The Sanctuary Study Pt. 19

The Services of the Sanctuary Study continue.
Understanding the service of the Sanctuary is important. We were given a type to prefigure the actual. Jesus is our sacrifice, very few who believe in God will debate that Jesus died for us. Very few will debate that Jesus is our savior, He died in our place taking our sins upon Him so we may be forgiven by Him and made acceptable to God, made At-one with God. For a service that was enacted thousands of years before Christ as a type that would be fulfilled in his coming- living and dying, living again for us, we need to understand this to the best of our ability. To ignore it as something that never mattered, that doesn't matter is to hide our heads in the sand. Let's try to understand this better with the help of someone who has studied it extensively using the Bible as his guide.
Thought Paper -- 2000 Apr XXXIII 4(00) -- William Grotheer
The Sin Offerings --
The sin offerings are defined in Leviticus 4.
Again it must be emphasized that these offerings covered in a ceremonial aspect only sins of "'ignorance" (4:1)
...which at the time when committed the sinner was not conscience that he had sinned (4:28).
The purposeful sin was not provided for in the ceremonial sacrifices.
David was well aware of this when after his sin of adultery compounded by murder, he acknowledged, "For Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering" (Ps. 51:16).
Paul emphasized this weakness in the ceremonial law when he presented Jesus in the Jewish synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. He said:
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)
This emphasizes the fact that the law of Moses could not take away sin, and that the services were but "examples and shadows" of the heavenly reality in and through Jesus Christ "who was delivered for our offences, and raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25).
He ministered on earth as a common priest of a different order than the Aaronic, and now in the heavenly sanctuary, He continues as our great High Priest after the Order of Meichisedec. (Heb. 7:21).
The sin offerings of Leviticus 4 are divided into four categories -
1) The High Priest when he sinned in such a way "so as to bring guilt on the people" (4:3 ARV)
2) The whole congregation.
3) The rulers.
4) And the common people.
There are common factors in all four categories.
The first is the act in each instance of laying the hand upon the head of ihe designated sacrifice, whether it be the individual sinner or the elders of Israel in case the whole congregation sinned. (4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33)
This represented confession, transfer, and dependence on the part of the offerer(s). This last representation is not readily perceived inasmuch as we think of the laying on of the hand the same as is done in anointing the sick, or consecrating one to an holy office. The word used In the Hebrew - samach - "shall lay" is used In Ps. 88:7 where It is translated - "Thy wrath lieth hard upon me;" and in Amos 5:19 translated, leaned, implying full weight. Gesenius in commenting on the use of the word in Leviticus states the meaning as "to lay the hand upon anything, so as to lean upon it." Then the offerer had to slay the victim. His sin caused the necessity for the animal to die.
This typical point dare not be overlooked. I have contributed to the murder of the Lord Jesus Christ; I, too, have sinned and do sin.
The second common factor in three of the four categories of the sin offering is the fact that through the ministration of the priest, forgiveness resulted to the sinner (4:20, 26, 31, 35).
He cannot forgive himself; he must trust in the forgiveness extended through the mediation of the priest.
In the interpretation of this symbol, we see the gulf between Romanism and Protestantism.
The Protestant accepting it as typical, perceives the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ, while Romanism adopting it in a literal sense interposes a human mediatorial system between the sinner and God.
It is in the priestly ministry of the sin offerings that distinctions are made in the four categories.
When the High Priest ("the priest that is anointed") sins so as to bring guilt on the people, or the whole congregation sins, it was a corporate sin. The blood of the sin offering - a bullock - was mediated by the high priest (4:16). The blood was taken within the sanctuary and sprinkled before the veil that separated the holy from the most holy place. A record of confession was finger printed on the horns of the altar of incense. The remainder of the blood was poured at the base of the altar in the court (4:17-18). Only certain parts of the sacrificed bullock were burned on the altar. The rest was carried without the camp and burned "where the ashes are poured out" (4:8-12).
When the ruler, or common person sinned, the common priest ministered the sacrifice. The blood was not taken within the sanctuary, but a record of the confession was finger printed on the horns of the altar in the court, and the balance of the blood was poured at its base (4:25). A special law was given concerning the sin offering for a ruler or common person. It read: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: It is most holy. The priest that oftereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation (6:25-26).
Certain points need to be itemized:
1) The place where the sin offering was killed was the same "where the burnt offering was killed." This was at "the door of the tabernacle of the congregration before the Lord" (1:3).
2) The whole of this priestly ministry was done "in the court," and
3) The common priest became a sin bearer by eating of the offering to which the sin had been transferred by the sinner.
Nowhere in the typical services was provision made for the common priest to transfer this sin that he carried to the sanctuary. He accepted it and bore it in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
The antitypical significance of this law of the sin offering needs to be carefully studied. In the symbolism, the court is the earth (Rev. 11:2).
{11:2}But the court which is without the temple leave out, andmeasure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holycity shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.
To this earth Christ came, partaking of our flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14).
{2:14} Forasmuch then as thechildren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himselflikewise took part of the same; that through death he mightdestroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Paul writes that God "hath made Him to be sin for us" (II Cor. 5:21).
{5:21} For he hath made him [to be] sinfor us, who knew no sin; that we might be made therighteousness of God in him.
Further, since "it is of necessity that (Christ) have somewhat also to offer" before He could become high priest (Heb. 8:3)
{8:3} For every highpriest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [itis] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
... and since He could not be a priest in the Hebrew temple because he was of the tribe of Judah and not of the house of Aaron, He ministered as a common priest during His earthly life on the journey to the Cross. (See Hebrews 7:12-16; 8:4)
{7:12} For the priesthood being changed, there is made ofnecessity a change also of the law. {7:13} For he of whomthese things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of whichno man gave attendance at the altar. {7:14} For [it is]evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribeMoses spake nothing concerning priesthood. {7:15} And itis yet far more evident: for that after the similitude ofMelchisedec there ariseth another priest, {7:16} Who ismade, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but afterthe power of an endless life.
{8:4} For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to thelaw.
The highest atonement the common priest could minister was the atonement of forgiveness (Lev.4:31). This Christ made plain that He as the Son of man could do. To the man who had been let down through the roof, Jesus said - "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20). The scribes and Pharisees present began reasoning in their minds that this was blasphemous. When Jesus perceived their thinking, He declared: What reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (He said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And immediately he rose up before them. (Luke 5:22-25)
This distinction in the type needs more and careful study.
The common priest ministered the sin offering for the individual;
the high priest for the corporate sins of the nation.
The atonement of forgiveness for the individual was consummated at the Altar in the court,
and the ultimate sin transfer was to the common priest where it stopped.
The blood of corporate confession was taken within the sanctuary by the high priest and the confession recorded there.
Why the difference, and what is this difference in type telling us? This is an area for continued study.
We suggest that the symbolism used in the transfer of sin and the forgiveness extended to the individual in the court but echoes the thought that the highest place man of himself can attain is at the foot of the cross where he can look "up to the One who died to save him," and "rejoice with fullness of joy; for his sins are pardoned."
Consideration also needs to be given to the category in which the priest as an individual sinner would be classified. In Numbers 3:32, "Eleazar the son of Aaron" is placed as "chief over the chief of the Levites." This word, "chief" (nahsee') is the same word as is used in Leviticus 4 for "ruler" (v. 22). When a priest sinned, his offering would be mediated through a common priest, and thus the confession and atonement of forgiveness would be culminated in the court at the Altar of Burnt Offering, the same as for any other ruler, chief, or prince.
In their official capacity as ministering common priests, Moses declared plainly to "Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron" - "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation to make atonement for them before the Lord" (Lev. 10:17). "To bear" does not mean "to transfer." Christ as the Lamb of God bore the sins of the world. (Isa. 53:11; John 1:29, margin). Christ did not transfer what He took. Any endeavor to transfer to the sanctuary the sin the common priest assumed symbolically by eating of the sin offering of a ruler, or a common person is without Scriptural basis. Nowhere on record is there a single incident recorded of such a transfer. To do so would destroy the type of the ministry of Jesus Christ as a common priest before His elevation to the office of High Priest after His resurrection.
Other Facets -- In the "law of the sin offering," it is stated of the sin offering - "It is most holy" (Lev. 6:25). One reacts in amazement. The animal upon which sin was confessed - "most holy"? Yes, and it was that victim of which the common priest was to eat in providing the atonement of forgiveness for the sinner. It stands as a symbol of Him who partook of our fallen nature and whose "soul" was made "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10). Though bearing our nature, He was most holy. Even a demon when confronted by Jesus cried out - "I know thee who thou art: the Holy One of God" (Luke 4:34).
In discussing above the first act the sinner did in bringing his sin offering, that of laying his hand on the victim's head, we noted that it represented confession, transfer and dependence (p.4). There we emphasized the dependence aspect, but the other aspects need also to be enlarged upon. The confession was not to be a general confession but was required to be specific. Beside the sin offerings, there were trespass offerings. In the presentation of these offerings, the rule was stated - "It shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (Lev. 5:5). The same would apply to the sin offerings. In the New Testament, "confession" is the one condition given for forgiveness. "If we confess our sins, (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Closely connected with confession is transfer. Since we can neither forgive ourselves, nor bear the consequence of our sins, the guilt and its penalty must be borne by someone else. In the typical services outlined for the wilderness sanctuary, there was transferred either to the sanctuary, or to the common priest the guilt of sin via the prescribed victim. Now was this done so as to record sin, or was it the record of confession of a sin already recorded? The specifics of these ceremonial offerings limited the sin to "ignorance" Lev. 4:2), and that when convicted, the sinner responded with the designated offering (4:23, 28). The sin had already been committed, and the record made. If the sin offering was the means whereby the sin was placed on record, then the best way to have no sin registered against one was not to bring a sin offering.
Another question needs to be raised regarding the blood of the sin offering. Did it defile the sanctuary? I find no Scriptural record so stating. How can the blood of that which is declared to be "most holy" defile? In fact, there is on record the rule that if a man does not avail himself of the provisions of the ceremonial code in regard to uncleanness, he shall be cut off from the congregation "because he hath defiled the: sanctuury of the Lord" (Numbers 19:20). This was concerning the provisions of the offering of the red heifer. Thus it would appear that failure to bring the prescribed offering would defile rather than the blood of the sin offering brought. It is also of note that the blood of any sin offering which required the laying on of the hand in confession is involved with the registry of guilt and confession, while the blood of the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement on which no hand was laid in confession, cleansed not only the sanctuary, but also was "for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation" (Lev. 16:33). But this must await another "Review."
1) All transliterations from the Hebrew in the above article are taken from the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance.
***
Our sins are forgiven by Jesus, He took on our sins. We need to continue to confess our sins to Jesus a priest unlike any other and the only priest that can save us. Confessing our sins to any other is pointless. We are saved only by Jesus. This has to be an active confession because without an active confession we cannot be forgive. "If we confess our sins, (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
If we confess.
Before Jesus confessing was a prelude before transferring sin. After Jesus it is the same, only our sin transfer goes onto Jesus, not an animal.
There is just so much to absorb here. May God help us to understand what we need to know of His great and wonderful plan for us. May we make it a reality in our lives not something fictional. By the grace of Jesus, by the mercy of our Lord and Savior, may we all be blessed by the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Amen.