2002 Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) WWN Thought Paper - William Grotheer
The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God.
They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God's right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God.
All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ.
He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption.
He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness.
Then, perfumed with merits of Christ's propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.
Oh, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ.
The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat. (Manuscript 50, 1900)
****So true. If we think for one moment our own goodness will get us into heaven, that anything we do is worthy of salvation we are mistaken. Cling to the cross, only there can we find an advocate with the Father. Representing ourselves before God is automatic death. We have no worth to bring, no righteousness to show and anything we can claim as *our* righteousness is corrupted by our very nature of self supremacy. Only Christ can stand before the Father worthy and we have to have Christ as our advocate with the Father. Our Advocate with the Father has to know us, know who He's defending before He can plead our case to the Father. If there is anything at all that we must do it is put ourselves in a position to have Christ come to know us, to realize that only by knowing Him and Him knowing us do we have the promises offered. We don't want to hear- 'Get away from me, I never knew you.' We want our Savior, our Advocate to know all there is to know about us and by His amazing incomprehensible mercy save us because He is the only one that can.***
The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast --
Any discussion of Ezekiel 9 involving "the mark" is then associated with Revelation 7 involving the "sealing" of the 144,000. The text in Revelation reads: I saw another angel ascending from the east having the seal of the living God: ... And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel (vs. 2, 4).
The antithesis of the "seal of God" in Revelation is the "mark of the beast" (14:9).
Because of little study and much less reflection on the Scriptures, many in Adventism give an elementary answer to what this "seal" and "mark" is. These quickly respond that the "seal" is keeping the Sabbath, and the "mark" is keeping Sunday. It is true the Roman Church claims in their catechisms, and other publications, that the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday is an evidence of her power "to institute festivals of precept." Further, they boast that this change accepted by Protestants "is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Roman] Church." However, these admissions and boastings carry the "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" of that Church. This is not the case when dealing with the single quotation from a papal source which designates this act as a "mark" of "her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters," and which is then used to define Sunday, as "the mark of the beast."
Simple handlIng of truth demands that we have more substantial evidence than this, to so interpret Biblical symbolism which is given such prominence in prophecy.
First, let us consider the letter which is the basis for the documentation of the conclusion drawn.
It was written in 1895 by J. F. Snyder of Bloomington, Illinois, to James Cardinal Gibbons, the leading Roman prelate in America at that time. H. F. Thomas, the office manager of the Diocesan office in Baltimore replied.
Currently, the only source available to me of this exchange is in the book, Facts of Faith (pp. 292-293), One part of Snyder's letter, quoted verbatim is the phrase, "as a mark of her power" in reference to the change of the Sabbath. The Chancellor's reply is quoted (in full, or in part is not indicated) and reads: Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. It could not have been otherwise, as none in those days would have dreamed of doing anything in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical without her. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.
The word, "mark" used by Thomas, was suggested by Snyder. However, the Chancellor's letter does not carry the official imprimatur of the Papal Church. To base a concept of what is "the mark of the beast," which is so pointedly discussed in the book of Revelation, on this single letter in which the idea of "mark" was suggested by the questioner is itself open to question.
In 1995, the first 825 page English edition of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church was published by Doubleday, to be followed in 1997 by a 904 page second edition revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Both editions carried the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum in which the Pope declared the Catechism "to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (p. 5, 2nd Edition).
Nowhere in this new Catechism do you find stated as is to be found in The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine.
It read:Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (AD. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday (p.50)
This Catechism not only carried a double imprimatur as well as a nihil obstat, but also its author, Peter Geiermann, received a letter of commendation from the Vatican bestowing the Apostolic Blessing of Pius X, expressing the Pope's appreciation of his "zealous efforts ... for the spread of the knowledge of the True Faith" (p.3).
Nor can there be found as stated in A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan which read:Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?A. Has she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionist agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the sevenith day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. (p.174).
This catechism carried the imprimatur of Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York (circa 1876).
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church holds: The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of His universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfils the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up the rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of His people. (#2176, 2nd Edition)
Prior to this conclusion, it sets for the Sabbath as "the seventh day" giving Scriptural reference, noting that it not only recalled the creative acts of God, but that it also serves as "a memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt" (#2170, 2nd ed.; emphasis theirs). Further, it is stated: "God entrusted the sabbath to Israel to keep as a sign of the irrevocable covenant. The Sabbath is for the Lord, holy and set apart for the praise of God, His work of creation, and His saving actions on behalf of Israel" (#2171, ibid.) Following this section on the Sabbath is a section on "The Lord's Day." How is its observance in place of the Sabbath justified? As an edict of Rome to show the power of the Church to change the day? Does it become a "mark" of her authority in religious matters? No! Note carefully: Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week." Because it is the first day," the day of Christ's Resurection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first feast of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) - Sunday (#2174, sec. ed.)
They reason further - "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfils the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God" (#2175).
[It is of interest to observe that "sabbath" is never captialized in these sections of the Catechism, while "Sunday" and "the Lord's Day" are. It is also of interest to observe that the text of Scripture used to preface the section on "The Lord's Day" is from the Psalms (118:24) - "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" - a text frequently used by Protestants in their justification of Sunday, especially the Church of Christ. In his encyclical, Dies Domini, John Paul II declares, "Rightly, then, the Psalmist's cry is applied to Sunday" and quotes this text. (#2)]
The next section in the Catechism is captioned - "The Sunday Eucharist." It dare not be overlooked. The first sentence reads - "The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life" (emphasis supplied). Then the Codex luris Canonici is quoted: "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (#2177). This same Codex is quoted further as "the law of the Lord" stating that "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice" (#2181). It is on this point that the Catechism calls for legislation: In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give to everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. (#2188).
This objective, officially stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflects the plans of Rome as stated in The Liberal Illusion by Louis Veuillot in 1866 which read: When the time comes and men realize that the social edifice must be rebuilt according to eternal standards, be it tomorrow or centuries from now, the Catholics will arrange things to suit said standards. ... They will make obligatory the religious observance of Sunday on behalf of the whole of society, and for its own good, revoking the permit for free-thinkers and Jews to celebrate incognito, Monday or Saturday on their own account. (p.63; the author's emphasis).
Observe closely the wording - "revoking the permit ... to celebrate incognito" (in secret) the Sabbath. This gives an enlarged perspective to the whole question. It will not only be what is perceived as necessary for the good of "the whole of society" - "the religious observance of Sunday" - but also what you individually will be forbidden to do, even secretly, that which God commands to done - "Keep my sabbaths" (Lev. 26:2).
The test will not be a Sunday closing law which forbids work on Sunday such as could be termed a "National Sunday Law" but what is perceived by Rome as "the religious observance" of Sunday. This "religious observance" is clearly defined in the Catechism - the celebration of the Mass!
Another factor in this picture needs to be considered.
As noted above, the Catechism declares "the Sunday Eucharist" as "the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice." (par. 2181)
Further, participation in the Sunday Eucharist "is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church" (par. 2182).
In light of the fact that the Scripture indicates that the "mark" can be received in the forehead, or in the hand (Rev. 14:9), the significance of how the Mass is received needs careful consideration. In a section captioned - "How to Receive Communion" - the first sentence reads,
"Holy Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand ..." (Handbook for Today's Catholic, p.42). The desired response is then indicated: When the minister of the Eucharist addresses the communicant with the words, "The Body of Christ," "The Blood of Christ," the communicant responds, "Amen."
What is the meaning and significance of this mental assent? When the minister raises the eucharistic bread or wine, this is an invitation for the communicant to make an Act of Faith to express his or her belief in the Eucharist, to manifest a need and desire for the Lord to accept the good news of Jesus' paschal mystery.
A clear and meaningful "Amen" is your response to this invitation. In this way you profess your belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine as well as in his Body, the Church. (ibid.)
Whether the "bread" rests in my hand, or in my mouth, my mind, literally my fore-head gives consent, and I am a member of the Body of Rome. However, I have also given consent recognizing the blasphemous assertion of Rome that a man (the priest) can create the Lord Jesus Christ and offer him in sacrifice.
This is truly "in place of," the significance and meaning of the Greek word, AntiChrist (anticristoV), in place of Christ. [The Greek preposition, anti, means "in place of " rather than our English usage of "anti" - against.]
The Three Angels' Messages place in direct contrast two calls "to worship." One, in connection with the "everlasting gospel," is "to worship Him" who has the genuine power to create (Rev. 14:7). The other is a dire warning of judgment for "any man" who worships "the beast and his image" (v. 9). It must be clearly understood, that one does not worship a day, but he worships on a day some Person, or object Who or which is declared worthy of adoration.
There can be no question but that the Sabbath is the memorial of the creative action of God, blessed and sanctified by His resting thereon (Gen. 2:3).
Further, in the irrevocable Ten Words, God asked that this day be remembered and kept holy, because He did create the "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" in six days, and "rested on the seventh day" (Ex. 20:8, 11).
When this law was repeated to Israel before they entered the Promised Land, the Sabbath was prefaced with a second call to "remember" another and different manifestation of the power of God.
Moses said: And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day" (Deut 5:15).
Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Dies Domini, picks up on this factor and uses it as the basis for the change from Sabbath to Sunday. He wrote, "The connection between the Sabbath rest and the theme of 'remembering' is found also in the Book of Deuteronomy where the precept is grounded less in the work of creation than in the liberation accomplished by God in the Exodus" (#17). After quoting Deuteronomy 5:15, he adds - "This formulation complements the one we have already seen [creation], and taken together, the two reveal the meaning of 'the Lord's Day ' with a single theological vision which fuses creation and salvation" (ibid.) Then he concludes: What God accomplished in creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection. ... It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity ... came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ. We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath," from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes dies Christi! (#18).
We must never forget that connected with the First Angel's Message to "worship Him who made," is the "everlasting gospel" (Rev. 14:6), with its deliverance from sin. On Friday, Jesus finished the work given Him to do, and "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." On the first day, He arose to begin a new phase of His saving ministry - a Heavenly Priesthood - which will end when He comes again the second time "without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28).
The Seal of God involves not only the observance of the Sabbath as the memorial of God's creative work, but also the Gospel of God's redemptive work in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Mark of the Beast involves the first day of the week of Rome's sanctification and the false gospel in the worship and sacrifice of a wafer-god created by man.
What is the seal of the living God, which is placed in the foreheads of His people?
It is a mark which angels, but not human eyes, can read; for the destroying angel must see this mark of redemption.
The intelligent mind has seen the sign of the cross of Calvary in the Lord's adopted sons and daughters. The sin of the transgression of the law of God is taken away. They have on the wedding garment, and are obedient and faithful to all God's commands. (Letter 126, 1898)
*******
Pausing here-
Well this sure opened my eyes to a lot of rather interesting thoughts.
It's true- worship while we have *days of worship* isn't about worshipping that *day* it's about worshipping something or rather someone on that day. We'll worship either God or the Beast, not both, it's one or the other. We will receive the mark of one or the other.
From Wiki- 'the Eucharist" is the name still used by Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, United Methodists, and Lutherans.'
It's easy to see how more so than before that a call to the Eucharist from the Catholic Church will be something *most* churches would accept and they'd do so even under the guise of calling it the Lord's Supper and Communion. But it's not ONLY a call to the Eucharist but a call blessed by the *beast* the papacy.
I know we celebrate the Lord's Supper in our little group study but we do so with the full knowledge that the little cracker and the bit of juice hasn't been transformed into the body and blood of Christ. It's symbolic, but not actual. Just as a wedding ring may be construed as being symbolic of marriage, that ring is *not* the marriage itself. We use symbols for things all the time, but it doesn't transform the symbol into the actual. It's used in place of the real but it's not the real thing. Symbolically Christ wanted us to always remember that His blood was spilled for us and that we live through Him. Without His sacrifice, without His life we are nothing. But we do not have to ingest something we claim has been transformed into the real body an blood to understand the symbolism of the act.
I find it very, very enlightening to delve into this study and hope to do so further.
Who do we worship- in the end that is what it boils down to. God or the beast? God or the man claiming to be God on earth?
May the Lord bless us and help us to come to full understanding of His word so that we may be ready for Him upon His return. May our lives be so closely dependent upon God and God alone that no other can deceive us no matter how god-like they appear. May we, by the Grace and Mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, be sealed by Him, be marked by Him and no other.
Amen.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Sanctuary Study Pt. 28
2002 Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) (William Grotheer- Thought Paper - Watchman, What of the Night)
The Chapter (Ezkiel 9) also contains a revelation of a description of the work of the men with slaughtering weapons.
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin)
((In Ezek 9:9, "wresting of judgment" is perhaps too concrete, and "perverseness" is kept in the margin (inverted in the King James Version) - http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=perverse))
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making it more acceptable, mitigates its witness.
On the typical Day of Atonement, there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut off. (Lev. 23:29).
{23:27} Also on the tenth [day] of this seventh month [there
shall be] a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation
unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an
offering made by fire unto the LORD. {23:28} And ye shall
do no work in that same day: for it [is] a day of atonement,
to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
{23:29} For whatsoever soul [it be] that shall not be
afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among
his people.
"Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a wresting of judgment."
While the "man clothed in linen" is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their "soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God do their work against those who are perverting the way of God.
They slay "utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient men which are before the house" (9:6).
There is much to learn from this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.
The "man clothed in linen" does not pass from view, for in the next phase of this extended vision shown to Ezekiel, He again appears, but minus "the writer's inkhorn" (10:2, 6, 7).
The marking had been done. (9:11).
Ez. {9:11} And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which
[had] the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I
have done as thou hast commanded me.
Now another command awaits him. This command and the symbolism connected with it demands our careful study.
From the throne (10:1) the "man clothed in linen" was instructed - Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city." (10:2)
These cannot be considered "coals" of destruction, because the men with slaughtering weapons had already slain "utterly" all who had not been marked (9:6).
Those remaining in the city were only the marked ones, and on these were scattered "the coals of fire from between the cherubim."
Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18)
{16:18} And he shall go out unto the
altar that [is] before the LORD, and make an atonement for
it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the
blood of the goat, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar
round about.
Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18) of the final atonement - the Man clothed in linen, who marked His people with a "mark of redemption;" and the One on the throne who provided "coals of fire" for their cleansing. (See Isaiah. 6:6-7)
{9:4} And the LORD said
unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the
midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of
the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that
be done in the midst thereof.
{9:5} And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye
after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare,
neither have ye pity: {9:6} Slay utterly old [and] young,
both maids, and little children, and women: but come not
near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my
sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were]
before the house.
{6:6} Then flew one of the seraphims
unto me, having a live coal in his hand, [which] he had
taken with the tongs from off the altar: {6:7} And he laid
[it] upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips;
and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Then "the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory" (Eze. 10:4). Is this again alluded to in Revelation 18:1 - "and the earth [the court] was lightened with his glory"?
"Joshua was Clothed with Filthy Garments" --
The revelation given to Zechariah in the vision of the third chapter demands careful study. Joshua, the high priest stands in judicial review before, "the angel of the Lord" with "Satan standing at his (Joshua's) right hand to resist him" (v.1).
{3:1} And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing
before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his
right hand to resist him.
As the vision unfolds, this Angel is designated simply as "the Lord" (v. 2)
{3:2} And the LORD said unto
Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD
that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand
plucked out of the fire?
and His redemptive powers as the Messiah are revealed (v. 4).
{3:4} And he
answered and spake unto those that stood before him,
saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto
him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass
from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
Further, this Divine Messenger proclaims the promise and the objective of the Lord of hosts to be realized by His messianic servant, "the BRANCH" (vs. 7-8).
{3:7}
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my
ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also
judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will
give thee places to walk among these that stand by. {3:8}
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows
that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for,
behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
There is a close relationship between these verses and the revelation in Chapter 6:12-13, which reveals "The BRANCH" as the One who will accomplish the design of "the counsel of peace which was between the Two of Them" (Heb).
{6:12} And speak unto
him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying,
Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he
shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple
of the LORD: {6:13} Even he shall build the temple of the
LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule
upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Here in Zechariah 3 are all the elements symbolized in the services of the typical Day of Atonement:
the mingled blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat to accomplish the final cleansing (the action of the Messianic Lord and the decree of the Lord of hosts);
the scapegoat for Azazel (Satan standing at the right hand of Joshua);
the High Priest carrying in himself the sins of the children of Israel, and placing them on the head of the scapegoat (Joshua clothed in filthy garments);
and the ultimate atonement, the removal of the uncleanness of the children of Israel (the change of raiment and the removal of all iniquity). (See Leviticus 16).
In this vision given to Zechariah, the High Priest is standing for the people as the mediator between them and Jehovah.
When the office was instituted, not only was the high priest to carry Israel in symbol in the two onyx stones set in gold placed on his shoulders (Ex. 28:11-12) and in the breastplate (28:29); but there was a special significance to the plate of pure gold which he was to wear on his forehead on which were engraved the words, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (28:36) The instruction states: And it (the plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the inequity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow in their holy gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord" (Ez. 28:38)
Keil & Delitzsch make a very enlightening comment on this verse. It reads: The high priest was exalted into an atoning mediator of the whole nation, and an atoning sin-exterminating intercesion was associated with his office. The qualification for this he received from the diadem upon his forehead with the inscription "holiness to the Lord." Through this inscription, which was fastened upon his head-dress of brilliant white, the earthly reflection of holiness, he was crowned as sanctified to the Lord, and endowed with the power to exterminate the sin wich clung to the holy offerings of the people on account of the unholiness of their nature, so that the gifts of the nation became well-pleasing to the Lord, and the good pleasure of God was manifest to the nation. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Vol.1, pp.203-204)
When we understand that the Aaronic priesthood was but typical of the reality, Jesus Christ, High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec, then the "sin exterminating intercession" which was basic in the final atonement, takes on renewed significance in the light of the vision to Zechariah.
First, Joshua, standing for the people, could not remove his filthy garments.
They had to be taken from him.
The command was given by the Divine Messenger, "Take away the filthy garments from him" (3:4). Joshua could refuse, knowing the result - he would at some point be naked before the Lord. He had a choice. Either respond as did Adam, and make himself a garment of "fig leaves," or accept the provision of the Divine Mediator: "I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will give thee a change of raiment."
It is either faith or works, my works to achieve perfection, or faith to believe what the great High Priest says He will and can do.
The message of the type declared plainly that the High Priest alone accomplished the cleansing on the typical Day of Atonement.
The vision given to Zechariah states likewise that the Divine Messenger, The BRANCH, will do for man that which he cannot do for himself, take away his "filthy garments" and give him a change of raiment.
The concept that the high priest stood for Israel before God is echoed in the New Testament motif of being "in Christ."
"Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:10);
"Your life is hid with Christ in God" (3:3);
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17).
Even the hope of the resurrection is based in this relationship: "the dead in Christ shall arise first" (I Thess. 4:16).
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22).
It was Paul's desire to "be found in Him, not having [his] own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).
There are two other revelations in this vision given to Zechariah which need further and careful study:
1) The results of the mediation of the Divine Messenger produce "men wondered at" (v.8). ({3:8} Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows
that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.)The margin, indicating the Hebrew, states that these cleansed ones will be "men of wonder." What does this mean? And
2) The "Lord of hosts" declares that He "will remove the iniquity of the land in one day" (v.9). ({3:9}For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone [shall be] seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.)) The question is, does this apply to the final cleansing of the earth by fire at the end of the age, or is this speaking of the final "manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19) (({8:18} For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. {8:19} For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.)) just prior to the close of probation?
*******
Pausing here.
This last bit got me thinking. People struggle with the thought of being sinfilled and not acceptable to God. We know that God cannot accept sin, He won't compromise with sin. He won't make a deal with sin. He's not going to accept little sins that aren't so bad. We know that Go abhors sin and that sin is His enmity. We know sin, all sin is punishable by death. Knowing all this and knowing how easy it us for us to sin, it comes natural to us a breathing in some respects. That little white lie hurts no one at all. Those very valid reasons for neglecting to live a life wholly acceptable to God, all that doesn't matter and we pat ourselves on the back, or even get another to do so, telling us it's not so bad that God understands. I'm sure God does understand. But understanding doesn't mean sin is any less sinful and any less punishable by death. We can't make God accept sin and yet we try to because otherwise we believe ourselves to be too sinful to ever, ever...ever be right with Him. We console ourselves and we need consoling don't we because we are wickedly sin-filled.
Reading this... Zechariah 3:9 '...saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.' Got me to thinking as I mentioned above and what it got me to thinking about is, that we fuss and wrestle with the idea of being sinless before God so we are ready for Christ's return knowing that by then the judgment is over and done with. We know that right now with the Time's of the Gentiles being completed, that the judgment has moved from the corporate to the individuals and when that is finished Christ will return. That the generation that was born in 1980 will not pass away before Christ comes. Now there is a lot of speculation as to how long that will be, some say 20 years (they were proven wrong), some say 30 years (2010 is right around the corner who knows) others say 40 years and go up to 72 years being allotted to a man. The speculation is endless and can get us caught up in trying to put a date on things when a set date wasn't something we're meant to have, a general date yes. A warning given for us to be ready, yes.
Back to this... Zechariah 3:9 '...saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.' And my little odd thought on this can be way off but I had it nonetheless. The thought being that while we constantly, daily need to seek forgiveness for our sins just as there was a daily sacrificed offered for sin- the sins remained there covered but not cleansed away. Once a year on the Day of Atonement, sin was cleansed from the sanctuary. So while we never can accept sin in our lives as something that doesn't bother God, and while we forever need to seek forgiveness at the foot of the cross - is it possible that the time period of judgment is done this way-- with God knowing us each individually and whether or not we are clinging to the cross complete for forgiveness and that our hearts are truly repentant and it's not that when we are judged we won't sin again after that judging, but rather the knowledge that we will with a sincere heart seek life only found in Christ, forgiveness that only comes through Christ. And if it is known that we will be such that we will only grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord then while we are not walking about never sinning during this time, we are walking about clinging to Christ realizing our helpless state without Him. Then... and this is where my odd thought came to be... the bit about 'I will remove the iniquity of the land in one day.' Prior to the second coming of Christ to take us to heaven with Him all the sins that have been confessed and repented of in Him will finally be cleansed. We will finally be completely cleansed, no record will exist of our sins because Christ's blood has covered them and as the last act of cleansing the Sanctuary, of cleansing from life in Christ the existance of sin, we will have our lives made such that we are sinless in Him once and for all.
What does this odd thought mean? Well, not that we can ever sin and just offhandedly say, God understands, we're all sinners, we can't help it, it's our nature, not that we can do any of that ever, but we can know that instead of fighting the battle that will lead us to despair of ever being sinless in Christ we can live clinging to the cross, not worrying about that 'sinless' state that has to be attained. God who knows the end from the beginning will take care of things and we have to believe that, we have to have faith in God, faith in Jesus. If we do our part- bringing our guilty to Christ, admitting our helplessness to save ourselves, accepting that we need a sacrifice to take our place - a worthy sacrifice - then that is all we can do. Admit our helplessness and that our only hope is in Christ. Repent- know that our sinning separates us from God and no sin is worth that, not one. Repent, confess, and cling to Jesus, that's what we have to do and we have to do it daily not just once in a while as the mood hits us.
I believe it is a trick of Satan's to get us caught up in *trying* to be sinless, forgetting that Christ alone is our Righteousness as we seek to find that Righteousness in ourselves and it doesn't exist. As long as Satan has us looking inward at ourselves we're not looking outward to Christ. As long as we're trying to save ourselves, we're not relying on Christ to save us.
Philippians {2:12} Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always
obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in
my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling. {2:13} For it is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. No one said it'd be easy. We have to determine where our salvation is found and my Bible tells me that it's found in Christ and Christ alone.
The Chapter (Ezkiel 9) also contains a revelation of a description of the work of the men with slaughtering weapons.
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin)
((In Ezek 9:9, "wresting of judgment" is perhaps too concrete, and "perverseness" is kept in the margin (inverted in the King James Version) - http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=perverse))
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making it more acceptable, mitigates its witness.
On the typical Day of Atonement, there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut off. (Lev. 23:29).
{23:27} Also on the tenth [day] of this seventh month [there
shall be] a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation
unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an
offering made by fire unto the LORD. {23:28} And ye shall
do no work in that same day: for it [is] a day of atonement,
to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
{23:29} For whatsoever soul [it be] that shall not be
afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among
his people.
"Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a wresting of judgment."
While the "man clothed in linen" is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their "soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God do their work against those who are perverting the way of God.
They slay "utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient men which are before the house" (9:6).
There is much to learn from this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.
The "man clothed in linen" does not pass from view, for in the next phase of this extended vision shown to Ezekiel, He again appears, but minus "the writer's inkhorn" (10:2, 6, 7).
The marking had been done. (9:11).
Ez. {9:11} And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which
[had] the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I
have done as thou hast commanded me.
Now another command awaits him. This command and the symbolism connected with it demands our careful study.
From the throne (10:1) the "man clothed in linen" was instructed - Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city." (10:2)
These cannot be considered "coals" of destruction, because the men with slaughtering weapons had already slain "utterly" all who had not been marked (9:6).
Those remaining in the city were only the marked ones, and on these were scattered "the coals of fire from between the cherubim."
Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18)
{16:18} And he shall go out unto the
altar that [is] before the LORD, and make an atonement for
it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the
blood of the goat, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar
round about.
Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18) of the final atonement - the Man clothed in linen, who marked His people with a "mark of redemption;" and the One on the throne who provided "coals of fire" for their cleansing. (See Isaiah. 6:6-7)
{9:4} And the LORD said
unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the
midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of
the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that
be done in the midst thereof.
{9:5} And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye
after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare,
neither have ye pity: {9:6} Slay utterly old [and] young,
both maids, and little children, and women: but come not
near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my
sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were]
before the house.
{6:6} Then flew one of the seraphims
unto me, having a live coal in his hand, [which] he had
taken with the tongs from off the altar: {6:7} And he laid
[it] upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips;
and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Then "the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory" (Eze. 10:4). Is this again alluded to in Revelation 18:1 - "and the earth [the court] was lightened with his glory"?
"Joshua was Clothed with Filthy Garments" --
The revelation given to Zechariah in the vision of the third chapter demands careful study. Joshua, the high priest stands in judicial review before, "the angel of the Lord" with "Satan standing at his (Joshua's) right hand to resist him" (v.1).
{3:1} And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing
before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his
right hand to resist him.
As the vision unfolds, this Angel is designated simply as "the Lord" (v. 2)
{3:2} And the LORD said unto
Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD
that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand
plucked out of the fire?
and His redemptive powers as the Messiah are revealed (v. 4).
{3:4} And he
answered and spake unto those that stood before him,
saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto
him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass
from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
Further, this Divine Messenger proclaims the promise and the objective of the Lord of hosts to be realized by His messianic servant, "the BRANCH" (vs. 7-8).
{3:7}
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my
ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also
judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will
give thee places to walk among these that stand by. {3:8}
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows
that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for,
behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
There is a close relationship between these verses and the revelation in Chapter 6:12-13, which reveals "The BRANCH" as the One who will accomplish the design of "the counsel of peace which was between the Two of Them" (Heb).
{6:12} And speak unto
him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying,
Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he
shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple
of the LORD: {6:13} Even he shall build the temple of the
LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule
upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Here in Zechariah 3 are all the elements symbolized in the services of the typical Day of Atonement:
the mingled blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat to accomplish the final cleansing (the action of the Messianic Lord and the decree of the Lord of hosts);
the scapegoat for Azazel (Satan standing at the right hand of Joshua);
the High Priest carrying in himself the sins of the children of Israel, and placing them on the head of the scapegoat (Joshua clothed in filthy garments);
and the ultimate atonement, the removal of the uncleanness of the children of Israel (the change of raiment and the removal of all iniquity). (See Leviticus 16).
In this vision given to Zechariah, the High Priest is standing for the people as the mediator between them and Jehovah.
When the office was instituted, not only was the high priest to carry Israel in symbol in the two onyx stones set in gold placed on his shoulders (Ex. 28:11-12) and in the breastplate (28:29); but there was a special significance to the plate of pure gold which he was to wear on his forehead on which were engraved the words, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (28:36) The instruction states: And it (the plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the inequity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow in their holy gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord" (Ez. 28:38)
Keil & Delitzsch make a very enlightening comment on this verse. It reads: The high priest was exalted into an atoning mediator of the whole nation, and an atoning sin-exterminating intercesion was associated with his office. The qualification for this he received from the diadem upon his forehead with the inscription "holiness to the Lord." Through this inscription, which was fastened upon his head-dress of brilliant white, the earthly reflection of holiness, he was crowned as sanctified to the Lord, and endowed with the power to exterminate the sin wich clung to the holy offerings of the people on account of the unholiness of their nature, so that the gifts of the nation became well-pleasing to the Lord, and the good pleasure of God was manifest to the nation. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Vol.1, pp.203-204)
When we understand that the Aaronic priesthood was but typical of the reality, Jesus Christ, High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec, then the "sin exterminating intercession" which was basic in the final atonement, takes on renewed significance in the light of the vision to Zechariah.
First, Joshua, standing for the people, could not remove his filthy garments.
They had to be taken from him.
The command was given by the Divine Messenger, "Take away the filthy garments from him" (3:4). Joshua could refuse, knowing the result - he would at some point be naked before the Lord. He had a choice. Either respond as did Adam, and make himself a garment of "fig leaves," or accept the provision of the Divine Mediator: "I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will give thee a change of raiment."
It is either faith or works, my works to achieve perfection, or faith to believe what the great High Priest says He will and can do.
The message of the type declared plainly that the High Priest alone accomplished the cleansing on the typical Day of Atonement.
The vision given to Zechariah states likewise that the Divine Messenger, The BRANCH, will do for man that which he cannot do for himself, take away his "filthy garments" and give him a change of raiment.
The concept that the high priest stood for Israel before God is echoed in the New Testament motif of being "in Christ."
"Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:10);
"Your life is hid with Christ in God" (3:3);
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17).
Even the hope of the resurrection is based in this relationship: "the dead in Christ shall arise first" (I Thess. 4:16).
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22).
It was Paul's desire to "be found in Him, not having [his] own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).
There are two other revelations in this vision given to Zechariah which need further and careful study:
1) The results of the mediation of the Divine Messenger produce "men wondered at" (v.8). ({3:8} Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows
that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.)The margin, indicating the Hebrew, states that these cleansed ones will be "men of wonder." What does this mean? And
2) The "Lord of hosts" declares that He "will remove the iniquity of the land in one day" (v.9). ({3:9}For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone [shall be] seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.)) The question is, does this apply to the final cleansing of the earth by fire at the end of the age, or is this speaking of the final "manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19) (({8:18} For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. {8:19} For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.)) just prior to the close of probation?
*******
Pausing here.
This last bit got me thinking. People struggle with the thought of being sinfilled and not acceptable to God. We know that God cannot accept sin, He won't compromise with sin. He won't make a deal with sin. He's not going to accept little sins that aren't so bad. We know that Go abhors sin and that sin is His enmity. We know sin, all sin is punishable by death. Knowing all this and knowing how easy it us for us to sin, it comes natural to us a breathing in some respects. That little white lie hurts no one at all. Those very valid reasons for neglecting to live a life wholly acceptable to God, all that doesn't matter and we pat ourselves on the back, or even get another to do so, telling us it's not so bad that God understands. I'm sure God does understand. But understanding doesn't mean sin is any less sinful and any less punishable by death. We can't make God accept sin and yet we try to because otherwise we believe ourselves to be too sinful to ever, ever...ever be right with Him. We console ourselves and we need consoling don't we because we are wickedly sin-filled.
Reading this... Zechariah 3:9 '...saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.' Got me to thinking as I mentioned above and what it got me to thinking about is, that we fuss and wrestle with the idea of being sinless before God so we are ready for Christ's return knowing that by then the judgment is over and done with. We know that right now with the Time's of the Gentiles being completed, that the judgment has moved from the corporate to the individuals and when that is finished Christ will return. That the generation that was born in 1980 will not pass away before Christ comes. Now there is a lot of speculation as to how long that will be, some say 20 years (they were proven wrong), some say 30 years (2010 is right around the corner who knows) others say 40 years and go up to 72 years being allotted to a man. The speculation is endless and can get us caught up in trying to put a date on things when a set date wasn't something we're meant to have, a general date yes. A warning given for us to be ready, yes.
Back to this... Zechariah 3:9 '...saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.' And my little odd thought on this can be way off but I had it nonetheless. The thought being that while we constantly, daily need to seek forgiveness for our sins just as there was a daily sacrificed offered for sin- the sins remained there covered but not cleansed away. Once a year on the Day of Atonement, sin was cleansed from the sanctuary. So while we never can accept sin in our lives as something that doesn't bother God, and while we forever need to seek forgiveness at the foot of the cross - is it possible that the time period of judgment is done this way-- with God knowing us each individually and whether or not we are clinging to the cross complete for forgiveness and that our hearts are truly repentant and it's not that when we are judged we won't sin again after that judging, but rather the knowledge that we will with a sincere heart seek life only found in Christ, forgiveness that only comes through Christ. And if it is known that we will be such that we will only grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord then while we are not walking about never sinning during this time, we are walking about clinging to Christ realizing our helpless state without Him. Then... and this is where my odd thought came to be... the bit about 'I will remove the iniquity of the land in one day.' Prior to the second coming of Christ to take us to heaven with Him all the sins that have been confessed and repented of in Him will finally be cleansed. We will finally be completely cleansed, no record will exist of our sins because Christ's blood has covered them and as the last act of cleansing the Sanctuary, of cleansing from life in Christ the existance of sin, we will have our lives made such that we are sinless in Him once and for all.
What does this odd thought mean? Well, not that we can ever sin and just offhandedly say, God understands, we're all sinners, we can't help it, it's our nature, not that we can do any of that ever, but we can know that instead of fighting the battle that will lead us to despair of ever being sinless in Christ we can live clinging to the cross, not worrying about that 'sinless' state that has to be attained. God who knows the end from the beginning will take care of things and we have to believe that, we have to have faith in God, faith in Jesus. If we do our part- bringing our guilty to Christ, admitting our helplessness to save ourselves, accepting that we need a sacrifice to take our place - a worthy sacrifice - then that is all we can do. Admit our helplessness and that our only hope is in Christ. Repent- know that our sinning separates us from God and no sin is worth that, not one. Repent, confess, and cling to Jesus, that's what we have to do and we have to do it daily not just once in a while as the mood hits us.
I believe it is a trick of Satan's to get us caught up in *trying* to be sinless, forgetting that Christ alone is our Righteousness as we seek to find that Righteousness in ourselves and it doesn't exist. As long as Satan has us looking inward at ourselves we're not looking outward to Christ. As long as we're trying to save ourselves, we're not relying on Christ to save us.
Philippians {2:12} Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always
obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in
my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling. {2:13} For it is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. No one said it'd be easy. We have to determine where our salvation is found and my Bible tells me that it's found in Christ and Christ alone.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Sanctuary Study Pt. 27
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary"
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
In Ezekiel 9, the man with a "writer's inkhorn" by his side was "clothed with linen" (v.2). This is emphasized three times (vs. 2, 3, 11).In Zechariah 3, there is another symbolic representation of filthy garments and a change of raiment. An interesting comment is made concerning this text of Scripture: "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (5T:472).
We shall note these two visions of Scripture as we continue our "learning" and "unlearning" investigation.
A Terroristic Attitude -- On September 11, 2001 the terrible tragedy which occurred, both in New York and the nation's capital, accelerated the course the American democracy was taking under the Bush administration. The loss of human life, and the way in which it was lost, strikes horror to the human heart. Not alone in the tragedy is the "terroristic attitude" revealed, but the reaction to that tragedy by communities sympathetic with its perpetrators was shocking.
In World Press Review (November 2001, p.45) is a picture of Palestinians in Lebanon celebrating exuberantly what had happened, after hearing the news. This reaction was quite widespread in the Middle East. But such a terroristic attitude is not limited alone to the world of politics, but manifests itself even within the community of Adventism.
Since 1950, Elders Wieland and Short have sought to bring to the church the grave consequences of rejecting the message of 1888.
In 1967, the General Conference made a final rejection of the manuscript submitted by these brethren in 1950.
Then in 1994 a Primacy of the Gospel Committee studied the understandings of the 1888 Message Study Committee which had been formed since the 1967 rejection. This past year the convictions of the Study Committee were rejected.
One reaction to the rejection - echoing the same "terroristic" mind set as the Palestinians - is found in Our Firm Foundation (OFF), (August, p.14). It reads: We applaud the General Conference for rejecting the "message" of the 1888 Message Committee, with its diabolical teachings of Donald K. Short, Robert J. Wieland, and Jack Sequeira. Their teachings and twisting of the gospel are indeed dangerous winds of doctrine.
Basically, it is a choice between the Pauline concept of faith that works, and the Counsel of Trent's position of faith and works as a basis of salvation.
OFF's position coincides with the Council of Trent. This is only one of OFF's "network" of questionable doctrines. In describing the Incarnation, Ron Spear wrote - "In the prenatal experience, while in her womb, Christ was inheriting Mary's love for God." (Waymarks of Adventism, 2nd Edition [1981], p.39) Was the incarnation not God manifest in the flesh, and is not God the very essence of love? Why all of this Mariology? Papal oriented? Then they charge "dangerous winds of doctrine"! OFF further compounds their "network" of dangerous doctrines by advocating the doctrine of the Incarnation as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates at the turn of the 20th Century, that Christ came "born, born again."
While there are certain points that have been connected by Wieland and Short to their presentation of the 1888 Message which need further study and clarification, there can be no justification of applauding the decision of a church which is itself in apostasy. --- (2002 Jan)
2002 Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) -- "Mark a Tau" -- Editors preface -- Whenever Ezekiel 9, which can be related to the ritual of the typical Day of Atonement, is studied, the question follows as to what is the "seal of God," as well as to what is its prophetic antithesis, the "mark of the beast."
In this issue we follow the same sequence of study. The "man clothed in linen" places a mark on the foreheads of certain inhabitants of Jerusalem.
What is that "mark"? There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the "mark" in Ezekiel 9 is the same as the "seal" in Revelation 7 if we use the format which mark some seals as used in today's legal transactions.
The conflict between God and the "beast" is about worship.
We worship either "Him who made," or we worship the beast, and his image and receive a mark.
However, associated with the message to worship the Creator, is the "everlasting gospel."
Is there a "gospel" involved with the "beast"?
All of these factors must be considered to arrive at a correct answer as to the "mark."
Back in 1998, the current Pope issued an Apostolic Letter discussing the Dies Domini. He suggested that "Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" (#67). This caused widespread comment. However, three years earlier this same call was made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2188) and little was said. The real emphasis in both the Catechism, as well as the Apostolic Letter, was the altering of the Catholic explanation and claim for the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Further, the emphasis on Sunday worship is centered in the celebration of the Eucharist the Mass. This sacrament of the Eucharist is considered "the source and summit of the Christian life." (#1324. 1st ed.)
"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible."
-- "Mark a Tau" -- The Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This was the mark which the "man clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side" was instructed to place on the foreheads of those "that sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst" of Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 9:2, 4).
The margin in the KJV gives the literal rendering to verse 4, "mark a mark." Besides being the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it had a word meaning as well. It meant a mark or a sign "especially in the form of a cross."
"It is related of the synod of Chalcedon, and other oriental synods, that the bishops who could not write their names affixed the mark of the cross instead of them; and this is common at the present day in the case of persons who cannot write" (Gesenius, Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament, art., "tau," p. 1121).
All of this data could open up speculative interpretations which should be avoided.
The context within this vision given to Ezekiel suggests that the concept of the Tau as the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet has merit.
It is placed upon the foreheads of a "last" people of God.
Throughout this vision, the "man" who places the tau is described as "clothed in linen" (vs. 2, 3, 11).This was the type of cloth of which the attire of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was made. (Lev. 16:4).The "man clothed in linen" with the other six having slaughtering weapons in their hands, come and stand at the brazen altar where the last act of reconciliation was performed ceremonially on that day. (Lev. 16:18-20).
He who was enthroned above the cherubim moved to the threshold of the sanctuary, and gave commandment to the man clothed in linen at the Altar.
In the book of Revelation, this last group, those which are "redeemed from among men," have "the Father's name written in their foreheads" (Rev. 14:4, 1).
We would not, nor could we conceive suggesting that God signs His name with an "x."
However, the Father has been closely identified with the Cross. He "was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (II Cor. 5:19). In Revelation, the vision of God upon the throne includes the "Lamb as it had been slain" standing in the midst.
In the typical service of the Day of Atonement, the objective concerned a select group of people - only those who had confessed their sins, and received the results of the first atonement, forgiveness.
Likewise the placing of the special mark is confined to a select group, those who sigh and cry for the abomination done in the midst of a special city, a city where God had placed His name.
In this vision of Ezekiel, the same One who would provide forgiveness, placed the mark on the recipients of that forgiveness. When "the man clothed in linen" completed his work, he reported back to the One seated on the cherubim (v.11).
The Chapter also contains a revelation of a description of the work of the men with slaughtering weapons.
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making it more acceptable, mitigates its witness. On the typical Day of Atonement, there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut off. (Lev. 23:29). "Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a wresting of judgment." While the "man clothed in linen" is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their "soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God do their work against those who are perverting the way of God. They slay "utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient men which are before the house" (9:6).
There is much to learn from this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.
*******We're going to pause here.
This gives much food for thought, much food.
If- and this is just me thinking here - If right now we are living in the time before Christ's return and it typifies the Sanctuary Services- then we are living in the time of sealing prior to Christ's return, prior to the cleansing being completed.
There is a cleansing going on there is no doubt about it, and as with those who begin a cleansing and are true to their word, honorable and just, they will finish the cleansing. Sin will be cleansed from all those who would be God's. Christ paid the price for this to happen deeming us worthy through Him for this cleansing.
Those who are cleansed will receive this seal of God- and those who aren't cleansed will be destroyed.
It's so important that we understand what is going on right now. We don't know when we are being judged, all we need to know is that we have Christ's cleansing blood covering our sins, blood that will blot out the stain of sin on us and that we will be cleansed, receiving the mark of God, the seal of God not the mark of the beast.
I pray by the mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that I am found clinging to the cross, clinging to Jesus when it's my turn to be judged.
Amen.
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
In Ezekiel 9, the man with a "writer's inkhorn" by his side was "clothed with linen" (v.2). This is emphasized three times (vs. 2, 3, 11).In Zechariah 3, there is another symbolic representation of filthy garments and a change of raiment. An interesting comment is made concerning this text of Scripture: "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (5T:472).
We shall note these two visions of Scripture as we continue our "learning" and "unlearning" investigation.
A Terroristic Attitude -- On September 11, 2001 the terrible tragedy which occurred, both in New York and the nation's capital, accelerated the course the American democracy was taking under the Bush administration. The loss of human life, and the way in which it was lost, strikes horror to the human heart. Not alone in the tragedy is the "terroristic attitude" revealed, but the reaction to that tragedy by communities sympathetic with its perpetrators was shocking.
In World Press Review (November 2001, p.45) is a picture of Palestinians in Lebanon celebrating exuberantly what had happened, after hearing the news. This reaction was quite widespread in the Middle East. But such a terroristic attitude is not limited alone to the world of politics, but manifests itself even within the community of Adventism.
Since 1950, Elders Wieland and Short have sought to bring to the church the grave consequences of rejecting the message of 1888.
In 1967, the General Conference made a final rejection of the manuscript submitted by these brethren in 1950.
Then in 1994 a Primacy of the Gospel Committee studied the understandings of the 1888 Message Study Committee which had been formed since the 1967 rejection. This past year the convictions of the Study Committee were rejected.
One reaction to the rejection - echoing the same "terroristic" mind set as the Palestinians - is found in Our Firm Foundation (OFF), (August, p.14). It reads: We applaud the General Conference for rejecting the "message" of the 1888 Message Committee, with its diabolical teachings of Donald K. Short, Robert J. Wieland, and Jack Sequeira. Their teachings and twisting of the gospel are indeed dangerous winds of doctrine.
Basically, it is a choice between the Pauline concept of faith that works, and the Counsel of Trent's position of faith and works as a basis of salvation.
OFF's position coincides with the Council of Trent. This is only one of OFF's "network" of questionable doctrines. In describing the Incarnation, Ron Spear wrote - "In the prenatal experience, while in her womb, Christ was inheriting Mary's love for God." (Waymarks of Adventism, 2nd Edition [1981], p.39) Was the incarnation not God manifest in the flesh, and is not God the very essence of love? Why all of this Mariology? Papal oriented? Then they charge "dangerous winds of doctrine"! OFF further compounds their "network" of dangerous doctrines by advocating the doctrine of the Incarnation as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates at the turn of the 20th Century, that Christ came "born, born again."
While there are certain points that have been connected by Wieland and Short to their presentation of the 1888 Message which need further study and clarification, there can be no justification of applauding the decision of a church which is itself in apostasy. --- (2002 Jan)
2002 Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) -- "Mark a Tau" -- Editors preface -- Whenever Ezekiel 9, which can be related to the ritual of the typical Day of Atonement, is studied, the question follows as to what is the "seal of God," as well as to what is its prophetic antithesis, the "mark of the beast."
In this issue we follow the same sequence of study. The "man clothed in linen" places a mark on the foreheads of certain inhabitants of Jerusalem.
What is that "mark"? There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the "mark" in Ezekiel 9 is the same as the "seal" in Revelation 7 if we use the format which mark some seals as used in today's legal transactions.
The conflict between God and the "beast" is about worship.
We worship either "Him who made," or we worship the beast, and his image and receive a mark.
However, associated with the message to worship the Creator, is the "everlasting gospel."
Is there a "gospel" involved with the "beast"?
All of these factors must be considered to arrive at a correct answer as to the "mark."
Back in 1998, the current Pope issued an Apostolic Letter discussing the Dies Domini. He suggested that "Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" (#67). This caused widespread comment. However, three years earlier this same call was made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2188) and little was said. The real emphasis in both the Catechism, as well as the Apostolic Letter, was the altering of the Catholic explanation and claim for the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Further, the emphasis on Sunday worship is centered in the celebration of the Eucharist the Mass. This sacrament of the Eucharist is considered "the source and summit of the Christian life." (#1324. 1st ed.)
"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible."
-- "Mark a Tau" -- The Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This was the mark which the "man clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side" was instructed to place on the foreheads of those "that sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst" of Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 9:2, 4).
The margin in the KJV gives the literal rendering to verse 4, "mark a mark." Besides being the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it had a word meaning as well. It meant a mark or a sign "especially in the form of a cross."
"It is related of the synod of Chalcedon, and other oriental synods, that the bishops who could not write their names affixed the mark of the cross instead of them; and this is common at the present day in the case of persons who cannot write" (Gesenius, Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament, art., "tau," p. 1121).
All of this data could open up speculative interpretations which should be avoided.
The context within this vision given to Ezekiel suggests that the concept of the Tau as the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet has merit.
It is placed upon the foreheads of a "last" people of God.
Throughout this vision, the "man" who places the tau is described as "clothed in linen" (vs. 2, 3, 11).This was the type of cloth of which the attire of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was made. (Lev. 16:4).The "man clothed in linen" with the other six having slaughtering weapons in their hands, come and stand at the brazen altar where the last act of reconciliation was performed ceremonially on that day. (Lev. 16:18-20).
He who was enthroned above the cherubim moved to the threshold of the sanctuary, and gave commandment to the man clothed in linen at the Altar.
In the book of Revelation, this last group, those which are "redeemed from among men," have "the Father's name written in their foreheads" (Rev. 14:4, 1).
We would not, nor could we conceive suggesting that God signs His name with an "x."
However, the Father has been closely identified with the Cross. He "was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (II Cor. 5:19). In Revelation, the vision of God upon the throne includes the "Lamb as it had been slain" standing in the midst.
In the typical service of the Day of Atonement, the objective concerned a select group of people - only those who had confessed their sins, and received the results of the first atonement, forgiveness.
Likewise the placing of the special mark is confined to a select group, those who sigh and cry for the abomination done in the midst of a special city, a city where God had placed His name.
In this vision of Ezekiel, the same One who would provide forgiveness, placed the mark on the recipients of that forgiveness. When "the man clothed in linen" completed his work, he reported back to the One seated on the cherubim (v.11).
The Chapter also contains a revelation of a description of the work of the men with slaughtering weapons.
These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making it more acceptable, mitigates its witness. On the typical Day of Atonement, there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut off. (Lev. 23:29). "Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a wresting of judgment." While the "man clothed in linen" is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their "soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God do their work against those who are perverting the way of God. They slay "utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient men which are before the house" (9:6).
There is much to learn from this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.
*******We're going to pause here.
This gives much food for thought, much food.
If- and this is just me thinking here - If right now we are living in the time before Christ's return and it typifies the Sanctuary Services- then we are living in the time of sealing prior to Christ's return, prior to the cleansing being completed.
There is a cleansing going on there is no doubt about it, and as with those who begin a cleansing and are true to their word, honorable and just, they will finish the cleansing. Sin will be cleansed from all those who would be God's. Christ paid the price for this to happen deeming us worthy through Him for this cleansing.
Those who are cleansed will receive this seal of God- and those who aren't cleansed will be destroyed.
It's so important that we understand what is going on right now. We don't know when we are being judged, all we need to know is that we have Christ's cleansing blood covering our sins, blood that will blot out the stain of sin on us and that we will be cleansed, receiving the mark of God, the seal of God not the mark of the beast.
I pray by the mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that I am found clinging to the cross, clinging to Jesus when it's my turn to be judged.
Amen.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Sanctuary Pt. 26
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary"
The Day of Atonement --
The day of Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus 23.
Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration of this feast.
In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts 27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.
The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23 notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3).
There is a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings" (ver. 3).
All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35).
However, the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31).
The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance of the rest for the Day of Atonement.
In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30),
Heb. {4:10} For he that is entered intohis rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God[did] from his.
Matt. {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavyladen, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke uponyou, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: andye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is]easy, and my burden is light.
...it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest. If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).
Lev. {23:30} And whatsoever soul [it be] that doethany work in that same day, the same soul will I destroyfrom among his people.
There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated in the KJV.
The text reads: On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew): it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew), to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).
Why the plural? There are two possibilities.
In the outline of the services to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33), thus it was literally a "days of atonements."
The other possibility is that it is the use of the pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew. If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the other ceremonial feast days.
The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place" in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place," or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment, which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]
The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning.
He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each year the Day of Atonement (v.2).
He was told what to bring: "a young bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3).
The first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure?
In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?
If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He presents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood.
In the typical services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14).
Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish the final cleansing (v.18).
This is saying something.
The accomplishment of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor.
This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we continue our study.
Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering.
In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin, and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young" bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who "was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.
In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself, and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself" as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering." It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33).
It needs to be kept in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son over his own house."
Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through whom God has spoken.
Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession."
The first thing Paul presents is a comparison between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of Christ.
It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus 40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).
Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously, the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most Holy Place:1) With a golden censer "full of live coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12).2) With the blood of the bullock which was spinkled once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. (v.14).3) With the blood of the Lord's goat which was ministered the same as the blood of the bullock. (v.15).
Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering, and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete the Atonement.
In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy Place and remain there the entire day.
Here is one facet of the typical services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning" but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.
The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold:
1) "Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2) "Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16).
Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed; but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration at the Altar in theCourt, when the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for that objective (vs. 18-19).
The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given inExodus 30:10.
Atonement was "to be made upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements."
On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance, if any, is recorded.
The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study.
While the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v.19).
Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not cease.
The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30).
It covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Here is the whole yearly typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act, we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and from which we cannot deliver ourselves.
Let us review so as to see the overall picture.
Let us retrace the steps placing ourselves in the typical yearly services.
We sin, and becoming conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering.
On it we place our hands in full weight, confessing our sin.
We then slay the victim.
The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record of confession on the horns of the Altar.
In his priestly ministration, the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven.
The Day of Atonements comes.
The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away. We are to be cleansed.
What can we do?
Afflict our souls, and cease to trust in any of our works.
Again it is a priest that ministers; however, on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone.
He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession are laid.
For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot the Lord's.
We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.
"And when (the High Priest hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:21).
This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin).
While the two goats were taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so sacrificed.
With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10).
After "an end" of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel was brought into the typical ceremony.
The High Priest was to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins" (v.21).
It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26).
The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world.
No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins.
The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
*******
Were going to pause here for now.
We want to know what the anti-type is prefiguring don't we? We want to know where we are in the world today with God's plan for us to obtain eternal life. We look to the signs as we're told to- to watch. We pray like we are told to do. We watch and pray and we seek to understand the signs that are given to us. Here in the Sanctuary study we are shown so much and yet this study is so often overlooked by many. Seriously, ask a number of people on the street what they know about the Sanctuary service in connection with Christ's return and you'll most likely receive that empty stare for a moment and then hear the words, 'Uhm, nothing.' The ask them what they know about the connection of the return of Christ and the seven last plagues and their eyes will light up and they'll happily tell you- oh that happens right before He comes. Mention the word Armageddon and you'll get the same thing- that's the war between good and evil before Christ returns.
No, I'm not saying *everyone* knows all that by far but we've had movies and more movies on the fantastic horror of those seven last plagues. We've had movies where they come and are stopped short by a human, we have where they come and supernaturally humans work their own brand of movie magic and they stop them. We have them were they come and then there is a post-apocalyptic life people lead and Christ didn't return for one reason or another. There as a lot of movies out there that fill peoples heads with falsehoods and most people will even say- that's just a movie- admitting that isn't the true way. However people don't often bother about the true way of things. Then when they do there are hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the end of days.
My sisters and I started up a website called 'Who's To Say We're Right?' (http://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home)
There are so many ideas out there it's easier to say 'who's to say we're right' rather than claim we're the right ones with the right message. We'd much rather have people reading, learning and then making that decision on their own based on their own study of the Bible. God is right, and we are seeking His truths.
This study of the Sanctuary is based on the fact God gave the Sanctuary and it's Services to His people for a reason. When we correlate the study of the typified services to what our High Priest- Jesus Christ is doing for us it is truly an eye opener for those wanting to know what's going on in connection with Jesus' return.
Some might scoff at all this and that's their prerogative. Some might say that this whole *theory* is based on face saving for the Adventists way back when. I say, study the word of God for yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide you to understanding then say what you will.
I want to know what the Lord is doing.
Others want to know.
We are going to continue this study still and it is my prayer that God enlighten us all, by the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.
The Day of Atonement --
The day of Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus 23.
Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration of this feast.
In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts 27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.
The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23 notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3).
There is a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings" (ver. 3).
All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35).
However, the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31).
The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance of the rest for the Day of Atonement.
In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30),
Heb. {4:10} For he that is entered intohis rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God[did] from his.
Matt. {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavyladen, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke uponyou, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: andye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is]easy, and my burden is light.
...it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest. If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).
Lev. {23:30} And whatsoever soul [it be] that doethany work in that same day, the same soul will I destroyfrom among his people.
There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated in the KJV.
The text reads: On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew): it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew), to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).
Why the plural? There are two possibilities.
In the outline of the services to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33), thus it was literally a "days of atonements."
The other possibility is that it is the use of the pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew. If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the other ceremonial feast days.
The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place" in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place," or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment, which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]
The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning.
He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each year the Day of Atonement (v.2).
He was told what to bring: "a young bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3).
The first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure?
In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?
If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He presents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood.
In the typical services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14).
Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish the final cleansing (v.18).
This is saying something.
The accomplishment of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor.
This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we continue our study.
Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering.
In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin, and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young" bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who "was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.
In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself, and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself" as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering." It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33).
It needs to be kept in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son over his own house."
Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through whom God has spoken.
Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession."
The first thing Paul presents is a comparison between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of Christ.
It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus 40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).
Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously, the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most Holy Place:1) With a golden censer "full of live coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12).2) With the blood of the bullock which was spinkled once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. (v.14).3) With the blood of the Lord's goat which was ministered the same as the blood of the bullock. (v.15).
Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering, and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete the Atonement.
In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy Place and remain there the entire day.
Here is one facet of the typical services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning" but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.
The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold:
1) "Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2) "Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16).
Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed; but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration at the Altar in theCourt, when the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for that objective (vs. 18-19).
The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given inExodus 30:10.
Atonement was "to be made upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements."
On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance, if any, is recorded.
The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study.
While the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v.19).
Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not cease.
The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30).
It covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Here is the whole yearly typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act, we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and from which we cannot deliver ourselves.
Let us review so as to see the overall picture.
Let us retrace the steps placing ourselves in the typical yearly services.
We sin, and becoming conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering.
On it we place our hands in full weight, confessing our sin.
We then slay the victim.
The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record of confession on the horns of the Altar.
In his priestly ministration, the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven.
The Day of Atonements comes.
The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away. We are to be cleansed.
What can we do?
Afflict our souls, and cease to trust in any of our works.
Again it is a priest that ministers; however, on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone.
He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession are laid.
For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot the Lord's.
We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.
"And when (the High Priest hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:21).
This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin).
While the two goats were taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so sacrificed.
With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10).
After "an end" of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel was brought into the typical ceremony.
The High Priest was to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins" (v.21).
It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26).
The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world.
No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins.
The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
*******
Were going to pause here for now.
We want to know what the anti-type is prefiguring don't we? We want to know where we are in the world today with God's plan for us to obtain eternal life. We look to the signs as we're told to- to watch. We pray like we are told to do. We watch and pray and we seek to understand the signs that are given to us. Here in the Sanctuary study we are shown so much and yet this study is so often overlooked by many. Seriously, ask a number of people on the street what they know about the Sanctuary service in connection with Christ's return and you'll most likely receive that empty stare for a moment and then hear the words, 'Uhm, nothing.' The ask them what they know about the connection of the return of Christ and the seven last plagues and their eyes will light up and they'll happily tell you- oh that happens right before He comes. Mention the word Armageddon and you'll get the same thing- that's the war between good and evil before Christ returns.
No, I'm not saying *everyone* knows all that by far but we've had movies and more movies on the fantastic horror of those seven last plagues. We've had movies where they come and are stopped short by a human, we have where they come and supernaturally humans work their own brand of movie magic and they stop them. We have them were they come and then there is a post-apocalyptic life people lead and Christ didn't return for one reason or another. There as a lot of movies out there that fill peoples heads with falsehoods and most people will even say- that's just a movie- admitting that isn't the true way. However people don't often bother about the true way of things. Then when they do there are hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the end of days.
My sisters and I started up a website called 'Who's To Say We're Right?' (http://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home)
There are so many ideas out there it's easier to say 'who's to say we're right' rather than claim we're the right ones with the right message. We'd much rather have people reading, learning and then making that decision on their own based on their own study of the Bible. God is right, and we are seeking His truths.
This study of the Sanctuary is based on the fact God gave the Sanctuary and it's Services to His people for a reason. When we correlate the study of the typified services to what our High Priest- Jesus Christ is doing for us it is truly an eye opener for those wanting to know what's going on in connection with Jesus' return.
Some might scoff at all this and that's their prerogative. Some might say that this whole *theory* is based on face saving for the Adventists way back when. I say, study the word of God for yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide you to understanding then say what you will.
I want to know what the Lord is doing.
Others want to know.
We are going to continue this study still and it is my prayer that God enlighten us all, by the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.
The Sanctuary Pt. 26
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary"
The Day of Atonement --
The day of Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus 23.
Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration of this feast.
In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts 27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.
The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23 notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3).
There is a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings" (ver. 3).
All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35).
However, the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31).
The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance of the rest for the Day of Atonement.
In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30),
Heb. {4:10} For he that is entered intohis rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God[did] from his.
Matt. {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavyladen, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke uponyou, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: andye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is]easy, and my burden is light.
...it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest. If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).
Lev. {23:30} And whatsoever soul [it be] that doethany work in that same day, the same soul will I destroyfrom among his people.
There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated in the KJV.
The text reads: On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew): it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew), to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).
Why the plural? There are two possibilities.
In the outline of the services to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33), thus it was literally a "days of atonements."
The other possibility is that it is the use of the pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew. If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the other ceremonial feast days.
The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place" in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place," or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment, which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]
The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning.
He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each year the Day of Atonement (v.2).
He was told what to bring: "a young bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3).
The first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure?
In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?
If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He presents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood.
In the typical services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14).
Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish the final cleansing (v.18).
This is saying something.
The accomplishment of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor.
This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we continue our study.
Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering.
In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin, and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young" bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who "was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.
In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself, and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself" as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering." It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33).
It needs to be kept in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son over his own house."
Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through whom God has spoken.
Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession."
The first thing Paul presents is a comparison between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of Christ.
It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus 40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).
Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously, the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most Holy Place:1) With a golden censer "full of live coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12).2) With the blood of the bullock which was spinkled once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. (v.14).3) With the blood of the Lord's goat which was ministered the same as the blood of the bullock. (v.15).
Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering, and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete the Atonement.
In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy Place and remain there the entire day.
Here is one facet of the typical services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning" but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.
The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold:
1) "Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2) "Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16).
Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed; but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration at the Altar in theCourt, when the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for that objective (vs. 18-19).
The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given inExodus 30:10.
Atonement was "to be made upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements."
On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance, if any, is recorded.
The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study.
While the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v.19).
Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not cease.
The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30).
It covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Here is the whole yearly typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act, we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and from which we cannot deliver ourselves.
Let us review so as to see the overall picture.
Let us retrace the steps placing ourselves in the typical yearly services.
We sin, and becoming conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering.
On it we place our hands in full weight, confessing our sin.
We then slay the victim.
The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record of confession on the horns of the Altar.
In his priestly ministration, the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven.
The Day of Atonements comes.
The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away. We are to be cleansed.
What can we do?
Afflict our souls, and cease to trust in any of our works.
Again it is a priest that ministers; however, on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone.
He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession are laid.
For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot the Lord's.
We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.
"And when (the High Priest hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:21).
This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin).
While the two goats were taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so sacrificed.
With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10).
After "an end" of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel was brought into the typical ceremony.
The High Priest was to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins" (v.21).
It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26).
The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world.
No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins.
The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
*******
Were going to pause here for now.
We want to know what the anti-type is prefiguring don't we? We want to know where we are in the world today with God's plan for us to obtain eternal life. We look to the signs as we're told to- to watch. We pray like we are told to do. We watch and pray and we seek to understand the signs that are given to us. Here in the Sanctuary study we are shown so much and yet this study is so often overlooked by many. Seriously, ask a number of people on the street what they know about the Sanctuary service in connection with Christ's return and you'll most likely receive that empty stare for a moment and then hear the words, 'Uhm, nothing.' The ask them what they know about the connection of the return of Christ and the seven last plagues and their eyes will light up and they'll happily tell you- oh that happens right before He comes. Mention the word Armageddon and you'll get the same thing- that's the war between good and evil before Christ returns.
No, I'm not saying *everyone* knows all that by far but we've had movies and more movies on the fantastic horror of those seven last plagues. We've had movies where they come and are stopped short by a human, we have where they come and supernaturally humans work their own brand of movie magic and they stop them. We have them were they come and then there is a post-apocalyptic life people lead and Christ didn't return for one reason or another. There as a lot of movies out there that fill peoples heads with falsehoods and most people will even say- that's just a movie- admitting that isn't the true way. However people don't often bother about the true way of things. Then when they do there are hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the end of days.
My sisters and I started up a website called 'Who's To Say We're Right?' (http://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home)
There are so many ideas out there it's easier to say 'who's to say we're right' rather than claim we're the right ones with the right message. We'd much rather have people reading, learning and then making that decision on their own based on their own study of the Bible. God is right, and we are seeking His truths.
This study of the Sanctuary is based on the fact God gave the Sanctuary and it's Services to His people for a reason. When we correlate the study of the typified services to what our High Priest- Jesus Christ is doing for us it is truly an eye opener for those wanting to know what's going on in connection with Jesus' return.
Some might scoff at all this and that's their prerogative. Some might say that this whole *theory* is based on face saving for the Adventists way back when. I say, study the word of God for yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide you to understanding then say what you will.
I want to know what the Lord is doing.
Others want to know.
We are going to continue this study still and it is my prayer that God enlighten us all, by the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.
The Day of Atonement --
The day of Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus 23.
Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration of this feast.
In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts 27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.
The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23 notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3).
There is a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings" (ver. 3).
All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35).
However, the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31).
The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance of the rest for the Day of Atonement.
In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30),
Heb. {4:10} For he that is entered intohis rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God[did] from his.
Matt. {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavyladen, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke uponyou, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: andye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is]easy, and my burden is light.
...it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest. If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).
Lev. {23:30} And whatsoever soul [it be] that doethany work in that same day, the same soul will I destroyfrom among his people.
There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated in the KJV.
The text reads: On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew): it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew), to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).
Why the plural? There are two possibilities.
In the outline of the services to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33), thus it was literally a "days of atonements."
The other possibility is that it is the use of the pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew. If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the other ceremonial feast days.
The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place" in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place," or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment, which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]
The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning.
He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each year the Day of Atonement (v.2).
He was told what to bring: "a young bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3).
The first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure?
In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?
If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He presents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood.
In the typical services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14).
Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish the final cleansing (v.18).
This is saying something.
The accomplishment of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor.
This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we continue our study.
Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering.
In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin, and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young" bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who "was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.
In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself, and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself" as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering." It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33).
It needs to be kept in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son over his own house."
Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through whom God has spoken.
Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession."
The first thing Paul presents is a comparison between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of Christ.
It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus 40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).
Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously, the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most Holy Place:1) With a golden censer "full of live coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12).2) With the blood of the bullock which was spinkled once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. (v.14).3) With the blood of the Lord's goat which was ministered the same as the blood of the bullock. (v.15).
Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering, and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete the Atonement.
In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy Place and remain there the entire day.
Here is one facet of the typical services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning" but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.
The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold:
1) "Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2) "Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16).
Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed; but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration at the Altar in theCourt, when the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for that objective (vs. 18-19).
The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given inExodus 30:10.
Atonement was "to be made upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements."
On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance, if any, is recorded.
The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study.
While the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v.19).
Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not cease.
The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30).
It covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Here is the whole yearly typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act, we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and from which we cannot deliver ourselves.
Let us review so as to see the overall picture.
Let us retrace the steps placing ourselves in the typical yearly services.
We sin, and becoming conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering.
On it we place our hands in full weight, confessing our sin.
We then slay the victim.
The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record of confession on the horns of the Altar.
In his priestly ministration, the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven.
The Day of Atonements comes.
The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away. We are to be cleansed.
What can we do?
Afflict our souls, and cease to trust in any of our works.
Again it is a priest that ministers; however, on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone.
He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession are laid.
For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot the Lord's.
We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.
"And when (the High Priest hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:21).
This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin).
While the two goats were taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so sacrificed.
With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10).
After "an end" of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel was brought into the typical ceremony.
The High Priest was to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins" (v.21).
It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26).
The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world.
No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins.
The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.
To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1) We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2) The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3) The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4) There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5) The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6) On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link --
On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.
*******
Were going to pause here for now.
We want to know what the anti-type is prefiguring don't we? We want to know where we are in the world today with God's plan for us to obtain eternal life. We look to the signs as we're told to- to watch. We pray like we are told to do. We watch and pray and we seek to understand the signs that are given to us. Here in the Sanctuary study we are shown so much and yet this study is so often overlooked by many. Seriously, ask a number of people on the street what they know about the Sanctuary service in connection with Christ's return and you'll most likely receive that empty stare for a moment and then hear the words, 'Uhm, nothing.' The ask them what they know about the connection of the return of Christ and the seven last plagues and their eyes will light up and they'll happily tell you- oh that happens right before He comes. Mention the word Armageddon and you'll get the same thing- that's the war between good and evil before Christ returns.
No, I'm not saying *everyone* knows all that by far but we've had movies and more movies on the fantastic horror of those seven last plagues. We've had movies where they come and are stopped short by a human, we have where they come and supernaturally humans work their own brand of movie magic and they stop them. We have them were they come and then there is a post-apocalyptic life people lead and Christ didn't return for one reason or another. There as a lot of movies out there that fill peoples heads with falsehoods and most people will even say- that's just a movie- admitting that isn't the true way. However people don't often bother about the true way of things. Then when they do there are hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the end of days.
My sisters and I started up a website called 'Who's To Say We're Right?' (http://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home)
There are so many ideas out there it's easier to say 'who's to say we're right' rather than claim we're the right ones with the right message. We'd much rather have people reading, learning and then making that decision on their own based on their own study of the Bible. God is right, and we are seeking His truths.
This study of the Sanctuary is based on the fact God gave the Sanctuary and it's Services to His people for a reason. When we correlate the study of the typified services to what our High Priest- Jesus Christ is doing for us it is truly an eye opener for those wanting to know what's going on in connection with Jesus' return.
Some might scoff at all this and that's their prerogative. Some might say that this whole *theory* is based on face saving for the Adventists way back when. I say, study the word of God for yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide you to understanding then say what you will.
I want to know what the Lord is doing.
Others want to know.
We are going to continue this study still and it is my prayer that God enlighten us all, by the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Sanctuary Pt. 25
More on the Sanctuary--
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary" -- Editors Preface (William Grotheer) --
... The Psalmist could sing, "Thy way, O God is in the sanctuary" (77:13).
The God of Israel was revealed as One who "dwellest between the cherubim" (80:1).
The conclusions drawn and the lessons to be learned are based on the principle of type and antitype.
But to correctly state the truth of the antitype, one must be sure that all that the type reveals is included in the deductions made.
One cannot take one part of the type as just ceremonial, and a corresponding part typical.
For example: On the Day of Atonement, Aaron in his capacity as High Priest was instructed to provide a bullock "for a sin offering ... for himself and for his house." He provided the sacrifice, but he did not place his hands on it in confession as he did the bullock he was required to bring should he lead the people into sin.
Is one situation to be considered just a literal ceremonial act with no typical significance, and the other typical, or were both to have typical significance?
We dare not make an interpretive error on this point, as the blood of the bullock provided by the High Priest for the Day of Atonement became a part of the blood used in the final cleansing at the Altar in the Court.
"We have many things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn.God and heaven alone are infallible."
"Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." -- In the directive given to Moses by God on the mount - "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" - two factors are indicated:
1) The sanctuary was to involve human construction - "Let them make Me" - and 2) God would dwell therein - "I will dwell among them."
The very essence of this directive was prophetic. Of the Word, John would write:"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (1:14).
Here again are the same two factors. The Word came to be (egeneto ) flesh - He came into humanity - and tabernacled (eskhnwsen ) among us." Further, it shall ever be. In the revelation of the earth to come, a great voice out of heaven is heard saying, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them" (Rev. 21:3).
In the holy city, New Jerusalem, there is "no temple for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22).
However, Scripture reveals another tabernacle, designated "the true tabernacle (skhnhV), which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2).
Here the contrast is emphasized. The one at Sinai, man was asked to make; the heavenly, the Lord "pitched."
The relationship between the two as defined in Scripture forms the basis of the doctrine of the sanctuary.
Perhaps we should summarize what the above revelation in Scripture is telling us:
1) Both the tabernacle "pitched" by Moses, and the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched" were of temporary duration,2) Only the "Word made flesh" who in Himself embodied all that the "tabernacle" pitched by Moses symbolized remains eternally. It was He who could say to John: "I am the Living One, and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen" (Rev. 1:18, Gr.).3) The "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched" was set up in Heaven. It was not heaven itself.
The heavenly "tabernacle" was pitched" to serve as the place of ministry for Jesus Christ as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec. The earthly tabernacle "reared" by Moses (Ex. 40:17-18) was served by the Order of Aaron.
The relationship between these two Orders needs to be clearly understood for this is basic in the doctrine of the sanctuary.
"The pattern . . shewed . . in the mount"-- Following the directive that Israel make a sanctuary, Moses was instructed that it be made according to "the pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount" (Ex. 25:9, 40). Linguistically, the Hebrew word translated, "pattern," in both of these verses - tavnith - is translated as "likeness," "similitude," "figure," "form," as well as "pattern," in other Old Testament references. The LXX renders the Hebrew word for pattern in verse 9 by paradeigma , and in verse 40 by tupoV, from which our English word, "type" is derived. We would designate it today as either a "blueprint," or a "scale model." In Hebrews 8:5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the LXX is followed (kata ton tupon). Actually in Hebrews 8:5, the variant ('upodeigma ) of the Greek word used in Exodus 25:9 ( paradeigma ) is used and in the KJV is translated, "example."
The question that must be determined is whether the relationship between the earthly tabernacle and the heavenly is structural or is it the services performed by the priests which typify the reality of Christ's priestly ministry.
The context in Hebrews 8:4-5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the KJV translation indicates the service motif over the structural comparison. It reads, speaking of the earthly temple: There are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenlv things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount."
On the other hand, the NIV reads: There are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. [The NKJV follows the NIV closely)
Which is right? Both the words "example" ('upodeigmati) and shadow (skia) are in the dative case. A. T. Robertson observes that in the use of the dative case, there was "originally no idea of place in it." It is purely a grammatical case "used of a person, not place." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 536). The emphasis is not that the priests served in a "copy" (NIV, NKJV); but that they "serve unto the example and shadow" (KJV) of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.
This distinction is basic to a Biblical doctrine of the sanctuary.
The doctrine of the sanctuary is based in typology. Is the emphasis of this typology, a typology of structure, or a typology of service?
The latter can be sustained Biblically as well as linguistically, as noted in the above paragraph. On that concept we shall seek to find answers to questions raised in a study of the doctrine of the sanctuary as we "learn" as well as "unlearn."
In the earthly "pattern," many priests served. (Heb. 7: 23).
In the heavenly tabernacle, only One.
In the earthly, various animals were offered, and their blood mediated.
In the heavenly, there was but one sacrifice, "the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
Note: The book of Revelation indicates that certain services performed by the common priest in the earthly tabernacle, are performed by "redeemed" men and angels in the heavenly. (4:8-10; 8:3)
{4:8} And the four beastshad each of them six wings about [him;] and [they were]full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is,and is to come. {4:9} And when those beasts give glory andhonour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who livethfor ever and ever, {4:10} The four and twenty elders falldown before him that sat on the throne, and worship himthat liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns beforethe throne, saying,
{8:3} And another angelcame and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; andthere was given unto him much incense, that he should offer[it] with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar whichwas before the throne.
The main services of the earthly can be divided into two divisions, the daily and the yearly.
The Sin Offerings-- While a morning and evening sacrifice was offered daily (Ex. 29:38-42), there were also prescribed offerings by which corporate and individual confession was to be made for sins committed. These required offerings are listed in Leviticus 4.
Four categories of sinners are given and what each was to offer and the result to be expected stated.
The corporate transgressions involved the high priest - "the priest that is anointed" (4:3) - when acting in his official capacity; and the whole congregation (4:13). Individual transgressions involved the rulers (4:22), and the common people (4:27).
The result to be grasped by faith was forgiveness.
In each category, save one, the statement is made - "it shall be forgiven them" or "him" (4:20, 26, 31, 35).
Further, the forgiveness followed the mediation by the officiating priest.
"The priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."
There was an atonement made in these confessional sacrifices.
There were also other variations. The high priest - "the priest that is anointed" - officiated at the sacrifice of confession for corporate guilt (4:5, 16), while the common priest officiated in the sacrifice brought by the ruler or common person (4:25, 30, 34).
The application of the blood of the sacrifice varied.
The blood of the offering confessing corporate guilt was taken within the sanctuary, and sprinkled before the veil separating between the holy and most holy place, and a record was made by placing some of the blood on the horns of "the altar of sweet incense before the Lord" (4:6-7, 17-18).
In the case of the individual sin offering, whether offered by ruler or common person, the blood was not taken into the sanctuary, but the common priest marked the record of confession in blood on the horns of the Altar in the Court (4:25, 30, 34), and ate a small bite of the sacrifice (6:25-26).
In all four categories of these sin offerings the remaining blood was poured at the base of the Altar of Burnt Offering (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).
In the sacrifice of the sin offerings, the focus was centered around the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court, not in the sanctuary.
The focus of the Christian faith is centered in the cross set up on earth upon which the Lamb of God was offered in making provision for the sin of the world.
It was the Word made flesh Who provided the atonement by which forgiveness can be offered.
He, as a common priest, officiated in the sacrifice of Himself for the individual who would come to Him in confession of sin.
It was the atonement of the cross which provided the forgiveness.
But the sinner requires more than forgiveness; he needs to be cleansed (I John 1:9).
{1:9} If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just toforgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from allunrighteousness.
This must await His ministry as High Priest in "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:1-2).
Returning to the instruction regarding the sin offerings, we find that these offerings were for sins of ignorance.
The preface reads: If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, . . . (4:2)
Then "when the sin which they have sinned ... is known" (4:14) confession is required.
The directive reads for the ruler and common persons: "if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge," then he shall bring a sacrifice. Not only did the sinner place his hand upon the head of the victim, thereby giving evidence of his intent to transfer the guilt so that the victim paid the price for the sin committed, death; but he also was to "confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (5:5). The sin had already been committed and a record made even though the sinner was in ignorance. But when convicted, he was to respond with a proper confession. That made it necessary for an offering to be made so that the sin might be forgiven.
The record of the sacrifice marked in blood upon the Altar in the Court, or on the Altar of Incense did not record the sin (it had already been recorded); but the confession, which was made so that the sin might be forgiven. (I John 1:9; Lev. 4:26) The Scripture is clear that our sins are known and recorded (Eccl. 5:6), even though we may be in ignorance. If the confession of sin is the means by which the sins are recorded, then the best way to have a clean record is not to confess or recognize the Substitute. This concept strikes at the very heart of the plan of redemption.*******
We're going to pause here.
So far it all makes sense to me.
The end there where he talks about confessing sin not placing the record of sin on us is so true. Our sins are known no matter what we do they are recorded instantly, there is no action we can take to keep that sin from being recorded the instant it is committed. We can't hide the fact we are sinners. We can't even remotely begin to think that we live without sin. That we can be sinless beings here and now is something that we cannot ever get to a place that we know we are sinless. We can know we are forgiven, but daily we have to ask for forgiveness and if we KNOW that we have committed a sin then we have to confess that sin and ask for forgiveness for that sin. There is a sin of ignorance though and of course while you might think you're not guilty if you don't know you did it, I say you're wrong. We are sinful creatures, because of our inheritance from Adam and Eve we are born into sin. We need to recognize our guilt and ask for forgiveness. Only those who are incapable of recognizing their sinfulness- babies, little children, mentally challenged, mentally incapacited, only those people are unable to recognize they are sinners and therefore it is my belief God knows that and they are innocent. Those of us that are capable of knowing we are sinners are capable of knowing that sinning is wrong and that wrong needs to be made right. Once we know right from wrong we know that we shouldn't do wrong. That was are born into sin we know to that we need forgiveness for the sins of our ignorance and this too is given by God to us through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
To not ask for forgiveness from the One who came and died so that we might have forgiveness places us in jeopardy of losing out on eternal life.
We need to recognize our need in Christ.
We are all needy when it comes to forgiveness and we'll NEVER be able to rely on our own merits to be sinless.
When we are forgiven our sins, we don't suddenly die (as a rule) and are dead in a sinless state, though that would be ideal. We keep on living and our lives, our very thoughts that make us human, thoughts of the flesh will bring us to sin once more even if we're not outwardly aware of it as say we would be if we knowing went and stole a hamburger.
We keep on living and we have to keep on depending upon Christ to forgive us, to be our Redeemer, our Savior.
This isn't a license to accept sin. Oh I'm a sinner so might as well sin lots and just ask for forgiveness. It doesn't work that way. Sincerity of the heart is known to God. Sin is something we should abhor, not accept.
Until Christ comes again and takes us with him to Heaven we will forever be enslaved to sin. Christ has offered us a way to be free indeed but only in Him and it's an ongoing thing until He comes. Only once He comes again and sin is destroyed forever will we no longer have to believe that we will sin more. Sin will be wiped away. We will be forgiven all our sins of the past and with sin gone there will be no more chance for us to sin and we will live with our Redeemer forever grateful to Him for saving us from sin.
Praise and glory to God in the highest for His mercy and love, for His sacrifice!
May we all seek forgiveness, confessing the sins we know of and asking forgiveness for even the sins we might not be aware of, recognizing the only sinless one in existence, Jesus Christ our Savior.
Amen. Amen. Amen.
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary" -- Editors Preface (William Grotheer) --
... The Psalmist could sing, "Thy way, O God is in the sanctuary" (77:13).
The God of Israel was revealed as One who "dwellest between the cherubim" (80:1).
The conclusions drawn and the lessons to be learned are based on the principle of type and antitype.
But to correctly state the truth of the antitype, one must be sure that all that the type reveals is included in the deductions made.
One cannot take one part of the type as just ceremonial, and a corresponding part typical.
For example: On the Day of Atonement, Aaron in his capacity as High Priest was instructed to provide a bullock "for a sin offering ... for himself and for his house." He provided the sacrifice, but he did not place his hands on it in confession as he did the bullock he was required to bring should he lead the people into sin.
Is one situation to be considered just a literal ceremonial act with no typical significance, and the other typical, or were both to have typical significance?
We dare not make an interpretive error on this point, as the blood of the bullock provided by the High Priest for the Day of Atonement became a part of the blood used in the final cleansing at the Altar in the Court.
"We have many things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn.God and heaven alone are infallible."
"Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." -- In the directive given to Moses by God on the mount - "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" - two factors are indicated:
1) The sanctuary was to involve human construction - "Let them make Me" - and 2) God would dwell therein - "I will dwell among them."
The very essence of this directive was prophetic. Of the Word, John would write:"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (1:14).
Here again are the same two factors. The Word came to be (egeneto ) flesh - He came into humanity - and tabernacled (eskhnwsen ) among us." Further, it shall ever be. In the revelation of the earth to come, a great voice out of heaven is heard saying, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them" (Rev. 21:3).
In the holy city, New Jerusalem, there is "no temple for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22).
However, Scripture reveals another tabernacle, designated "the true tabernacle (skhnhV), which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2).
Here the contrast is emphasized. The one at Sinai, man was asked to make; the heavenly, the Lord "pitched."
The relationship between the two as defined in Scripture forms the basis of the doctrine of the sanctuary.
Perhaps we should summarize what the above revelation in Scripture is telling us:
1) Both the tabernacle "pitched" by Moses, and the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched" were of temporary duration,2) Only the "Word made flesh" who in Himself embodied all that the "tabernacle" pitched by Moses symbolized remains eternally. It was He who could say to John: "I am the Living One, and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen" (Rev. 1:18, Gr.).3) The "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched" was set up in Heaven. It was not heaven itself.
The heavenly "tabernacle" was pitched" to serve as the place of ministry for Jesus Christ as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec. The earthly tabernacle "reared" by Moses (Ex. 40:17-18) was served by the Order of Aaron.
The relationship between these two Orders needs to be clearly understood for this is basic in the doctrine of the sanctuary.
"The pattern . . shewed . . in the mount"-- Following the directive that Israel make a sanctuary, Moses was instructed that it be made according to "the pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount" (Ex. 25:9, 40). Linguistically, the Hebrew word translated, "pattern," in both of these verses - tavnith - is translated as "likeness," "similitude," "figure," "form," as well as "pattern," in other Old Testament references. The LXX renders the Hebrew word for pattern in verse 9 by paradeigma , and in verse 40 by tupoV, from which our English word, "type" is derived. We would designate it today as either a "blueprint," or a "scale model." In Hebrews 8:5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the LXX is followed (kata ton tupon). Actually in Hebrews 8:5, the variant ('upodeigma ) of the Greek word used in Exodus 25:9 ( paradeigma ) is used and in the KJV is translated, "example."
The question that must be determined is whether the relationship between the earthly tabernacle and the heavenly is structural or is it the services performed by the priests which typify the reality of Christ's priestly ministry.
The context in Hebrews 8:4-5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the KJV translation indicates the service motif over the structural comparison. It reads, speaking of the earthly temple: There are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenlv things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount."
On the other hand, the NIV reads: There are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. [The NKJV follows the NIV closely)
Which is right? Both the words "example" ('upodeigmati) and shadow (skia) are in the dative case. A. T. Robertson observes that in the use of the dative case, there was "originally no idea of place in it." It is purely a grammatical case "used of a person, not place." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 536). The emphasis is not that the priests served in a "copy" (NIV, NKJV); but that they "serve unto the example and shadow" (KJV) of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.
This distinction is basic to a Biblical doctrine of the sanctuary.
The doctrine of the sanctuary is based in typology. Is the emphasis of this typology, a typology of structure, or a typology of service?
The latter can be sustained Biblically as well as linguistically, as noted in the above paragraph. On that concept we shall seek to find answers to questions raised in a study of the doctrine of the sanctuary as we "learn" as well as "unlearn."
In the earthly "pattern," many priests served. (Heb. 7: 23).
In the heavenly tabernacle, only One.
In the earthly, various animals were offered, and their blood mediated.
In the heavenly, there was but one sacrifice, "the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
Note: The book of Revelation indicates that certain services performed by the common priest in the earthly tabernacle, are performed by "redeemed" men and angels in the heavenly. (4:8-10; 8:3)
{4:8} And the four beastshad each of them six wings about [him;] and [they were]full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is,and is to come. {4:9} And when those beasts give glory andhonour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who livethfor ever and ever, {4:10} The four and twenty elders falldown before him that sat on the throne, and worship himthat liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns beforethe throne, saying,
{8:3} And another angelcame and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; andthere was given unto him much incense, that he should offer[it] with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar whichwas before the throne.
The main services of the earthly can be divided into two divisions, the daily and the yearly.
The Sin Offerings-- While a morning and evening sacrifice was offered daily (Ex. 29:38-42), there were also prescribed offerings by which corporate and individual confession was to be made for sins committed. These required offerings are listed in Leviticus 4.
Four categories of sinners are given and what each was to offer and the result to be expected stated.
The corporate transgressions involved the high priest - "the priest that is anointed" (4:3) - when acting in his official capacity; and the whole congregation (4:13). Individual transgressions involved the rulers (4:22), and the common people (4:27).
The result to be grasped by faith was forgiveness.
In each category, save one, the statement is made - "it shall be forgiven them" or "him" (4:20, 26, 31, 35).
Further, the forgiveness followed the mediation by the officiating priest.
"The priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."
There was an atonement made in these confessional sacrifices.
There were also other variations. The high priest - "the priest that is anointed" - officiated at the sacrifice of confession for corporate guilt (4:5, 16), while the common priest officiated in the sacrifice brought by the ruler or common person (4:25, 30, 34).
The application of the blood of the sacrifice varied.
The blood of the offering confessing corporate guilt was taken within the sanctuary, and sprinkled before the veil separating between the holy and most holy place, and a record was made by placing some of the blood on the horns of "the altar of sweet incense before the Lord" (4:6-7, 17-18).
In the case of the individual sin offering, whether offered by ruler or common person, the blood was not taken into the sanctuary, but the common priest marked the record of confession in blood on the horns of the Altar in the Court (4:25, 30, 34), and ate a small bite of the sacrifice (6:25-26).
In all four categories of these sin offerings the remaining blood was poured at the base of the Altar of Burnt Offering (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).
In the sacrifice of the sin offerings, the focus was centered around the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court, not in the sanctuary.
The focus of the Christian faith is centered in the cross set up on earth upon which the Lamb of God was offered in making provision for the sin of the world.
It was the Word made flesh Who provided the atonement by which forgiveness can be offered.
He, as a common priest, officiated in the sacrifice of Himself for the individual who would come to Him in confession of sin.
It was the atonement of the cross which provided the forgiveness.
But the sinner requires more than forgiveness; he needs to be cleansed (I John 1:9).
{1:9} If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just toforgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from allunrighteousness.
This must await His ministry as High Priest in "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:1-2).
Returning to the instruction regarding the sin offerings, we find that these offerings were for sins of ignorance.
The preface reads: If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, . . . (4:2)
Then "when the sin which they have sinned ... is known" (4:14) confession is required.
The directive reads for the ruler and common persons: "if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge," then he shall bring a sacrifice. Not only did the sinner place his hand upon the head of the victim, thereby giving evidence of his intent to transfer the guilt so that the victim paid the price for the sin committed, death; but he also was to "confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (5:5). The sin had already been committed and a record made even though the sinner was in ignorance. But when convicted, he was to respond with a proper confession. That made it necessary for an offering to be made so that the sin might be forgiven.
The record of the sacrifice marked in blood upon the Altar in the Court, or on the Altar of Incense did not record the sin (it had already been recorded); but the confession, which was made so that the sin might be forgiven. (I John 1:9; Lev. 4:26) The Scripture is clear that our sins are known and recorded (Eccl. 5:6), even though we may be in ignorance. If the confession of sin is the means by which the sins are recorded, then the best way to have a clean record is not to confess or recognize the Substitute. This concept strikes at the very heart of the plan of redemption.*******
We're going to pause here.
So far it all makes sense to me.
The end there where he talks about confessing sin not placing the record of sin on us is so true. Our sins are known no matter what we do they are recorded instantly, there is no action we can take to keep that sin from being recorded the instant it is committed. We can't hide the fact we are sinners. We can't even remotely begin to think that we live without sin. That we can be sinless beings here and now is something that we cannot ever get to a place that we know we are sinless. We can know we are forgiven, but daily we have to ask for forgiveness and if we KNOW that we have committed a sin then we have to confess that sin and ask for forgiveness for that sin. There is a sin of ignorance though and of course while you might think you're not guilty if you don't know you did it, I say you're wrong. We are sinful creatures, because of our inheritance from Adam and Eve we are born into sin. We need to recognize our guilt and ask for forgiveness. Only those who are incapable of recognizing their sinfulness- babies, little children, mentally challenged, mentally incapacited, only those people are unable to recognize they are sinners and therefore it is my belief God knows that and they are innocent. Those of us that are capable of knowing we are sinners are capable of knowing that sinning is wrong and that wrong needs to be made right. Once we know right from wrong we know that we shouldn't do wrong. That was are born into sin we know to that we need forgiveness for the sins of our ignorance and this too is given by God to us through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
To not ask for forgiveness from the One who came and died so that we might have forgiveness places us in jeopardy of losing out on eternal life.
We need to recognize our need in Christ.
We are all needy when it comes to forgiveness and we'll NEVER be able to rely on our own merits to be sinless.
When we are forgiven our sins, we don't suddenly die (as a rule) and are dead in a sinless state, though that would be ideal. We keep on living and our lives, our very thoughts that make us human, thoughts of the flesh will bring us to sin once more even if we're not outwardly aware of it as say we would be if we knowing went and stole a hamburger.
We keep on living and we have to keep on depending upon Christ to forgive us, to be our Redeemer, our Savior.
This isn't a license to accept sin. Oh I'm a sinner so might as well sin lots and just ask for forgiveness. It doesn't work that way. Sincerity of the heart is known to God. Sin is something we should abhor, not accept.
Until Christ comes again and takes us with him to Heaven we will forever be enslaved to sin. Christ has offered us a way to be free indeed but only in Him and it's an ongoing thing until He comes. Only once He comes again and sin is destroyed forever will we no longer have to believe that we will sin more. Sin will be wiped away. We will be forgiven all our sins of the past and with sin gone there will be no more chance for us to sin and we will live with our Redeemer forever grateful to Him for saving us from sin.
Praise and glory to God in the highest for His mercy and love, for His sacrifice!
May we all seek forgiveness, confessing the sins we know of and asking forgiveness for even the sins we might not be aware of, recognizing the only sinless one in existence, Jesus Christ our Savior.
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)