet his sin is not taken away—it cannot be removed simply through the shedding of animal blood. To further understand the symbolism of blood and sin, remember that God repeatedly prohibits the eating of blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16). Even though the animal to be eaten is dead, God still considers the blood of the animal to contain the life of the animal! Deuteronomy 12:23 proclaims, "Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the [lifeless] meat." Blood is a symbol of life, even after the heart has stopped! It is a representation—even a record—of the life lived. Thus, the first usage of blood in Scripture is anthropomorphic: God considered Abel's blood to have a voice even after Cain had cut his life short by violence (Genesis 4:10). If the blood of an unblemished animal represents an innocent life, the blood of an animal upon whose head sins have been transferred represents a sinful life. Therefore, while the transgressor is symbolically cleansed of his sins after laying his hands on an innocent animal and shedding its blood, the substituted blood still bore witness—a record—of the transgression. In some scenarios, priests could eat the meat of a sin offering, but because of the symbolic defilement of the blood, if any of its blood got on the priests' garments, they had to be washed (Leviticus 6:27). There is no such proscription for the blood of burnt offerings or peace offerings, in which blood is shed yet which do not involve sin. Because of this symbolic, sin-carrying quality of blood, it is as if the horns of the golden or incense altar—covered with the blood of countless substitutionary animals—became a repository for all the nation's sins, sins that still had to be taken away (compare Jeremiah 17:1). This is shown by God's command that the incense altar—specifically the horns, where the defiled blood was placed—had to be cleansed once a year: And Aaron shall make atonement upon [the altar's] horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD." (Exodus 30:10) The incense altar was symbolically cleansed once a year through the high priest "mak[ing] atonement" upon it, meaning he would cover it with blood that did not represent sin. This verse gives the essence of what was to happen on the Day of Atonement, while Leviticus 16 provides all the specifics of how God's instructions were to be carried out.
David C. Grabbe
Why Two Goats on Atonement? (Part One)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
The sequence of the common sin offering (Leviticus 4) is noteworthy: The guilty party first laid his hands on the sacrifice's head to symbolize one life being exchanged or substituted for the other. The slain animal's blood was then sprinkled before the veil of the Tabernacle, put on the horns of either the incense altar or the brazen altar (depending on who sinned), and the rest poured at the base of the brazen altar. According to Hebrews 9:13, 22, blood provides symbolic cleansing and purification. However, Hebrews 10:4 states this practical fact: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins," which applies on a couple of levels. In the wider context of Hebrews, it testifies to the transcendent efficacy of Christ's sacrifice—it was so pure and powerful that no animal sacrifice could ever begin to compare. In the immediate context, the author is pointing out that within the sacrificial law, blood could not take away sin—it could only cleanse, purify, or cover. Something else was required to show the sins of the Israelites being symbolically taken away. This removal of sins took place on the Day of Atonement, to which Hebrews 9-10 refers. In type, the blood of the sin offering was a record—a witness—of the sin it covered. Thus, all the blood of sin offerings put on the incense altar (also called the golden altar) throughout the year symbolized all the iniquity committed by the priests and the congregation. As Hebrews 10:3 observes, "In those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year." The Atonement ceremony brought to the Israelites' minds all the sins for which they had to bring their sin offerings. Because of the accumulated sins, God commanded the high priest to cleanse the incense altar with blood each year (Exodus 30:10). The unique sin offering for the congregation on Atonement consisted of two goats (Leviticus 16:5). Through the casting of lots, one goat was designated as "for the LORD," meaning that it was to satisfy or appease the Lord. At this point, God's instructions intentionally leave out a highly significant step: No hands were laid on the first goat! It was simply killed. Its blood did not testify of sin. Rather than contributing more iniquity to the record, its blood cleansed the objects nearest to the Lord (Leviticus 16:15-19). With the blood of the first goat—free of confessed sin—the incense altar and holy objects were atoned for or cleansed. Many translations call the second goat the "scapegoat." The Hebrew word is azazel, which means "goat of departure" or "complete removal." The azazel was the means for all the cleansed sins to be completely or entirely removed from the congregation. In the standard sin offering, hands were laid on the substitutionary sacrifice to symbolize a transference, and then its blood was shed. Notice, though, that on the Day of Atonement, the order is reversed! This explains why the offering required two animals: One animal had its blood shed, while a second animal had all the sins confessed over it so they could be taken away. Because the ceremony began with one animal being sacrificed, a second, living animal was necessary to have hands laid on it. The live goat received, as it were, all the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of Israel. None of that defilement was ever placed on the first goat, whose purpose was simply to provide cleansing. As Romans 10:4 teaches, "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (New International Version). Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled both aspects of this unique Day of Atonement offering. Hebrews 9:12-14 not only shows His fulfillment of the first goat with His own blood, but also how superior His shed blood was, even to the point of cleansing consciences. Likewise, the Scriptures record Christ's fulfillment of the azazel through bearing and taking away sins. Isaiah 53:6 declares, "And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (emphasis ours throughout), just as the high priest laid Israel's sins on the azazel each year. Christ likewise bore our sins, another function of the azazel: -
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12) -
. . . who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. . . . (I Peter 2:24) -
. . . so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. (Hebrews 9:28) The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. The azazel did this in type, but it merely pointed to Jesus Christ, the only One who could perform this—and did (Colossians 2:14; Romans 11:27; I John 3:5).
David C. Grabbe
Why Two Goats on Atonement? (Part Two)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
An intriguing picture emerges when we compare the regular sin offering to what happened with the two goats for the Day of Atonement sin offering. The procedure for each goat individually lacked a critical element found in the regular sin offering. The first goat was killed but had no sins symbolically transferred to it. The second goat had hands and sins laid on it, but it was not killed by the priest. Each was missing something found in the regular sin offering, but together, they comprised a sin offering by which something far greater was accomplished. While the regular sin offering kept adding records of sins to the altar throughout the year, on the Day of Atonement, the record of sins was first cleansed with pure blood, and then all the sins were removed from the nation. One goat had to die for cleansing; the other goat had to remain alive for bearing the sins away, removing them from God's presence.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Endings
|
|
Leviticus 16:9
Notice there is no mention of the high priest laying hands on this first goat. Likewise, in verses 11-14, there is no mention of the priest laying his hand on the bull for himself, which was a requirement of the typical sin offering for the priest (Leviticus 4:4). All the other steps for a sin offering are shown, though, so the differences stand out. If we take this as it is written and not infer any steps, the bull for the high priest and the first goat share two elements: First, there is no mention of hands being laid on either. Second, their blood was taken inside the Holy of Holies. Both are significant differences from a typical sin offering. Everything else for the bull for the high priest is the same—part is burned on the altar, and its carcass is burned outside the camp. But no transference is shown, and the blood is allowed inside the veil, into God's very presence. These differences indicate the blood of these animals was pure, which is why it could be used to purge the horns of the altar. Only blood that did not represent sin was brought inside the veil. The blood from every other sin offering stopped at the veil. So, the priest used the bull's and the first goat's blood to purify the various holy objects, beginning with God's throne—the Mercy Seat—and working outward. Notice, though, in the explanation about what the first goat's blood makes atonement for: to make atonement for the Holy Place, the Tabernacle of Meeting, and the altar. On account of the people—meaning because of their sinfulness—these things needed annual purging, but the stated purpose was for cleansing the things of the LORD. Atonement was made for the objects closest to the LORD since the people were sinful.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Endings
|
|
2 Corinthians 5:21
Paul's words may be startling and uncomfortable, but they are true: God the Father made Christ to be sin! This does not mean God made Him commit sin; His life and nature were entirely flawless. But this says God made Him to be sin. The instructions for sin offerings contain a detail that helps us to understand why Paul could make this statement. An interlinear Bible shows that in almost every verse in the Old Testament where a sin offering is mentioned, the translators supply word “offering”; it is not present in the Hebrew. This is because the word for “sin offering,” chatta'ah (Strong's #2403), is also the word for “sin.” This word has multiple meanings: "sin," "a sin offering," "guilt because of sin," "purification from sin," or "punishment because of sin." The same word can signify all those things. In a sin offering, the animal became symbolic of the guilt incurred by sin; it suffered punishment because of sin; and it was also the symbolic purification from sin. This is why the same word is used for both sin and sin offering. The animal—the substitute—essentially became the sin needing to be atoned. When the high priest laid all the iniquities of Israel on the azazel, that second goat became sin. One translation tries to soften what is said here by saying that God made Christ to be the offering for our sins. While true, this rendering is not faithful to the text. The Greek word for "sin" here is unlike the Hebrew word, which can also indicate a sin offering. In the Greek, sin simply means sin. When a sin offering is indicated, another Greek word must be included. But here, Paul means just what we read: "God made Christ to be sin." Truly, the role of the azazel was a dreadful one, but it was part of the work that only the Messiah could do and which He had to do for there to be reconciliation with God.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Hebrews 10:1-3
"Those sacrifices" identifies the body of laws being talked of here - the sacrifices, of which the law is just a shadow. They were not a part of the original covenant, but were added later (see Jeremiah 7:22-23). Verse 3 tells us why it was considered to be a schoolmaster. God had a good reason for them doing these things: They were to remind people of sin. They did not define sin. They were commanded because people were sinning; He made them give sacrifices to remind them that they were sinning!
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Covenants, Grace, and Law (Part Seventeen)
|
|
Hebrews 10:5-7
He explains that, when He came into the world, God provided Him with a human body, thus enabling Him to be a sacrifice. He carries this thought further by saying that God did not desire the Levitical offerings to serve as the means of forgiveness and acceptance before Him. Rather, God sent Him into the world to fulfill His will—to be the sacrifice for mankind's sins.
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Offerings of Leviticus (Part Six): The Sin Offering
|
|
Hebrews 11:4
The story of Abel teaches us that the only way to reverse mankind's separation from God is through a substitutionary sacrifice, performed in faith. If we speculate that God gave the first family the same basic instructions He later gave to Israel, the details of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel become significant. Abel's offering appears to have been either a sin offering or a burnt offering, for both of these sacrifices came from the flock and required that the fat be offered, which Abel did (Genesis 4:4). The burnt offering symbolized a man's wholehearted devotion to God, containing even an aspect of atonement within it (Leviticus 1:4). It had to come "from the herd or the flock" (Leviticus 1:2), something Abel, being a keeper of sheep, would have had the means to offer. The meal offering represented a man's wholehearted devotion to his fellow man, but no symbolism of atonement appears within it. It consisted of ground flour, corresponding to Cain's offering "of the fruit of the ground"—some sort of grain. The sacrificial requirements are significant here because the meal and burnt offerings were always offered together. These two offerings represent the first four commandments (burnt offering) and the last six commandments (meal offering), which clearly cannot be separated. What is more, the burnt offering had to be made before the meal offering could be made. We learn, then, that our relationship with God must be established before we can have truly successful relationships with others. So, when we see Cain making a meal offering, the symbolism suggests that, first, he was doing it on the basis of his own merit and righteousness—by skipping any aspect of atonement for sin, essentially saying, "I don't need to be reconciled to God first." Second, he was also implying that he could have a good relationship with his fellow man (represented by the meal offering) without first having a right relationship with God (represented by the burnt offering). Thus, Cain represents religion and worship on a person's own terms, according to his own priorities, rather than according to God's instruction. The first lesson from Hebrews 11 is that peace with God and access to Him must come through an acceptable substitution for our lives. Jesus Christ is the only acceptable substitution, and thus the only guarantee of our access to God, our peace with Him, and the grace (including forgiveness) that He gives. While this is an elementary Christian concept, a present-day application makes this relevant to us. The New Testament is replete with warnings about false prophets and false teachers, in particular those men who seek a following after themselves. Such men will make "guarantees" about God's protection and favor, as if becoming associated with them instantly causes God to look more highly upon a person. God, however, does not work through a system of "salvation by association." Such men have set themselves up as gatekeepers, alleging that they hold the key to a good relationship with God. They insinuate that our access to God and favor with Him lies in following them—as if the Savior's sacrifice was insufficient. If something other than the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is being used as the basis for our entrance before God, we are in the same position as Cain, with our offering rejected for trying to worship on our own terms. Ancient Israel and Judah were guilty of this when they idolized the Temple of the Lord instead of looking to the Lord of the Temple (Ezekiel 24:18-21; Jeremiah 7:4-12). God scattered Israel because of idolatry. He scattered His own people because His people forgot Him—because they were looking to something else (Jeremiah 18:15-17). We can be guilty of the same thing if we are trusting in a church, a human leader, or the reported accomplishments of an organization as the basis of our standing with God. The lesson from Abel is that our access to God, and thus our peace with Him, is on the basis of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, not the works of any man's hands. Cain attempted to worship God on his own terms, and God rejected him. It is blasphemous for us to hold up anything other than the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ as our means of access to God and peace with Him. It is equally blasphemous for any man to declare or imply that he can guarantee God's protection, forgiveness, or favor. Moreover, acting as a gatekeeper or guardian of God's favor will greatly inhibit the witness of God that is made simply because the focus is on a man or an organization rather than God.
David C. Grabbe
First Things First (Part Two): The Right Sacrifice
|
|
Hebrews 13:11-12
Where did Jesus Christ's suffering take place? Not at the Praetorium, for they led him from there (Matthew 27:31). Nor did it occur at the Temple. While scholars debate over the location and even the translation of "Golgotha" (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17), the writer of Hebrews provides a solid clue as to where Jesus died: For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. (Hebrews 13:11-12; emphasis ours.) God instructed the priests to kill the sin offerings at the Tabernacle, but He required them to burn the remains at a place "outside the camp" (Leviticus 4:12, 21), away from God's presence. This distant altar became known as the miphkad ("the appointed place") altar. At the time of the crucifixion, this altar stood on a slope of the Mount of Olives, east of the Temple Mount, separated from the Temple by the Brook Kidron. The name of the Temple's eastern gate was, appropriately, the miphkad gate. When the priest performed a sin offering, he took the body of the sacrificed animal through the miphkad gate, over the bridge that spanned the Kidron Valley, and to the appointed place for burning and disposal. Hebrews 13:11-12 ties this "outside the camp" location with Christ's crucifixion, being "outside the gate." Additionally, Jesus was crucified where the centurion with Him could see the veil of the Temple torn in two (Luke 23:45-47), which, because of the Temple walls, was possible from only a few angles and elevations—such as the area near the miphkad altar on the Mount of Olives, outside the "camp" of Jerusalem. The miphkad gate and Kidron bridge had another significant purpose. History records that the gate and bridge were also used on the Day of Atonement (see Alfred Edersheim's The Temple: Its Ministry and Service). By this eastern route, the "suitable man" led the azazel goat out of the Temple and into the wilderness after the priest had laid on its head all the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the nation (see Leviticus 16:20-22). The centerpiece of the Day of Atonement ritual involved two goats as a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5). Consider how perfectly Jesus fulfilled the roles of both goats in this ceremony, as only He could. The Levitical high priest used the blood of the first goat to cleanse the sanctuary. The priest laid no sins on this goat; instead, he used its undefiled blood to cleanse and cover the incense altar and the Mercy Seat, which allowed rare access into the Holy of Holies (Leviticus 16:15-16, 18-19). As the fulfillment, Jesus courageously and single-mindedly gave His sinless blood as a cleansing and a covering, providing us access into the heavenly Holy of Holies (Hebrews 9:7, 12-14, 23-25). The azazel goat, the one used for "complete removal," received the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the nation on its head, and it bore them, being sent by the high priest and led outside the camp, out of God's presence, as a representative of all the sins. In awe-inspiring fulfillment, the Father laid the iniquities of us all on Christ's dignified and undeserving head (Isaiah 53:6). Jesus permitted Himself to be sent by the leaders and led by their agents in true meekness, subsuming His well-being to what the Father desired for all mankind, even cleansing with His words those who led Him, just as the "ready man" was cleansed (Leviticus 16:21, ESV). Jesus became a substitutionary sacrifice, for God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21). He became a curse on our behalf (Galatians 3:13) when they nailed Him to the tree. He, and He alone, bore our sins, iniquities, and transgressions (Isaiah 53:11-12; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24). He remained alive for torturous hours, bearing what belonged to us but permitted to be put on Himself, having been led outside the gate in perfect, divine meekness.
David C. Grabbe
Led Outside the Gate
|
|
Hebrews 13:12
The instructions for the regular sin offering specify that the animals had to be killed at the Tabernacle (Leviticus 4:4, 14, 24, 29). Their carcasses were burned outside the camp (Leviticus 4:11-12, 21), but their deaths took place at the Tabernacle (or later Temple). The exception was the azazel of the Day of Atonement ceremony in Leviticus 16. That the priest left the azazel alive does not preclude it from being a sin offering. The life of the azazel was most certainly dedicated and consumed by its role of becoming sin (II Corinthians 5:21), becoming cursed (Galatians 3:13), and acting as a purification from sin. All that fits within the meaning of chatta'ah, the word for "sin offering," which has a wide variety of uses. So, the life of the azazel did not end at the Tabernacle. Instead, it was sent or led outside the camp, away from God's presence, while bearing the nation's sins (Leviticus 16:20-22). Where did Christ bear our sins? Hebrews 13:12 says that He “suffered outside the gate.” The standard sin offerings were killed at the Tabernacle or Temple, but Jesus suffered outside the gate. The most likely place for Christ's crucifixion was across the Kidron Valley, on a slope of the Mount of Olives. Christ's crucifixion was at a place where the centurion could see that the Temple veil, which faced east, was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 7:51-54; Mark 15:38-39). To be able to see that required the centurion have a specific angle and a minimum elevation to see over the Temple wall. Jesus did not suffer at the Temple, where the sin offerings had to be killed. The gospels record He was led away and sent from the Temple, from the symbolic presence of God—just like the azazel (Matthew 27:31; Mark 15:20; Luke 23:26; John 19:16). The Second Adam was led and sent away to fulfill the curse on the first Adam, so that we can now come back into God's presence. That was part of the curse He took on our behalf. Like the second goat, Christ's sacrifice was not an immediate death. He was alive while He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (I Peter 2:24). Christ's bearing of our sins took hours, and He felt every second. He became sin and a curse as He hung there, bearing our transgressions, outside the gate.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Jude 1:11
"They have gone in the way of Cain" could be translated as "they have traveled down Cain's path." Cain holds the distinction of being the world's first murderer, but his killing of his brother came quite a long way down the path. To understand "the way of Cain," we have to go back to the head of the trail: And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. (Genesis 4:3-8) A couple of other scriptures touch on this incident. Hebrews 11:4 teaches us, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous." In I John 3:12, the aged apostle states that Cain murdered his brother "[b]ecause his works were evil and his brother's righteous." "Evil" may seem like a strong word to describe an offering made to God—his only recorded "work" before the murder—but that is how John classifies it! Several Greek words can be translated as "evil," but the one John uses focuses on the effect or the influence of an act more than the act itself. In other words, it was good that Cain brought an offering and that he made it "in the process of time" or "at the appointed [or designated] time." Even so, it was evil in its effects because of what was missing. The fact that Abel made an offering "by faith" means that God had already taught them about sacrifices, and Abel obeyed. As Paul writes in Romans 10:17, "[F]aith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The sacrifices, then, were not something Cain and Abel dreamed up. They were being held to a definite standard, which is why God was pleased with one and not the other. The brothers were not in doubt about what God required of them. On the contrary, one was faithful in his response, and the other believed he could worship God on his own terms. To understand what happened, we must refer to the instructions for the sacrifices found in Leviticus. In particular, a grain offering could not be offered without a whole burnt offering, and neither could be offered until a sin offering had first been made. God is specific in His instructions because of what the various offerings represent. Notice, though, that Cain's offering was of "the fruit of the ground," which indicates a grain offering without the offerings that were supposed to precede it. Abel, on the other hand, brought an offering from the firstborn of his flock, a description that reveals that Abel's offering was either a whole burnt offering or a sin offering. Whatever the case, Cain, at the very least, ignored God's instructions regarding an appropriate sacrifice, and thus, his offering did not please God. But when we consider what the various offerings represent, his carelessness becomes quite grievous. In short, the sin offering represents the sinless life of the Savior, given to pay a life-debt so that man might continue living. The whole burnt offering represents a man's wholehearted devotion to God. The grain offering represents a man's devotion to his fellow man. Putting this together, Cain's offering suggests that he was devoted to his fellow man, but his offering leaves out any thought of devotion to God, let alone atonement and reconciliation with Him. Cain, we might say, was the original humanist—he was focused on the human aspect over the divine, whereas the true path consists of love toward God and fellow man (Matthew 22:37-40). In a twist of terrible irony, when God rejected Cain's offering, he lashed out and killed the fellow man to which he had symbolically claimed devotion! On top of that, he was cursed to become a fugitive and a vagabond, always living apart from his fellow man (Genesis 4:12). In summary, the "way of Cain" includes religion and worship on one's own terms, with more faith in one's own righteousness than in God's. It also contains a humanistic bent that believes that we can have good relationships with others even without first being reconciled with God and wholly devoted to Him. It can involve works that may appear good on the surface but end up being evil in their effect or influence. The way of Cain is about shortcuts for the sake of expediency rather than submitting to the pattern that God has set forth.
David C. Grabbe
A Warning from Jude (Part One)
|
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 150,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
