“The Tabernacle, the Cross and
Me.”
Exodus 40 & Hebrews 9
February 26, 2006
Dr. Jerry Nelson
What does God think of you? Does God like you?
I’m not asking if you think he loves you; I’m asking if he likes you.
I start my message today with some assumptions, some premises, that I
think can be amply demonstrated but which I don’t have time to prove:
My 1st premise is that God
exists and that he is personal not just an impersonal force.
My 2nd premise is that having
a relationship with that personal God is essential to our well-being both now
and forever.
The
logic goes something like this: If there is a God and if the word “God” means
anything like someone with a will and the power to enforce that will, it
certainly seems to our advantage to know that God and his will and comply with
it.
Man may be able to exist without God but
he cannot “live” without God.
Of course he can breathe, eat and sleep
for a season.
But life is more than that and longer
than that.
Again, if there is a God, we need to know him and be
in right relationship with him.
If you
will grant for the sake of discussion that such a God exists, it then seems
reasonable to ask:
What does that God think of you?
So back to my first question: Does he like you?
Many, if not most, of us, in this place, are professing Christians.
We
believe Christ died for us and that we will be with him when we die.
But how does God feel about you now?
Do you ever suspect he is angry with you?
Maybe
you’ve repeatedly “blown it” in the past and you suspect God has never quite
gotten over it.
Oh, you say God has forgiven you but you think he
still has every right to still be angry with you.
Or
maybe you would say, “No, God is not angry with me but I suspect he’s usually
just a little irritated with me?”
“I’m not a terrible person and never was but I’ve never
been able to quite get it all together spiritually and I keep falling short in
so many ways – my devotional life is intermittent and lackluster, my giving is
the same, I’m not an evangelist or a teacher; in fact I don’t know what “gifts”
I have, I find that I’m angry a lot, and I end up saying things I
shouldn’t.
“I know God loves me but I suspect he’s not pleased with
me; I feel like he’s disappointed in me.”
Maybe I haven’t described exactly how you feel about your relationship
with God but maybe I’ve at least made you think about it.
Consider this: Why would ANYONE want to be around someone who is angry
with them or disappointed with them, or even is judgmentally waiting for them
to get it right?
We
don’t like being around a person who is critical of us, who is judging us or is
angry with us – even if that person is God.
To often in our minds, our failings, great and
small, stand between God and us.
But based on the Bible, I believe
God wants something very different in his relationship with us than what I’ve
just described.
In our nearly yearlong study of the Old Testament book of Exodus, we
have see that:
·
God
delivered his chosen people from Egyptian slavery.
·
He guided and provided for them on their
way to a new land, a new home.
·
He gave them his laws by which they could
construct a new society and live in right relationship with him and each other.
·
And then two weeks ago we saw that God
gave them instructions about the construction of a tabernacle – an intricately
designed tent-structure - where God
would take up residence in their very midst.
The transcendent holy God of the universe
would come to them and live among them.
Exodus 40:16-17, 34 “Moses did everything just as the LORD commanded
him. So the tabernacle was set up on the first day of the first month in the
second year… Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the
LORD filled the tabernacle.”
God had saved them, he’s provided for them, and he was with them.
It
was perfect, right?
Not quite. In fact, not even close to perfect.
These
people had been saved, provided for and blessed with the presence of Almighty
God but they were still sinners – they would still violate their
relationship with God and each other.
God was under no delusion about this.
In
fact in the very instructions about the tabernacle where God would dwell with
his people, God made two things clear:
1. The people could get close to God but not too close;
2. The sins of the people had to be atoned for.
It isn’t until the next book of the Bible, the book of Leviticus, that
we see this unfolded.
There
we are told about the sacredness of that innermost chamber of the Tabernacle –
the Most Holy Place.
Within the 150’ X 75’ courtyard was the 15’ X 45’ tent of meeting.
And
within the tent of meeting were two chambers – one was 15’X30’ and was called
the Holy Place; the other was 15’X15’ and was called the Holy of Holies or Most
Holy Place.
The people could not even enter the outer chamber - the Holy Place; only
certain priests were allowed in.
They went in to keep a special candle lit
and to offer incense on a special altar and only under very rigid rules.
They could not enter the Most
Holy Place.
And
as to that Most Holy Place - The Holy of Holies - only the high priest could
enter and he could enter only once each year, as I will describe shortly.
God was with them, but the people
couldn’t get too close.
As to
the sins of the people, in the courtyard was a large altar on which animal
sacrifices were made.
And
when people sinned they were to bring special animals and there in the
courtyard they were to lay their hands on the heads of the animals indicting
the transfer of their sin to the animals and then the priest would sacrifice
the animals on the altar sprinkling the blood on the corners and base of the
altar.
The animal would die in the place of the
person.
This would be done morning and evening,
day after day.
Then once each year, other very special sacrifices would be made for the
sins of the people.
In Leviticus 16 we are told that on the
10th day of the 7th month was the Day of Atonement.
On that day only, after elaborate personal preparations and putting on
clothing designed at God’s instruction, the high priest was first of all to
select a young bull and sacrifice it for his own sin.
He
then took some of the blood of that animal and carefully entered the Most Holy
Place where he put the blood on the top of the Ark of the Covenant, the place
called “the mercy seat” or the “atonement cover” atoning for his own sins.
Then he went back out and took two goats.
One he sacrificed for the sins of the
people.
And again he entered the Most Holy Place, this time
to put the blood of the sacrificial goat on the same “mercy seat” or “atonement
cover” atoning for the sins of the people.
Then he would go out to where the other goat was tied.
Leviticus 16:21-22 “He is to lay both
hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and
rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head.
He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for
the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and
the man shall release it in the desert.”
In these ways the sins of the people were atoned for, covered over,
forgiven, so that they could continue as the people of God and in relationship
with one another.
But there were two problems:
While it was true that God was near, even
in their midst, the people were still separated from God by the Holy Place and
by the Priests.
The people could get close but not too
close.
The holiness and justice of God were far
more evident than the nearness and intimacy of God.
And the second problem was that everyone
knew that sacrifices of animals for the sins of the people could only be
symbolic and temporary at best.
Now with that background, I want you to stand with me as I read from
Hebrews 9:1-14
“Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly
sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was
set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated
bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the
Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the
covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had
budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark
were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
HEB 9:6 When
everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the
outer room (The Holy Place) to carry on their ministry. 7 But
only the high priest entered the inner room (The Most Holy Place), and that
only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for
the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The
Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not
yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle (The Holy Place) was still
standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating
that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the
conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food
and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until
the time of the new order.
HEB 9:11 When
Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is
to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of
the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all
by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The
blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are
ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How
much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead
to death, so that we may serve the living God!”
May God bless the reading of his Word.
PRAY
In Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 the author goes into some detail to show the
superiority of Christ’s work over the sacrificial system
of the Old Testament.
He
does not discount the old system but he shows that it was intended to be
symbolic, an illustration, a foreshadowing, of the real action that would
eventually take place and did take place in Christ.
One
chapter earlier in Hebrews 8:5 the Bible says that the OT priests, “serve at a sanctuary that is a
copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned
when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make
everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
That OT Tabernacle was patterned after the ideal dwelling place of God in heaven.
Now I don’t need to imagine a physical tabernacle in heaven to understand this.
And so our text, in the book of Hebrews, contrasts the earthly tabernacle constructed by Moses with the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” of heaven.
Hebrews 9:11 “Christ…went
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is
to say, not a part of this creation.”
Earlier he wrote of Jesus in Hebrews 1:3 and 8:1 “After (Jesus) had
provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in
heaven… We (have a) high priest…who serves in the sanctuary, the true
tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
Later he would write on this same subject: Hebrews 9:24 “For Christ did not
enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered
heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.”
Christ
Jesus didn’t enter only a tent-building in the desert which was symbolic of the
real thing, he entered into the real thing and remains in that real and most
intimate presence of the Father.
That
is significant for us and so we will come back to that.
Not only does he contrast the place, the Tabernacle, he also contrasts
the sacrifice.
Hebrews 9:12 “(Jesus)
did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the
Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having
obtained eternal redemption.
Here is how the author says that in different words just a few verses
later: Hebrews 9:25-28 “Nor did (Jesus) enter heaven to offer himself again
and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with
blood that is not his own…But now (Jesus) has appeared once for all (time)…to
do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and
after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the
sins of many people.”
Or as he says it earlier, if the blood of bulls and goats can cleanse
the sinner at least outwardly, Hebrew 9:14 “How much more, then, will the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished
to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may
serve the living God!”
God the Son, who became man, perfect, unblemished by sin, perfectly
fulfilling the law of God, offered himself as the sacrifice for all of God’s
people.
Remember those sacrificial animals on whom the people who would lay
their hands transferring their sin to the animals?
2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made (Jesus)
who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God.
Isaiah the prophet predicted this 800 years before Jesus:
Isaiah 53:4-5
“Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken
by God,
smitten by him, and
afflicted.
ISA 53:5 But he was
pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our
iniquities;
the punishment that brought us
peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are
healed.
Jesus, the perfect high priest, offers the perfect sacrifice, himself,
and goes into the perfect “holy of holies,” the very presence of the Father
himself, in heaven, and makes atonement for our sins.
Now those are the facts; what I want you to see next are the intended
results.
When an OT believer sinned, why did he offer a sacrifice?
Because
he knew that without the shedding of blood there was no atonement, forgiveness,
covering, for his sin.
And if there was no forgiveness it would
mean a barrier remained between him and God.
The OT believer wanted the barrier
removed; he wanted the relationship with God restored.
But
here is the interesting thing about the OT believer’s experience:
Hebrews 9:9-10 The whole sacrificial system of
the OT is “an illustration for the present time, indicating that the
gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience
of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and
drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations
applying until the time of the new order” (that is, until Christ came).
Hebrews 10:1-4
That old system, “can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year
after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
(That “make perfect” means they can never provide inward cleansing of
the conscience, final and complete removal of guilt, full unencumbered access
to God)
“If it could,
would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been
cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for
their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is
impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
Even
though the OT believer offered the sacrifice, he or she was still left with a
guilty conscience.
The days of atonement were actually an annual reminder
that their sin was a barrier between them and God.
The annual sacrifices reminded them that they were
still without an unbroken and unbreakable relationship with
God.
There was still a distance between them and God that
couldn’t be overcome.
I think they understood that those sacrifices weren’t
finally and fully dealing with the sin that separated them from God?
They’d met the requirements, but it wasn’t done.
In
contrast to that, look at our experience now that Christ has died for us.
Hebrews 9:14 “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our
consciences from acts that lead to death (from sin that separates us
from God), so that we may serve the living God!
Speaking
of the same conscience, he says:
Hebrews 10:19-22 “Therefore,
brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place
by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his
body, 21 and since we have
a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with
a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse
us from a guilty conscience.”
Do you see it? We aren’t kept at
arm’s length from God, we aren’t kept out of the holy place or even the MOST
holy place.
In
Jesus, we can come confidently into the very presence of God.
Our consciences have been cleansed –
something is supposed to have happened to our consciences.
Now I’m back to where I started this sermon: Does God like you?
I think that most of the time when we do something wrong toward another
person, even if it is just not meeting their expectations, we assume that a
barrier has come up between us.
Knowing that we have done something wrong we expect
that the other person is now angry with us or at least irritated with us or at
the very least disappointed in us.
Our consciences cause us to think that
way.
So it is in our perceived relationship with God.
We
sin and we assume that God is angry, peeved or disappointed in us.
We assume he draws away from us and so we draw away.
Furthermore we assume that we must make
up for this sin in some way or God will remain distant.
Now if we were Catholics we would think to do penance.
But being good Protestants, we know we
can’t do anything, so we just feel miserable for a while until we
think we have felt miserable long enough to convince God we were sincere in our
“miserableness” and he will take pity on us and forgive us – I call that
Protestant penance.
And of course the more offensive the sin,
the longer we think we must feel guilty to be adequately repentant.
But
even that doesn’t end it, because when we remember our past sins, Satan tempts
us, and depending on our personalities, we are inclined, to feel more or less
guilty all over again leading us to more “Protestant penance.”
What’s the antidote to such guilty feelings about our relationship with
God and others? The antidote is TRUTH!
God’s feelings toward me are not dependent on me.
The
Father’s attitude toward me is dependent only on Jesus.
My trust is in Jesus and here’s what the Bible says about my
relationship with God:
·
Christ’s death paid the full penalty for
my sins.
·
Christ’s death forever
removed the barrier of sin and guilt between God and me.
·
I am in Christ, I belong to him, I’m now
part of him, or to use Biblical terminology, I’m part of his body, I’m part of
his bride, I’m part of his family, I’m his child, I’m part of his people.
If you are trusting Jesus, I want you to
see you are connected to him!
Then realizing that we are part of him, look what happened in the
resurrection and ascension of Jesus!
Ephesians 2:4-7 “But because of his
great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with
Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you
have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and (here’s the part I
most want you to see) and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in
Christ Jesus.”
We have been brought right into the Most
Holy Place – the Holy of Holies – the very presence of the Father.
When
Jesus was baptized the Father said, Matthew 3:17 “This is my beloved son, in
whom I am well pleased.”
When three disciples joined Jesus on the
Mount of Transfiguration, they heard the Father say, Matthew 17:5 “This is my Son,
whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
What do you suppose the Father felt when the Son returned to heaven
following his death, resurrection and ascension?
Do you think he felt pleasure, acceptance, and delight? Absolutely!
In this day of
frequent travel most anywhere in the world, it would not as likely happen this
way, but imagine a much-loved son leaving his home to serve the Lord in a
distant place.
Years later, after marrying and having children of his own, he returns
home, with his family, to visit his father.
· What do you think
the father’s feelings are toward the son?
· Now to the point,
what are the father’s feelings toward the son’s wife and children?
Even in this homely illustration you can see how readily the father
accepts the children because of the son.
I love the old King James translation of Ephesians 1:6 “He has made us accepted
in the Beloved.”
On the authority of God’s word I can say to you, if you are trusting in
Jesus Christ as your saving-Lord, God likes you!
He
finds you acceptable!
He’s not waiting around for us to change to be more acceptable to him.
He
will change us but not so we will more acceptable to him but so we will better
enjoy who he is and what he has for us.
He’s not dissatisfied with you.
Your
sins, your failings, don’t make you less liked or loved.
Your conscience is clean.
Oh, you were guilty
to be sure, but the guilt is removed and you may now live as if you had never
sinned in the first place.
Well, you say, my problem is not that I think God won’t forgive me but
that I can’t forgive myself.
Many would suggest that not forgiving oneself is a matter of low
self-esteem.
I’ve
often wondered if it is truly the opposite – we think too highly of ourselves.
When we
say, “How could I have done that?!” one possibility is that we are really
saying, “I’m not that kind of person, that action is totally out of character –
it’s not like me.”
The
truth of the matter is that we ARE sinners just like everybody else, and it was
totally in character.
We need to get over ourselves and
recognize that nothing we can do could ever make up for what we have done –
there is only one remedy and that is grace based on Christ’s death in our
place.
Or maybe when we say, “How could I have done that?!” – we might be
thinking, “I always do the wrong thing, truth is, I’m no good and never will
be.”
Underlying
that statement is the pride that says, “I ought to be better on my own.”
“Surely there is something I can do to improve my condition.”
But the truth of the matter is we are no good and we
never will be on our own.
Again,
we must get over ourselves and truly admit before God what we have been saying
about ourselves all along - that we are no good and never will be without help
– we need grace.
We must quit trying to forgive
ourselves and claim the forgiveness that is in Christ alone.
And when those feelings of guilt
over past sins plague us, we have only one place to go with them.
We go
to the MOST Holy Place, and in faith, we enter into the presence of the Holy
Father in Jesus.
We
claim our place: forgiven, not guilty, fully a child of God.
And we
hear the Father say, “This is my much loved child, in him or her I am
well-pleased.”
And
that is the voice we listen to.
If you are trusting in Jesus, you
can say with all the authority of God’s own word – “Yes, God likes me!”
But if today, you are not trusting
in Jesus, I urge you to go to him, to seek his forgiveness and his grace.
There
are people who would love to pray with you and help you.
They
are in the Prayer Chapel now – go there as soon as we finish here.
Pray
Gloria Patri
Other notes:
“The really effective barrier to a man’s free
access to God is an inward and not a material one; it exists in his conscience.
It is only when the conscience is purified that a man is set free to approach
God without reservation and offer him acceptable service and worship.” (Bruce, Hebrews, 196)
Aspects of the
Cross:
Expiation –
Christ’s death removes the sin.
Propitiation –
Christ’s death was the way a righteous God in his love is able to turn away his
wrath. He placates, appeases, or
pacifies himself toward us through Christ’s death in our place.
Christ’s death is
the place where the love of God and the justice of God meet and are
satisfied.
God’s justice
cannot allow a sinful human being into fellowship with a holy God and God’s
love cannot allow sin to eternally separate us from him.
Reconciliation:
Not only is our
sin a rebellion against a holy God but our sin also results in God’s anger
against us. “The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness…” Romans
1:20?
God intentionally
and actively removes all ground for anger with us. He removes any reason for
being upset with us.
He is reconciled
to us in Christ.
“That we may serve the living God” – how can we serve him if we don’t
trust him? How can he take delight in
our love if he knows we don’t think he loves us unless we earn it?
In that case our love is not for him but for what we think our love will
earn from him.
“That we may serve the living God.”
Certainly the context suggests that since only the High Priest and then
only annually could actually come into the presence of God in the Holy of
Holies, we now have that access continually.
The
Priest served God, now we may do so.
“Only
when the heart has been purged from the defilement of a smiting conscience can
it be renewed in fullness of faith and sincerity toward God.” (Lane, Hebrews,
286)
The Tabernacle (within which are
two parts) 25:8; 26:1-37
The
Holy of Holies
Ark
25:10-22 (Leviticus 16:32-34 Annual Day
of Atonement)
Curtain
26:31-33 (separating Holy of Holies from the Holy Place)
The Holy Place
Table
25:23-30 (on the north side)
Lamp stand 25:31-40 (on the south side)
Altar of Incense 30:1-10 (in front of the curtain to the Holy of Holies)
The Courtyard (within which is the Tabernacle) 27:9-19
Basin for washing (between the Bronze Altar and the Tabernacle.
Bronze Altar 27:1-8 (daily sacrifices 29:38-43)
R.
Laird Harris in NIV Bible Commentary:
Leviticus 4:1 “The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally g and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD'S commands h —
“The purpose of
the sin offering was to give a specific way for a penitent sinner who was
convicted of sin to attain full restoration of fellowship with God. It was both
a confession of sin and an assurance of pardon. There were representative sin
offerings prescribed for leaders of the people as well as offerings for the
individual. A type of sin offering was available for the poorest sinner in the
land (5:7, 11).
The difference between the sin
offering and the guilt offering was in the nature of the sin. The former was
for what might be called general sins; the latter was for sins that injured
other people or detracted from the sacred worship. The guilt offering thus
involved not only a sacrifice but also restitution plus a fine of 20 percent (6:5). The sins for
which the sin offering was prescribed are called "unintentional
sins"; the same expression is used in connection with the guilt offering (5:15). The sins
concerned are not so strictly limited, however.
The
expression "to sin unintentionally" (GK H8706) calls for
some comment. The NIV reading may give the impression that there was no
sacrifice for intentional sins. This presents a problem, for many of our sins
are more or less intentional (though not necessarily deliberate). The word
basically means "to err," "go astray," "wander,"
or "stagger." That is, the notion of intent or lack of intent is not
basic to the meaning of the Hebrew word and ought not to be imported.
The usual sins we fall into are covered by the sin offering and
the guilt offering. For instance, lying, stealing, cheating, and false swearing
are surely intentional; yet they are specifically covered by the guilt offering
(6:2-3). There is one
place where these words seem at first to refer to unintentional sins (Nu 15:22-31). There the
"unintentional" sin is contrasted with sinning "defiantly"
(NIV) or, as the Hebrew expresses it, "with a high hand." Here the
NIV has correctly caught the sense of the unpardonable sin--not one done
intentionally, but one done "defiantly," i.e., in rebellion, sinning
against light (cf. Mt 12:31-32), which results in separation from God. No sacrifice is
specified for that.
The
sense will be adequately caught if, in all the verses concerned here in Lev 4-5, the phrase
"sins unintentionally" is rendered by "goes astray in sin"
or "does wrong" or the like. "Unintentional" seems better
only in the manslaughter passages (Nu 35:11-22; Jos 20:3-5), and even
there "inadvertently" or "by mistake" would actually fit
better.
In the case of
the sin offering, there was special emphasis on substitutionary atonement. For
the sin of a prominent person--e.g., an anointed priest (4:3)--or the whole
congregation (v.13), an expensive offering was demanded ("a young bull").
Substitution was typified by laying hands on the offering just prior to its
being slain (cf. v.24). Some of the young bull's blood was to be taken into the
Holy Place and sprinkled seven times before the veil and also put on the horns
of the altar of incense. The rest of the blood was poured out at the base of
the bronze altar, presumably on the ashes. In such cases the fat was to be
burned on the bronze altar and the carcass burned outside the camp in the place
of ashes (cf. Heb 13:11).
The Day of Atonement is not mentioned
in Ex
23:14-17 and 34:18-23. Nor does it appear in Dt 16:1-16. These places mention only the
three so-called pilgrimage festivals when the males of all Israel were to
assemble before the tabernacle. The Day of Atonement was not such a pilgrimage
festival. The ordinary Israelite remained at home, and the priests carried out
the ritual. It was the only day of fasting enjoined on Israel and was to be a
special Sabbath of rest and solemnity. It was a time of special contrition,
special sin offerings, and atonement. It is kept to this day by the Jews and is
called Yom Kippur ("Day of Atonement"). The biblical term is plural,
"Day of Atonements."
This
day had a special symbolism. Two goats were taken to bear the people's sins.
One was killed as a sin offering; the other was sent off into the desert to
bear away the sins of the people. The two goats thus symbolized both
propitiation for sins by death and complete removal of the sins for which
atonement was made. Clearly the Day of Atonement was to symbolize for Israel
every year the substitutionary atonement God provided for their sins and the
total removal of their guilt.
Exodus NIV Application Commentary
The author, Roy Gane, sees
three kinds of sins not just two.
Numbers 15:30-31 suggests two: inadvertent sins which are expiable as in
the Exodus text and deliberate sins which are not expiable. Gane following Schenker
suggests there are two kinds of deliberate sin – deliberate but nondefiant
which are exiable and “high handed”
deliberate sins which are not. (See Gane in
Lev/Num page 625ff) Israel at
Kadesh Barnea and Achan in Joshua 7 were defiantly, highhandedly, deliberately
rebellious.
But King
Manasseh of 2 Chronicles was also and yet God forgave him (but probably not
through the sacrificial system as with David’s sins with Bathsheba).
CONSCIENCE
The OT has no separate word for "conscience," but it neither lacks
the idea nor the means to express it. It is clear from Genesis 3:8 that the
first result of the Fall was a guilty conscience, compelling Adam and Eve to
hide from God. David's "heart smote him" (1 Sam 24:5 KJV, MLB, RSV);
NIV interprets this as "David was conscience-stricken." In everyday
Greek the word syneidesis referred to the pain or guilt felt by persons
who believed they had done wrong. Paul, who used the word more than other NT
writers, refined and developed this meaning. (1) He described the universal
existence of conscience (Rom 2:14-16) as the internal moral witness found in
all human beings. (2) He believed that Christians should have clear and good
consciences (2 Cor 1:12; 1 Tim 1:5, 19; 3:9). (3) Some Christians have a weak
or partially formed conscience (1 Cor 8:1-13 and 10:23-11:1); in certain cases
mature Christians are to restrict their liberty of action in order not to
offend them. (4) Evil consciences are corrupted by false teaching (1 Tim 4:2;
Titus 1:15). A person who rejects the gospel and resolutely opposes God has an
evil conscience. (5) As a result of accepting the gospel, people receive a
purified, or perfected, conscience (Heb 9:14; 10:22), through forgiveness and
the gift of the Holy Spirit. While Paul's use of the word "conscience"
is that of the internal witness of the mind and heart judging past actions in
the light of Christian teaching, he also appears to suggest that the
conscience will guide present and future actions (e.g., Rom 13:3; 1 Cor 10:25).
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of
the Bible
The pivotal fact for the Christian as he considers conscience
is the fact that behind conscience is God, who is holy, personal, and the Creator of a
moral universe which is to be judged by His righteousness. Man is made in the
image of God (Gen 1:26) and is answerable to Him for what he makes of himself,
how he exercises his obligation to be a neighbor (Luke 10:37),
and his dominion over the created order. Conscience is “an intuition of the moral law” (ISBE), that is, the
Bible takes the stance of ethical realism. “Man is not adrift in a
complex world without an inner monitor. In the midst of the conflicting demands
and many impulses of his nature, surrounded by a world of imperfect sensible objects,
he feels the lure of perfections that cannot have their source in the
imperfections of human existence. No amount of imagining and reasoning can
derive the imperfect from the perfect. Only the dim awareness of perfection
guides his analysis of and movement from imperfection” (Bertocci, 237). Paul
appealed directly to manifestations of this intuition as the basis for his
statement that all men are without excuse before God
The Christian’s conscience must be rooted in his redemption through God’s grace in
Jesus Christ and not on works of the law (the flesh). Mankind, however, prefers
a prescriptive moral system, one with specific, clearly spelled out rules. Man
wants to know what to do and what not to do. As far as possible, he prefers to
avoid or minimize moral decision. A conventional, external morality leaves him
feeling more secure. Paul understood both the siren lure of a legalistic moral
system and the moral shipwreck and spiritual death it brings. Therefore, he
urged the Galatians to have the courage to live with a Christian’s conscience,
one that is free in Jesus Christ and which cultivates the fruit of the Spirit
The person with a prohibitive conscience
has a rigidly-fixed, negatively-oriented child’s conscience. The person’s
consciousness is dominated by an unbearable burden of guilt, and by fear of
reproof or punishment. Since he accepts responsibility for achieving the
impossible, or for being what God never intended him to be, he lives in a
chronic state of guilt-riddenness. He feels obligated to get results for which
he has neither the necessary knowledge nor the requisite talent. Fear of vice
and wrong-doing is stronger than love of virtue and doing right. Goodness is
reduced to not doing anything wrong. Life is dominated by a need to appease and
to propitiate God and men. The person feels surrounded by demand, disapproval,
and anger over his imperfections. He tends to experience “guilt feelings”
rather than guilt. “Guilt feelings” result from repression of thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors that hold out the threat of disapproval and punishment.
Repression enables the person to dissociate his experience of guilt from the
thoughts or actions which induce the guilt. This leaves him with “free
floating” guilt which he can now attach to more innocuous experiences. He finds
these easier to deal with either because they are more readily avoided or
because others keep reassuring him that he need not feel guilty about such
matters. Guilt feelings dominate in a prohibitive conscience.
Since they are free-floating they prevent real moral insight. And since they
involve propitiatory self-punishment they prevent genuine contrition and
repentance. Guilt feelings have little to do with sorrow for sin. They are
signs of a preoccupation with a fear of consequences. If the person turns these
feelings outward he is likely to adopt a critical disparaging life style, which
dwells on the sins and shortcomings of others. If he turns them in on himself,
he magnifies his sins, wallows self-punitively in them and dominates others
through his self-reproach and threats of self-destruction. In either case the
person lives in a vicious circle virtually anesthetized against the counsel and
spiritual ministrations of family, friends, and pastor. Not until he can be
helped to reconnect the guilt feelings to the thoughts or actions that give
rise to them is he likely to develop the contrition and repentance that open
the way to genuine moral and spiritual insight and growth. Acquiring courage to
face oneself and to accept forgiveness involves for such a person turning his
world topsy-turvy. His implicit major premise is that love is always
conditional and is, at its root, a reward for perfection. From this he
concludes that forgiveness is at best partial and temporary and is contingent
on “not doing that again.” Courage to trust that God’s love is unconditional,
rooted in His holy love and in the finished work of Jesus Christ freely
extended to the penitent, and that forgiveness is real and abiding, i.e.
courage to make a radical shift of one’s view of the universe at the very point
where one is most skeptical, frightened, and vulnerable rises partly out of
desperation, but in greater degree from experiencing a measure of agape from
persons and from the community of believers. Those who suffer from a
prohibitive conscience require the major portion of a minister’s pastoral
ministrations. They also tend to be deeply involved in congregational
misunderstandings and disputes.