We have to study to show ourselves approved unto God… right?
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Rightly dividing the WORD OF TRUTH. God's Word. We are to study GOD'S WORD.
In studying it's so easy to take our preconceived ideas and make things fit into them. And then it's hard to turn around and admit mistakes are made, we don't like making mistakes.
The truth is revealed as God would have it revealed and if we choose not to accept the truth we are allowed to believe delusions.
In the continuing Sanctuary study we are undertaking, we have to stop skipping this and that boring part. We have to stop jumping to something we feel is more relevant. We have to study and learn, and unlearn as God reveals.
*******
1989 Special 2 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 2 -- EDITORIAL -- This first quarter of 1989, the Sabbath School lessons for the Adult Division center on the book of Leviticus. Written by two conservative Seventh-day Adventist scholars, there was cause for hope that some of the previously questionable conclusions regarding the sanctuary service might be corrected. However, this is not the case.
In Lesson 4, January 28, near the close of Section I, subtitled - "Sins of Ignorance" - the traditional explanation is found as to what was transferred to the sanctuary. The first sentence of the note reads - "Priest transfers sin to the sanctuary:" This error should be transparent. It was blood only that the priest took into the sanctuary for sin and fingerprinted on the Altar of Incense, and sprinkled before the veil. Now the BLOOD is the life. It is the blood that maketh atonement. (Lev. 17:11) If, therefore, it is sin, then sin makes the atonement. No, a thousand times no!
The BLOOD IS THE RECORD THAT THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN PAIN, AND THE SINNER FORGIVEN.
Further thought reveals why sin is not transferred to the sanctuary.
IT IS ALREADY RECORDED AT THE MOMENT OF TRANSGRESSION.
The whole ceremony of Leviticus 4 has to do with sins of ignorance, not on God's part, but on the sinner's part.
When the sinner was convicted, a prescribed ritual was performed. Why then double record sin? This is not what the sinner needs. He needs the assurance of forgiveness and that the penalty for his sin as recorded has been paid.
We nullify a key lesson of Leviticus 4, when we assume that it is teaching the transfer of sin to the sanctuary. There was a transfer of sin, but it was the TRANSFER TO THE SACRIFICE.
(((Remember we've already learned in past lessons that a person came to the revelation that they'd sinned a sin of ignorance and then they went and brought a sacrifice to the temple. They would then with the help of a common priest sacrifice that animal, placing all their weight upon the animal as they did so- in figure transferring their sins to the ANIMAL. Then the animal was slain and that animal's sacrificed blood was used by the common priest to make a record of the sin FORGIVEN. At that point the person's sin was FORGIVEN. They left the temple forgiven. The sacrificed animal's blood remained there at the temple. This is TRUTH.))))
It was the recognition that a sin had been committed; the transfer of that guilt through the substitute required; and the assurance of forgiveness which is taught in the law of the sin offering.
I repeat, while the animal became sin through transfer and was destroyed when the blood was taken within the sanctuary, it was the blood, the life, indicating that the penalty for sin had been paid that was recorded.
The other method to get sin into the sanctuary as noted by the authors of the Sabbath School lessons was, that the priest who ate of the victim in the case of a ruler or common person's sin, ministered in the daily services offering incense, thereby "symbolically transferred" the sin "to the sanctuary." (Teacher's Quarterly, p. 54) Transfer is accomplished in the type by the symbolic laying on of the hand. Where is such a record in the type for the transfer of sin to the sanctuary when the priest ate of the sacrifice? In fact, even in the services on the Day of Atonement, the bullock which was offered as a sin offering for Aaron and his house, never had a hand laid upon its head. (Lev. 16:6)
There is further evidence from the Day of Atonement ritual that sin was NOT transferred to the sanctuary, but had been previously recorded. During the year, no blood was ever taken into the Most Holy Place. The closest the blood, denoting that the penalty had been paid, ever came to the Most Holy Place, was that blood which was sprinkled before the veil separating the two apartments. On the Day of Atonement, when the cleansing ritual did bring blood into the Most Holy Place, it was stated that it was being done "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (Lev. 16:16) If for sake of argument, we should grant that the record of blood was a record of sin, and not a record of the penalty paid for sin, then how did the transgressions and sins get into the Most Holy Place when no such blood over which confessions were made ever entered there?
What we have failed to realize is that the sanctuary services in type are an adjunct to the Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary explaining how an individual in covenant relationship with God can escape the finality of the judgment. We refuse to face up to the meaning of Jesus' promise in John 5:24.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
This verse does not destroy the sanctuary doctrine as some have sought to do with it; but rather it does focus on an area of teaching which needs to be corrected and brought into line with the true revelation of the sanctuary model. This issue of the Commentary will seek to do just that, as well as the issue to follow.
Some have cited Jeremiah (17:1)
Jer 17:1 The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars
as proof that sin was transferred to the sanctuary. I, too, have so used this text in times past. Sensing that such a use of this text violates the meaning of the ritual of the sin offering in Leviticus, I checked the context in which Jeremiah was writing. The verse in Jeremiah reads: "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of the heart, and upon the horns of your altars."
The next verse introduces "the Asherim" (KJV - "groves") which were worshiped by the green trees on the high hills. The connection between the idolatrous worship or the "hills" and the blood placed on the horns of the altars of the temple must be related to the prophecy of the verses that follow. God would give these "high places for sin" to the spoiler (ver. 3), and Judah herself would serve their enemies in a strange land because what they did provoked the anger of the Lord (ver. 4). The sin that came upon the altars was a sin so engraved upon their hearts that it could not be erased. Keil and Delitzsch comment as follows: "It was because the altars and the images of the false gods had entwined themselves as closely about their hearts as their children, so that they brought the sin of their idolatry along with their sacrifices to the altars of Jahveh. The offerings which they bring, in this state of mind, to the Lord are defiled by idolatry and carry their sins to the altar, so that, in the blood which is sprinkled on its horns, the sins of the offerers are poured out on the altar. Hence it appears unmistakably that ver. 1 does not deal with the consciousness of sin as not yet cancelled or forgiven, but with the sin of idolatry, which, ineradicably implanted in the hearts of the people and indelibly recorded before God on the horns of the altar, calls down God's wrath in punishment as announced in vers. 3 and 4." (Vol. 8, p. 278)
*******
To cherish the sin for which we ask forgiveness and for which we present the Substitute is duplicity and makes of "the blood of the covenant ... an unholy thing." The sin of the heart is retained while outwardly confessing its surrender. This is hypocrisy which God hates. In the typical service, this stage acting brought sin upon the altars of the sanctuary which God did not intend should be done.
(((Cherished sin. I want to discuss this just a little bit. Sin is a transgression of God's law. To cherish a sin is to cherish transgressing God's law. To love sin is wrong. To ask God to forgive us for a sin while we love that sin, is wrong. I’m NOT saying to ask God to forgive us for a sin while we are STRUGGLING with that is wrong, but if we LOVE that sin, then we are cherishing it and rather than hating the sin. Satan makes sin tempting, desirable, something we want. And yes, we can be tempted, and want that sin without LOVING IT, without CHERISHING it. Our Savior was TEMPTED. And to be tempted means putting something desirable before someone. Our Savior was very hungry in the wilderness when Satan approached Him and TEMPTED Him to turn the stones into bread. I'm sure our Savior desired bread, but that did not mean HE let the temptation lead to the sin being conceived in Him, the temptation wasn't the sin. We are tempted to sin by things we desire, NOT by things we must LOVE. Yet, some people do choose to LOVE their sins, they give themselves over to them rather than FIGHT against them, rather than hating them because they are transgressing the law of the GOD they are supposed to LOVE, the GOD who is LOVE.
Again, if we CHOOSE to love our sins rather than hate them, and at the same time go to our God and ask Him to forgive us for those sins, we are committing an unholy thing! We must pray even for the hatred of sin that we need to have, not wanting to commit anything so horrendous, so unholy.
God knows our hearts, we hide NOTHING from Him! We must confess our sinfulness, not try to hide it, not try to will it away, but confess it and give it to Him, knowing HE will clean us in the way we can never clean ourselves.
*******
A second error occurs in this same section of the Quarterly. It states - "In the case of the sin offering for a fellow priest, or for the whole congregation" the blood was taken into the first apartment of the sanctuary. The authors failed to see, and the editors did not catch, that the offering for the priest wherein the blood was taken into the sanctuary, only pertained to the High Priest when he in his official capacity had sinned causing the whole congregation to transgress. The text reads - "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin ... a young bullock." (Lev. 4:3 ARV) As an individual sinner, the priest was included in the category of a ruler. See Numbers 3:32, where the same Hebrew word translated "ruler" in Leviticus 4 is there translated, "chief."
We suggest a careful study of all the material which is presented in this Commentary comparing Scripture with Scripture.
*******
More tomorrow by the grace of our loving GOD.
Please, LORD, bless us, forgive us, help us!
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Rightly dividing the WORD OF TRUTH. God's Word. We are to study GOD'S WORD.
In studying it's so easy to take our preconceived ideas and make things fit into them. And then it's hard to turn around and admit mistakes are made, we don't like making mistakes.
The truth is revealed as God would have it revealed and if we choose not to accept the truth we are allowed to believe delusions.
In the continuing Sanctuary study we are undertaking, we have to stop skipping this and that boring part. We have to stop jumping to something we feel is more relevant. We have to study and learn, and unlearn as God reveals.
*******
1989 Special 2 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 2 -- EDITORIAL -- This first quarter of 1989, the Sabbath School lessons for the Adult Division center on the book of Leviticus. Written by two conservative Seventh-day Adventist scholars, there was cause for hope that some of the previously questionable conclusions regarding the sanctuary service might be corrected. However, this is not the case.
In Lesson 4, January 28, near the close of Section I, subtitled - "Sins of Ignorance" - the traditional explanation is found as to what was transferred to the sanctuary. The first sentence of the note reads - "Priest transfers sin to the sanctuary:" This error should be transparent. It was blood only that the priest took into the sanctuary for sin and fingerprinted on the Altar of Incense, and sprinkled before the veil. Now the BLOOD is the life. It is the blood that maketh atonement. (Lev. 17:11) If, therefore, it is sin, then sin makes the atonement. No, a thousand times no!
The BLOOD IS THE RECORD THAT THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN PAIN, AND THE SINNER FORGIVEN.
Further thought reveals why sin is not transferred to the sanctuary.
IT IS ALREADY RECORDED AT THE MOMENT OF TRANSGRESSION.
The whole ceremony of Leviticus 4 has to do with sins of ignorance, not on God's part, but on the sinner's part.
When the sinner was convicted, a prescribed ritual was performed. Why then double record sin? This is not what the sinner needs. He needs the assurance of forgiveness and that the penalty for his sin as recorded has been paid.
We nullify a key lesson of Leviticus 4, when we assume that it is teaching the transfer of sin to the sanctuary. There was a transfer of sin, but it was the TRANSFER TO THE SACRIFICE.
(((Remember we've already learned in past lessons that a person came to the revelation that they'd sinned a sin of ignorance and then they went and brought a sacrifice to the temple. They would then with the help of a common priest sacrifice that animal, placing all their weight upon the animal as they did so- in figure transferring their sins to the ANIMAL. Then the animal was slain and that animal's sacrificed blood was used by the common priest to make a record of the sin FORGIVEN. At that point the person's sin was FORGIVEN. They left the temple forgiven. The sacrificed animal's blood remained there at the temple. This is TRUTH.))))
It was the recognition that a sin had been committed; the transfer of that guilt through the substitute required; and the assurance of forgiveness which is taught in the law of the sin offering.
I repeat, while the animal became sin through transfer and was destroyed when the blood was taken within the sanctuary, it was the blood, the life, indicating that the penalty for sin had been paid that was recorded.
The other method to get sin into the sanctuary as noted by the authors of the Sabbath School lessons was, that the priest who ate of the victim in the case of a ruler or common person's sin, ministered in the daily services offering incense, thereby "symbolically transferred" the sin "to the sanctuary." (Teacher's Quarterly, p. 54) Transfer is accomplished in the type by the symbolic laying on of the hand. Where is such a record in the type for the transfer of sin to the sanctuary when the priest ate of the sacrifice? In fact, even in the services on the Day of Atonement, the bullock which was offered as a sin offering for Aaron and his house, never had a hand laid upon its head. (Lev. 16:6)
There is further evidence from the Day of Atonement ritual that sin was NOT transferred to the sanctuary, but had been previously recorded. During the year, no blood was ever taken into the Most Holy Place. The closest the blood, denoting that the penalty had been paid, ever came to the Most Holy Place, was that blood which was sprinkled before the veil separating the two apartments. On the Day of Atonement, when the cleansing ritual did bring blood into the Most Holy Place, it was stated that it was being done "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (Lev. 16:16) If for sake of argument, we should grant that the record of blood was a record of sin, and not a record of the penalty paid for sin, then how did the transgressions and sins get into the Most Holy Place when no such blood over which confessions were made ever entered there?
What we have failed to realize is that the sanctuary services in type are an adjunct to the Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary explaining how an individual in covenant relationship with God can escape the finality of the judgment. We refuse to face up to the meaning of Jesus' promise in John 5:24.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
This verse does not destroy the sanctuary doctrine as some have sought to do with it; but rather it does focus on an area of teaching which needs to be corrected and brought into line with the true revelation of the sanctuary model. This issue of the Commentary will seek to do just that, as well as the issue to follow.
Some have cited Jeremiah (17:1)
Jer 17:1 The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars
as proof that sin was transferred to the sanctuary. I, too, have so used this text in times past. Sensing that such a use of this text violates the meaning of the ritual of the sin offering in Leviticus, I checked the context in which Jeremiah was writing. The verse in Jeremiah reads: "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of the heart, and upon the horns of your altars."
The next verse introduces "the Asherim" (KJV - "groves") which were worshiped by the green trees on the high hills. The connection between the idolatrous worship or the "hills" and the blood placed on the horns of the altars of the temple must be related to the prophecy of the verses that follow. God would give these "high places for sin" to the spoiler (ver. 3), and Judah herself would serve their enemies in a strange land because what they did provoked the anger of the Lord (ver. 4). The sin that came upon the altars was a sin so engraved upon their hearts that it could not be erased. Keil and Delitzsch comment as follows: "It was because the altars and the images of the false gods had entwined themselves as closely about their hearts as their children, so that they brought the sin of their idolatry along with their sacrifices to the altars of Jahveh. The offerings which they bring, in this state of mind, to the Lord are defiled by idolatry and carry their sins to the altar, so that, in the blood which is sprinkled on its horns, the sins of the offerers are poured out on the altar. Hence it appears unmistakably that ver. 1 does not deal with the consciousness of sin as not yet cancelled or forgiven, but with the sin of idolatry, which, ineradicably implanted in the hearts of the people and indelibly recorded before God on the horns of the altar, calls down God's wrath in punishment as announced in vers. 3 and 4." (Vol. 8, p. 278)
*******
To cherish the sin for which we ask forgiveness and for which we present the Substitute is duplicity and makes of "the blood of the covenant ... an unholy thing." The sin of the heart is retained while outwardly confessing its surrender. This is hypocrisy which God hates. In the typical service, this stage acting brought sin upon the altars of the sanctuary which God did not intend should be done.
(((Cherished sin. I want to discuss this just a little bit. Sin is a transgression of God's law. To cherish a sin is to cherish transgressing God's law. To love sin is wrong. To ask God to forgive us for a sin while we love that sin, is wrong. I’m NOT saying to ask God to forgive us for a sin while we are STRUGGLING with that is wrong, but if we LOVE that sin, then we are cherishing it and rather than hating the sin. Satan makes sin tempting, desirable, something we want. And yes, we can be tempted, and want that sin without LOVING IT, without CHERISHING it. Our Savior was TEMPTED. And to be tempted means putting something desirable before someone. Our Savior was very hungry in the wilderness when Satan approached Him and TEMPTED Him to turn the stones into bread. I'm sure our Savior desired bread, but that did not mean HE let the temptation lead to the sin being conceived in Him, the temptation wasn't the sin. We are tempted to sin by things we desire, NOT by things we must LOVE. Yet, some people do choose to LOVE their sins, they give themselves over to them rather than FIGHT against them, rather than hating them because they are transgressing the law of the GOD they are supposed to LOVE, the GOD who is LOVE.
Again, if we CHOOSE to love our sins rather than hate them, and at the same time go to our God and ask Him to forgive us for those sins, we are committing an unholy thing! We must pray even for the hatred of sin that we need to have, not wanting to commit anything so horrendous, so unholy.
God knows our hearts, we hide NOTHING from Him! We must confess our sinfulness, not try to hide it, not try to will it away, but confess it and give it to Him, knowing HE will clean us in the way we can never clean ourselves.
*******
A second error occurs in this same section of the Quarterly. It states - "In the case of the sin offering for a fellow priest, or for the whole congregation" the blood was taken into the first apartment of the sanctuary. The authors failed to see, and the editors did not catch, that the offering for the priest wherein the blood was taken into the sanctuary, only pertained to the High Priest when he in his official capacity had sinned causing the whole congregation to transgress. The text reads - "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin ... a young bullock." (Lev. 4:3 ARV) As an individual sinner, the priest was included in the category of a ruler. See Numbers 3:32, where the same Hebrew word translated "ruler" in Leviticus 4 is there translated, "chief."
We suggest a careful study of all the material which is presented in this Commentary comparing Scripture with Scripture.
*******
More tomorrow by the grace of our loving GOD.
Please, LORD, bless us, forgive us, help us!
No comments:
Post a Comment